civpro assigned cases 2

7/25/2019 Civpro Assigned Cases 2

1/119

ContentsRosana vs Molave....................................................................................................... 1

Anchor savings vs Furigay..........................................................................................6

Clidoro vs Jalmanzar................................................................................................. 19

LPB vs Cacayuran.....................................................................................................6

Residen! Marine mamals vs Reyes..........................................................................."

#oly $rini!y vs %ela Cruz...........................................................................................6&

'(s #ing vs Choachuy..............................................................................................)9

Aguilar vs *+Pallic,................................................................................................... 96

*(osa vs Fac!oran..................................................................................................1-

Rosana vs Molave

'C*/% %00'0*/

DOA ROSANA REALTY AND G.R. No. 180523

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONand SY KA KIENG,

Petitioners, Present:CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

- versus - BRION,

DEL CASTILLO,ABAD, and

PERE, JJ.

MOLAVE DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION r!r"n#d $% Pro!u"#ated:

TEO&ISTA TINITIGAN,

Respondent. $ar%h &', &()(* --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *

%C0'0*/

A'AD,J.:

1


2/119

This %ase is a+out the propriet o the tria" %ourts dis!issa" o the p"aintis %o!p"aint ater

re%eivin# eviden%e at a pre"i!inar hearin# o the air!ative deenses raised + the deendant.

T( &a)#" and #( Ca"

Car!e"ita Austria $edina $edina/ o0ned an 1'.2343-he%tare "and in Anupi", Ba!+an, Tar"a%,

%overed + Transer Certii%ate o Tit"e TCT/ T-5)43(. On De%e!+er )', )332 she e*e%uted a

%ontra%t to se"" the "and to respondent $o"ave Deve"op!ent Corporation $o"ave Deve"op!ent/,

represented + its president, Teoista P. Tiniti#an Tiniti#an/, or P)2

!i""ion. $o"ave Deve"op!ent paid P) !i""ion to $edina upon the si#nin# o the %ontra%t

and P).5 !i""ion !ore as irst insta""!ent. But it reused to pa the rest o the insta""!ents on

+ein# inor!ed + the Depart!ent o A#rarian Reor! DAR/ o the e*isten%e o a""e#ed tenants

on the "and.

T0o ears "ater or in 6anuar )337, $edina 0rote respondent $o"ave Deve"op!ent a

"etter, res%indin# the %ontra%t to se"" +et0een the!. $o"ave Deve"op!ent "ater "earned that a

!onth ear"ier or on De%e!+er )1, )33', $edina so"d the "and to petitioner Doa Rosana Rea"t

and Deve"op!ent Corporation Doa Rosana Rea"t/ to 0ho! the Re#ister o Deeds issued TCT

&11'55.

Ater "earnin# o the sa"e or on $ar%h 5, )337 respondent $o"ave Deve"op!ent i"ed

0ith the Re#iona" Tria" Court RTC/ o Capas, Tar"a%, an a%tion or spe%ii% peror!an%e,

de"iver o possession, and annu"!ent o tit"e in Civi" Case 513 a#ainst $edina,

petitioner Doa Rosana Rea"t, and its %hair!an o the +oard o

dire%tors, S 8a 8ien#. $o"ave Deve"op!ent %"ai!ed that $edina and Doa Rosana Rea"t

%onspired to deprive it o the "ot and praed or an a0ard o !ora" and e*e!p"ar da!a#es p"us

attornes ees or a tota" o P).) !i""ion.

B 0a o third part %o!p"aint, petitioner Doa Rosana Rea"t sued $edinas

nephe0, 9i"redo $iranda, and the "atters "a0er, Att. De"in Supapo, 6r., or a""e#ed"

%onnivin# 0ith $edina in %on%ea"in# ro! it the %ontra%t to se"" that $edina entered into 0ith

respondent $o"ave Deve"op!ent.


3/119

The RTC de%"ared $edina in deau"t. Petitioner Doa Rosana Rea"t, on the other hand, i"ed an

ans0er and a !otion to set the %ase or pre"i!inar hearin# on its spe%ia" and air!ative

deenses. Doa Rosana Rea"t %"ai!ed that it a%ted in #ood aith in pur%hasin# the propert and

that respondent $o"ave Deve"op!ent 0as estopped ro! uestionin# the sa"e +e%ause it a#reed

to %an%e" the %ontra%t to se"" and, ater the %o!p"aint 0as i"ed, its president, Tiniti#an, re%eived

ro! $edinas %ounse" a P).5 !i""ion partia" rei!+urse!ent as sho0n + a re%eipt dated $ar%h

)5, )337.;)no0"ed#!ent re%eipt its president

si#ned reads:

ACKNOLEDGMENT RECEIPT

T(" " #o a)no+d- #( r)!# o/ on 41 A++d 'an C() No.25111657 da#d Mar)( 7, 166 n #( ao*n# o/ ONE MILLION T9REE

9:NDRED T9O:SAND 4P1,300,000.00 /ro M". Car+#a A*"#ra

Mdna a" !ar#a+ r$*r"n# !*r"*an# #o #( )an)++d Con#ra)# #o S++

4Do). No. 77; !a- 160; 'oo 117; Sr" o/ 1667 No#ara+ R-"#r o/

A##%. D+/n R. S*!a!o,


5/119

Maa# C#%. Mar)( 13, 166.

MOLAVE DEV. CORPORATION

$%>

TEO&ISTA P. TINITIGANPr"dn#;1 to her. But this is not a

va"id #round or %"ai!in# vitiation o %onsent. I she did not 0ant to a#ree to the %an%e""ation,

she had no +usiness si#nin# the re%eipt and a%%eptin# the %he%>. She %ou"d ver 0e"" have stood

her #round and pressed or %o!p"ete peror!an%e o the %ontra%t to se"". @avin# re%eived

the P).5 !i""ion, $o"aveDeve"op!ents re!ainin# re!ed 0as to pursue a %"ai! or the +a"an%e

o P) !i""ion that it paid $edina upon the e*e%ution o the %ontra%t to se"".

=urther, as the RTC %orre%t" he"d, respondent $o"ave Deve"op!ent ai"ed to over%o!e

the presu!ption o #ood aith in avor o petitioner Doa Rosana Rea"t.;3


6/119

SO ORDERED.

Anchor savings vs Furigay

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. NO. 191178 : March 13, 2013

ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK (ORM!R"# ANCHOR INANC! ANDINV!STM!NT COR$ORATION%, Petitioner, v.H!NR# H. &RIGA#,G!"INDA C. &RIGA#, H!RRI!TT! C. &RIGA# a' H!G!M C.&RIGA#, Respondents.

D ! C I S I O N

M!NDO)A,J.:

This concerns a petition for review_ on certiorarifiled by petitioner AnchorSavings Bank (ASB) under ule !" of the #$$% ules of &ivil 'rocedure,assailing the ay *, ++$ ecision#and the -anuary , +#+ esolutionofthe &ourt of Appeals (&A), in &A/.. &0 1o. $+#2, dis3issing theappeal.2chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The assailed resolution denied the separate 3otions for reconsideration ofboth parties.

Th* ac+

4n April #, #$$$, ASB filed a verified co3plaint for su3 of 3oney andda3ages with application for replevin against &iudad Transport Services, 5nc.(&TS), its president, respondent 6enry 6. 7urigay8 his wife, respondent/elinda &. 7urigay8 and a 9-ohn oe.9 The case was docketed as &ivil &ase1o. $$*:" and raffled to Branch #!2 of the egional Trial &ourt of akati

&ity (T&).!chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

4n 1ove3ber %, ++2, the T& rendered its ecision"in favor of ASB, thedispositive portion of which reads;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

udg3ent is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff AnchorSavings Bank ordering defendants &iudad Transport Services, 5nc., 6enry 6.

6
http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt1http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt2http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt3http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt4http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt5http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt1http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt2http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt3http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt4http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt5


7/119

7urigay and /enilda &. 7urigay to pay thefollowing;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

#) The a3ount of =ight illion Si? 6undred 1inety 7ive Thousand Two

6undred Two pesos and 7ifty 1ine centavos ('hp*,:$",+."$) as'51&5'A@ 4B@5/AT541 as of # April #$$$8cralawlibrary

) An 51T==ST of Twelve per cent (#) per annu3 until fully

paid8cralawlibrary

2) '=1A@T &6A/= of Twelve per cent (#) per annu3 until fully

paid8cralawlibrary

!) @5CD5AT= AA/=S of Ten (#+) per cent of the total a3ountdue8cralawlibrary

") 4ne 6undred Thousand pesos as reasonable ATT41=ES

7==S8cralawlibrary

:) &osts of suit.

S4 4==.:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary


8/119

for3er defaulted fro3 their loan obligation which pro3pted Anchor Savings

Bank to file the case entitled 9Anchor Savings Bank vs. &iudad Transport

Services, 5nc., 6enry 6. 7urigay and /elinda &. 7urigay9 lodged before

akati &ity egional Trial &ourt Branch #!2 and docketed as &ivil &ase 1o.

$$*:". 4n % 1ove3ber ++2 the 6onorable &ourt in the aforesaid case

issued a ecision the dispositive portion of which reads as

follows;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

? ? ?

". That defendants Sps. 6enry 6. 7urigay and /elinda &. 7urigay are the

registered owners of various real properties located at the 'rovince of

'angasinan covered by Transfer &ertificate of Title 1os. #$%#, #:%*,#:%$, and #:*. ? ? ?

:. That on * arch ++# defendants Sps. 6enry 6. 7urigay and /elinda &.

7urigay e?ecuted a eed of onation in favor of their children herein

defendants 6ege3 &. 7urigay and 6erriette &. 7urigay donating to the3 all

of the above3entioned properties. 6ence, the following titles were issued

under their na3es to wit; Transfer &ertificate of Title 1os. #%!2, #%!,

#%!#, and #%!+. ? ? ?

%. That the donation 3ade by defendants Sps. 6enry 6. 7urigay and /elinda

&. 7urigay were done with the intention to defraud its creditors particularly

Anchor Savings Bank. Said transfer or conveyance is the one conte3plated

by Article #2*% of the 1ew &ivil &ode, which

reads;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

? ? ?

*. ? ? ? 5n the instant case, Sps. 7urigay donated the properties at the ti3e

there was a pending case against the3. ? ? ?. 5n the instant case, the Sps.

7urigay donated the properties to their son and daughter. oreover, the

transfer or donation was e?ecuted in ++# when both donees 6ege3 &.

7urigay and 6erriette &. 7urigay are 3inors.

)


9/119

$. &learly, the onation 3ade by defendants Sps. 7urigay was intended to

deprive plaintiff Anchor Savings Bank fro3 going after the sub>ect properties

to answer for their due and de3andable obligation with the Bank. The

donation being undertaken in fraud of creditors then the sa3e 3ay be

rescinded pursuant to Article #2*# of the 1ew &ivil &ode. The said provision

provides that; ? ? ?

&onseFuently, Transfer &ertificate of Title 1os. #%!2, #%!, #%!#, and

#%!+ issued under the na3es of defendants 6erriette &. 7urigay and

6ege3 &. 7urigay should likewise be cancelled and reverted to the na3es of

codefendants 6enry and /elinda 7urigay.

#+. That because of the fraud perpetrated by defendants, plaintiff sufferedthe following da3ages.

##. 'laintiff suffered actual and co3pensatory da3ages as a result of the

filing of the case the bank has spent a lot of 3anhours of its e3ployees and

officers reevaluating the account of defendant Sps. 7urigay. Such 3anhour

when converted into 3onetary consideration represents the salaries and per

die3s of its e3ployees particularly the &5GAppraiser, 6ead 4ffice @awyer and

Bank Auditor8cralawlibrary

#. Said clai3 likewise represents ad3inistrative e?penses such as

transportation e?penses, reproduction of docu3ents, and courier e?penses

a3ong others8cralawlibrary

#2. efendants should be 3ade to pay plaintiff Anchor Savings Bank the

a3ount of '=S4S; 41= 5@@541 ('#,+++,+++.++) as 3oral da3ages for the

da3age it caused to the latterEs business goodwill and

reputation8cralawlibrary

#!. By way of e?a3ple for the public and to deter others fro3 the 3alicious

filing of baseless (sic) suit, defendants should be ordered to pay HplaintiffI

the a3ount of '=S4S; T


10/119

#". Attorneys fees eFuivalent to twentyfive percent (") of the total

a3ount that can be collected fro3 defendant8cralawlibrary

#:. efendants should also be held liable to pay for the cost of

suit.#chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

5nstead of filing an answer, respondents sought the dis3issal of theco3plaint, principally arguing that the T& failed to acFuire >urisdiction overtheir persons as well as over the sub>ect 3atter in view of the failure of theASB to serve the su33ons properly and to pay the necessary legal fees.

RTC R*-/+-'

4n Septe3ber $, ++:, the T& issued an 4rder#2denying the 3otion to

dis3iss. espondents sought reconsideration of the 4rder adding that theASBEs action for rescission had already prescribed.

Dpon filing of ASBEs opposition to the 3otion for reconsideration, on7ebruary %, ++%, the T& reconsidered its earlier pronounce3ent anddis3issed the co3plaint for failure of ASB to pay the correct docket fees andfor prescription.#!chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

T& e?plained that the service of su33ons by publication 3ade by ASB wasvalid because respondentsE whereabouts could not have been ascertainedwith e?actitude and because Section #!, ule #! of the ules of &ourt didnot distinguish what kind of action it would apply.

4n the issue of lack of >urisdiction over the sub>ect 3atter of the case, theT& ruled that the co3plaint was actually a real action as it affected title toor possession of real property. Accordingly, the basis for deter3ining thecorrect docket fees was the fair 3arket value of the real property underlitigation as stated in its current ta? declaration or its current Jonalvaluation, whichever was higher. &onsidering that ASB did not state thecurrent ta? declaration or current Jonal valuation of the real propertiesinvolved, as well as the a3ount of actual da3ages and attorneyEs fees it

prayed for, the trial court was of the view that ASB purposely evaded thepay3ent of the correct filing fees.

4n the issue of prescription, the T& ruled that the action for rescission hadalready prescribed. 5t stated that an action for rescission grounded on fraudshould be filed within four (!) years fro3 the discovery of fraud. ASB filedthe action for rescission only on 4ctober #!, ++" or after four (!) years

1-
http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt12http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt13http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt14http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt12http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt13http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt14


11/119

fro3 the ti3e the eed of onation was registered in the egister of eedsof Ala3inos, 'angasinan, on April !, ++#. The fouryear prescriptive periodshould be reckoned fro3 the date of registration of the deed of donation andnot fro3 the date of the actual discovery of the registration of the deeds ofdonation because registration is considered notice to the whole world. Thus,

the T& disposed;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

urisdiction over thesub>ect 3atter of the case for failure of the plaintiff to pay the correct docketfees upon its institution attended by bad faith and on the ground ofprescription.

S4 4==.#"chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

ASB sought reconsideration, but to no avail.#:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

R/' - +h* CA

4n appeal, the &A agreed with ASB that its co3plaint should not have beendis3issed on the ground that it failed to pay the correct docket fees. 5tstated that the lack of specific a3ount of actual da3ages and attorneyEs feesin ASBEs co3plaint did not, by itself, a3ount to evident bad faith. The &Anoted that ASB had previously 3anifested before the trial court that it waswilling to pay additional docket fees should the sa3e be found insufficient.

4n the issue of prescription, however, the &A saw things differently.&onsidering the subsidiary nature of an action for rescission, the &A foundthat the action of ASB had not yet prescribed, but was pre3ature. The &Anoted that ASB failed to allege in its co3plaint that it had resorted to alllegal re3edies to obtain satisfaction of its clai3. The &Awrote;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

After a thorough e?a3ination of the foregoing precepts and the factsengirding this case, this court opines that plaintiffappellantEs action for

rescission has not yet prescribed for it 3ust be e3phasiJed that it has noteven accrued in the first place. To stress, an action for rescission or accionpauliana accrues only if all five reFuisites are present, towit;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

#) That the plaintiff asking for rescission, has a credit prior to the alienation,

although de3andable later8cralawlibrary

11
http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt15http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt16http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt15http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81683:gr-191178-2013&catid=1568&Itemid=566#fnt16


12/119

) That the debtor has 3ade a subseFuent contract conveying a patri3onial

benefit to a third person8cralawlibrary

2) That the creditor has no other legal re3edy to satisfy his clai3, but would

benefit by rescission of the conveyance to the third person8cralawlibrary

!) That the act being i3pugned is fraudulent8 and

") That the third person who received the property conveyed, if by onerous

title, has been an acco3plice in the fraud.

5n the instant case, the plaintiffappellant failed to satisfy the thirdreFuire3ent considering that it did not allege in its co3plaint that it hasresorted to all legal re3edies to obtain satisfaction of his clai3. 5t did noteven point out in its co3plaint if the decision in &ivil &ase 1o. $$*:" hasalready beco3e final and e?ecutory and whether the e?ecution thereofyielded negative result in satisfying its clai3s. =ven the skip tracing allegedlydone by the plaintiffappellant to locate the properties of the defendantappellees was not 3entioned. And although the skip tracing reports weresubseFuently presented by the plaintiffappellant, such reports are notsufficient to satisfy the third reFuire3ent. 7irst, they are not prepared ande?ecuted by the sheriff, and second, they do not de3onstrate that the sherifffailed to enforce and satisfy the >udg3ent of the court and that the plaintiffappellant has e?hausted the property of the defendantappellees. 'erforce,

the action for rescission filed by the plaintiffappellant isdis3issible.#%chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

As stated at the outset, both parties sought reconsideration but wererebuffed.

I/*

6ence, this recourse of ASB to the &ourt, presenting the lone issueof;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary


13/119

7A5@= T4 '40= T6AT 5T 6AS =S4T= T4 A@@ @=/A@ ==5=S T44BTA51 SAT5S7A&T541 47 5TS &@A5,


14/119

the particular action, whether prescribed by statute, fi?ed by agree3ent ofthe parties or i3plied by law 3ust be perfor3ed or co3plied with beforeco33encing the action, unless the conduct of the adverse party has beensuch as to prevent or waive perfor3ance or e?cuse nonperfor3ance of thecondition.9

oreover, it is not enough that a party has, in effect, a cause of action.

The rules of procedure reFuire that the co3plaint 3ust contain a concisestate3ent of the ulti3ate or essential facts constituting the plaintiffEs causeof action. 9The test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the co3plaint iswhether or not, ad3itting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid>udg3ent upon the sa3e in accordance with the prayer of plaintiff.9Thefocus is on the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the 3aterial allegations.7ailure to 3ake a sufficient allegation of a cause of action in the co3plaint

warrants its dis3issal.2

chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

5n relation to an action for rescission, it should be noted that the re3edy ofrescission is subsidiary in nature8 it cannot be instituted e?cept when theparty suffering da3age has no other legal 3eans to obtain reparation for thesa3e.!Article ##%% of the 1ew &ivil &odeprovides;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The creditors, after having pursued the property in possession of the debtorto satisfy their clai3s, 3ay e?ercise all the rights and bring all the actions ofthe latter for the sa3e purpose, save those which are inherent in his person8they 3ay also i3pugn the actions which the debtor 3ay have done todefraud the3. (=3phasis added)

&onseFuently, following the subsidiary nature of the re3edy of rescission, acreditor would have a cause of action to bring an action for rescission, if it isalleged that the following successive 3easures have already been taken; (#)e?haust the properties of the debtor through levying by attach3ent ande?ecution upon all the property of the debtor, e?cept such as are e?e3pt bylaw fro3 e?ecution8 () e?ercise all the rights and actions of the debtor, savethose personal to hi3 (accion subrogatoria)8 and (2) seek rescission of the

contracts e?ecuted by the debtor in fraud of their rights (accionpauliana)."chanroblesvirtualawlibrary


15/119

#) That the plaintiff asking for rescission, has credit prior to the alienation,

although de3andable later8cralawlibrary

) That the debtor has 3ade a subseFuent contract conveying a patri3onial

benefit to a third person8cralawlibrary

2) That the creditor has no other legal re3edy to satisfy his clai3, but would

benefit by rescission of the conveyance to the third person8cralawlibrary

!) That act being i3pugned is fraudulent8 and

") That the third person who received the property conveyed, if by onerous

title, has been an acco3plice in the fraud.:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A cursory reading of the allegations of ASBEs co3plaint would show that itfailed to allege the ulti3ate facts constituting its cause of action and theprereFuisites that 3ust be co3plied before the sa3e 3ay be instituted.ASB, without availing of the first and second re3edies, that is, e?haustingthe properties of &TS, 6enry 6. 7urigay and /enilda &. 7urigay or theirtrans3issible rights and actions, si3ply undertook the third 3easure andfiled an action for annul3ent of the donation. This cannot be done. The&ourt hereby Fuotes with approval the thorough discourse of the &A on thisscore;%chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

To answer the issue of prescription, the case of Khe 6ong &heng vs. &ourt ofAppeals (/.. 14. #!!#:$, arch *, ++#) is pertinent. 5n said case,'hila3 filed an action for collection against Khe 6ong &heng.


16/119

only on 7ebruary ", #$$%, or 3ore than four (!) years after saidregistration, the action was already barred by prescription. The trial courtruled that the co3plaint had not yet prescribed since the prescriptive periodbegan to run only fro3 ece3ber $, #$$2, the date of the decision of thetrial court. Such decision was affir3ed by this court but reckoned the accrual

of 'hila3Es cause of action in -anuary #$$%, the ti3e when it first learnedthat the >udg3ent award could not be satisfied because the >udg3entcreditor, Khe 6ong &heng, had no 3ore properties in his na3e. 6ence, thecase reached the Supre3e &ourt which ruled that the action for rescissionhas not yet prescribed, ratiocinating as follows;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

9=ssentially, the issue for resolution posed by petitioners is this;


17/119

#) That the plaintiff asking for rescission, has a credit prior to the alienation,although de3andable later8 ) That the debtor has 3ade a subseFuentcontract conveying a patri3onial benefit to a third person8 2) That thecreditor has no other legal re3edy to satisfy his clai3, but would benefit byrescission of the conveyance to the third person8 !) That the act being

i3pugned is fraudulent8 ") That the third person who received the propertyconveyed, if by onerous title, has been an acco3plice in the fraud.

udg3ent and the issuance by the trial court of awrit of e?ecution for the satisfaction of the >udg3ent and the failure of theSheriff to enforce and satisfy the >udg3ent of the court. 5t presupposes thatthe creditor has e?hausted the property of the debtor. The date of thedecision of the trial court against the debtor is i33aterial. ectconveyances with the egister of eeds. espondent 'hila3 allegedly hadconstructive knowledge of the e?ecution of said deeds under Section " of'residential ecree 1o. #"$, Fuoted infra, asfollows;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

S=&T541 ". &onstructive knowledge upon registration. =very conveyance,3ortgage, lease, lien, attach3ent, order, >udg3ent, instru3ent or entryaffecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in the 4ffice ofthe egister of eeds for the province or city where the land to which itrelates lies, be constructive notice to all persons fro3 the ti3e of suchregistering, filing, or entering.

13


18/119

'etitioners argu3ent that the &ivil &ode 3ust yield to the ortgage andegistration @aws is 3isplaced, for in no way does this i3ply that the specificprovisions of the for3er 3ay be all together ignored. To count the four yearprescriptive period to rescind an allegedly fraudulent contract fro3 the dateof registration of the conveyance with the egister of eeds, as alleged by

the petitioners, would run counter to Article #2*2 of the &ivil &ode as well assettled >urisprudence. 5t would likewise violate the third reFuisite to file anaction for rescission of an allegedly fraudulent conveyance of property, i.e.,the creditor has no other legal re3edy to satisfy his clai3.

An accion pauliana thus presupposes the following; #) A >udg3ent8 ) theissuance by the trial court of a writ of e?ecution for the satisfaction of the>udg3ent, and 2) the failure of the sheriff to enforce and satisfy the>udg3ent of the court. 5t reFuires that the creditor has e?hausted theproperty of the debtor. The date of the decision of the trial court is

i33aterial. udg3ent would be in itsfavor and further, that such >udg3ent would not be satisfied due to thedeeds of donation e?ecuted by petitioner Khe 6ong &heng during thependency of the case. 6ad respondent 'hila3 filed his co3plaint onece3ber %, #$*$, such co3plaint would have been dis3issed for beingpre3ature. 1ot only were all other legal re3edies for the enforce3ent ofrespondent 'hila3Es clai3s not yet e?hausted at the ti3e the deeds ofdonation were e?ecuted and registered. espondent 'hila3 would also nothave been able to prove then that petitioner Khe 6ong &heng had no 3oreproperty other than those covered by the sub>ect deeds to satisfy afavorable >udg3ent by the trial court.

? ? ?

As 3entioned earlier, respondent 'hila3 only learned about the unlawfulconveyances 3ade by petitioner Khe 6ong &heng in -anuary #$$% when itscounsel acco3panied the sheriff to Butuan &ity to attach the properties of

1)


19/119

petitioner Khe 6ong &heng. There they found that he no longer had anyproperties in his na3e. 5t was only then that respondent

'hila3Es action for rescission of the deeds of donation accrued because thenit could be said that respondent 'hila3 had e?hausted all legal 3eans to

satisfy the trial courtEs >udg3ent in its favor. Since respondent 'hila3 filedits co3plaint for accion pauliana against petitioners on 7ebruary ", #$$%,barely a 3onth fro3 its discovery that petitioner Khe 6ong &heng had noother property to satisfy the >udg3ent award against hi3, its action forrescission of the sub>ect deeds clearly had not yet prescribed.9

7ro3 the foregoing, it is clear that the fouryear prescriptive periodco33ences to run neither fro3 the date of the registration of the deedsought to be rescinded nor fro3 the date the trial court rendered its decisionbut fro3 the day it has beco3e clear that there are no other legal re3edies

by which the creditor can satisfy his clai3s. H=3phases in the originalI

5n all, it is incorrect for ASB to argue that a co3plaint need not allege all theele3ents constituting its cause of action since it would si3ply adduce proofof the sa3e during trial. 91othing is 3ore settled than the rule that in a3otion to dis3iss for failure to state a cause of action, the inFuiry is 9intothe sufficiency, not the veracity, of the 3aterial allegations.9*The inFuiry isconfined to the four co3ers of the co3plaint, and no other.$Dnfortunatelyfor ASB, the &ourt finds the allegations of its co3plaint insufficient inestablishing its cause of action and in apprising the respondents of the sa3e

so that they could defend the3selves intelligently and effectively pursuant totheir right to due process. 5t is a rule of universal application that courts of>ustice are constituted to ad>udicate substantive rights.


20/119

PETRONIO CLIDORO, DIONISIO CLIDORO, LOLITA CLIDORO, CALIXTO CARDANO, JR., LORDES CLIDORO!LARIN, "ATEO CLIDORO #$% "ARLI&ACLIDORO!DE NA,Petitioners,vs.AGSTO JAL"AN&AR, GREGORIO CLIDORO, JR., SENECA CLIDORO!

CIOCSON, "ONSERAT CLIDORO!'IDA(, CELESTIAL CLIDORO!)INASA,APOLLO CLIDORO, ROSALIE CLIDORO!CATOLICO, SOP*IE CLIDORO, #$% JOSECLIDORO, JR.,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

This deals with the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule ! of the Rules of Courtpra"in# that the De$ision%of the Court of &ppeals 'C&(, dated O$to)er %*, +-, and itsResolution+dated e)ruar" -, +*, den"in# herein petitioner/s 0otion for

re$onsideration of the De$ision, )e reversed and set aside.

The ante$edent fa$ts, as set forth in the C& De$ision, are undisputed, to wit1

The instant appeal ste00ed fro0 a $o0plaint, do$2eted as Civil Case No. T3++*! forrevival of 4ud#0ent filed )" Ri5alina Clidoro, et al. a#ainst Onofre Clidoro, et al., pra"in#that the De$isiondated Nove0)er %6, %77! of the Court of &ppeals 'C&( in C&38.R. CVNo. %796%, whi$h affir0ed with 0odifi$ation the RTC De$ision dated :ar$h %, %799 inCivil Case No. T379 for partition, )erevived and that the $orrespondin# writ of e;e$ution)e issued. The dispositive portion ofthe C& De$ision reads1

The estate of the late :ateo Clidoro, e;$eptin# that des$ri)ed in para#raph 'i( of theCo0plaint, is here)" ordered partitioned in the followin# 0anner1

%. One3fifth portion to the Plaintiffs3&ppellees, )" ri#ht of representation to the hereditar"share of 8re#orio Clidoro, Sr. ; ; ;

The $o0plaint shows that 0ost of the parties3plaintiffs, partiesdefendants and interestedparties are alread" de$eased and have no 0ore natural or 0aterial e;isten$e. This is$ontrar" to the provision of the Rules 'Se$. %, Rule 6, %77* Rules of Civil Pro$edure(.The" $ould no lon#er )e $onsidered as the real parties3in3interest. Aesides, pursuant toSe$. 6, Rule 6 '%77* Rules of Civil Pro$edure(, where the a$tion is allowed to )eprose$uted or defended )" a representative or so0eone a$tin# in fidu$iar" $apa$it", the)enefi$iar" shall )e in$luded in the title of the $ase. In the instant $ase the )enefi$iariesare alread" de$eased persons. &lso, the Co0plaint states thatthe" were the ori#inalparties in Civil Case No. T379 for Partition, )ut this is not so 'para#raph +(. So0e of the

parties are a$tuall" not parties to the ori#inal $ase, )ut representin# the ori#inal partieswho are indi$ated as de$eased.

ro0 the fore#oin#, the Court finds the instant $o0plaint to )e flawed in for0 andsu)stan$e. The suit is not )rou#ht )" the real parties3ininterest, thus a 0otion to dis0isson the #round that the $o0plaint states no $ause of a$tion is proper 'Se$tion %'#(, Rule%-(.

BHEREORE, the instant $o0plaint is ordered DIS:ISSED for la$2 of $ause of a$tion.

SO ORDERED.>

Plaintiffs3appellants 0oved for re$onsideration of the fore#oin# Order with pra"er toad0it the atta$hed &0ended Co0plaint i0pleadin# the additional heirs of the interestedpart" =osaphat Clidoro and the ori#inal plaintiffs Ri5alina Clidoro3=al0an5ar, CleneoClidoro and &ristoteles Clidoro. The sa0e was,however, denied in the se$ond assailedorder. ; ; ;6

1
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt3


22/119

Respondents then appealed to the C&, and on O$to)er %*, +-, the C& pro0ul#atedits De$ision reversin# and settin# aside the Orders of the RTC, and re0andin# the $aseto the RTC for further pro$eedin#s. Petitioners 0otion for re$onsideration of theDe$ision was denied per Resolution dated e)ruar" -, +*.

Hen$e, the present petition where the followin# issues are raised1

&. THE HONOR&AE CORT O &PPE&S &IED TO CONSIDER TH&T THEREB&S NO PROPER SASTITTION O P&RTIES IN THE INST&NT &CTION ORREVIV& O =D8:ENT.

A. THE HONOR&AE CORT O &PPE&S ERRED IN CONSIDERIN8 THERESPONDENTS &S BE &S THE PETITIONERS &S THE RE& P&RTIES3IN3INTEREST.

C. THE HONOR&AE CORT O &PPE&S ERRED IN RIN8 TH&T &:END:ENT

TO PE&DIN8S B&S PROPERF :&DE &ND IS &PPIC&AE TO THE INST&NT&CTION.

D. THE HONOR&AE CORT O&PPE&S ERRED IN RIN8 TH&T THERE B&S:ERE :IS=OINDER O P&RTIES IN THE INST&NT &CTION.

The petition deserves s$ant $onsideration.

Redu$ed to its essen$e, the pivotal issue here is whether the $o0plaint for revival of4ud#0ent 0a" )e dis0issed for la$2 of $ause of a$tion as it was not )rou#ht )" ora#ainst the real parties3in3interest.

irst of all, the Court e0phasi5es that la$2 of $ause of a$tion is not enu0erated underRule %- of the Rules of Court as one of the #rounds for the dis0issal of a $o0plaint. &se;plained in Vitan#$ol v. New Vista Properties, In$.,!to wit1

a$2 of $ause of a$tion is, however, not a #round for a dis0issal of the $o0plaintthrou#h a 0otion to dis0iss under Rule %- of the Rules of Court, for the deter0inationof a la$2 of $ause of a$tion $an onl" )e 0ade durin# and@or after trial. Bhat isdis0issi)le via that 0ode is failure of the $o0plaint to state a $ause of a$tion. Se$. %'#(of Rule %- of the Rules of Court provides that a 0otion 0a" )e 0ade on the #round>that the pleadin# assertin# the $lai0 states no $ause of a$tion.>

The rule is that in a 0otion to dis0iss, a defendant h"potheti$all" ad0its the truth ofthe0aterial alle#ations of the ulti0ate fa$ts $ontained in the plaintiff/s $o0plaint. Bhen a0otion to dis0iss is #rounded on the failure tostate a $ause of a$tion, a rulin# thereonshould, as rule, )e )ased onl" on the fa$ts alle#ed in the $o0plaint.; ; ;

; ; ; ;
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt5


23/119

In a 0otion to dis0iss for failureto state a $ause of a$tion, the fo$us is on thesuffi$ien$", not the vera$it", of the 0aterial alle#ations. The test of suffi$ien$" of fa$tsalle#ed in the $o0plaint $onstitutin# a $ause of a$tion lies on whether or not the $ourt,ad0ittin# the fa$ts alle#ed, $ould render a valid verdi$t in a$$ordan$e with the pra"er ofthe $o0plaint.; ; ;-

ain, in :analoto v. Veloso III,*the Court reiterated as follows1

Bhen the #round for dis0issal is that the $o0plaint states no $ause of a$tion, su$h fa$t$an )e deter0ined onl" fro0 the fa$ts alle#ed in the $o0plaint and fro0no other, andthe $ourt $annot $onsider other 0atters aliunde. The test, therefore, is whether,assu0in# the alle#ations of fa$t in the $o0plaint to )e true, a valid 4ud#0ent $ould )erendered in a$$ordan$e withthe pra"er stated therein.9

In this $ase, it was alle#ed in the $o0plaint for revival of 4ud#0ent that the partiestherein were also the parties inthe a$tion for partition. &ppl"in# the fore#oin# test of

h"potheti$all" ad0ittin# this alle#ation in the $o0plaint, and not loo2in# into the vera$it"of the sa0e, it would then appear that the $o0plaint suffi$ientl" stated a $ause of a$tionas the plaintiffs in the $o0plaint for revival of 4ud#0ent 'hereinafter respondents(, as theprevailin# parties in the a$tion for partition, had a ri#ht to see2 enfor$e0ent of thede$ision in the partition $ase.

It should )e )orne in 0ind that the a$tion for revival of 4ud#0ent is a totall" separateand distin$t $ase fro0 the ori#inal Civil Case No. T379 for Partition. &s e;plained inSali#u0)a v. Palano#,7to wit1

&n a$tion for revival of 4ud#0ent is no 0ore than a pro$edural 0eans of se$urin# the

e;e$ution of a previous 4ud#0ent whi$h has )e$o0e dor0ant after the passa#e of five"ears without it )ein# e;e$uted upon 0otion of the prevailin# part". It isnot intended tore3open an" issue affe$tin# the 0erits of the 4ud#0ent de)tor/s $ase nor the propriet" or$orre$tness of the first 4ud#0ent. &n a$tion for revival of 4ud#0ent is a new andindependent a$tion, different and distin$t fro0either the re$over" of propert" $ase or there$onstitution $ase Gin this $ase, the ori#inal a$tion for partition, wherein the $ause ofa$tion is the de$ision itself and not the 0erits of the a$tion upon whi$h the 4ud#0entsou#ht to )e enfor$ed is rendered. ; ; ;%

Bith the fore#oin# in 0ind, it is understanda)le that there would )e instan$es where theparties in the ori#inal $ase and in the su)se?uent a$tion for revival of 4ud#0ent would

not )e e;a$tl" the sa0e. The 0ere fa$t that the na0es appearin# as parties in the the$o0plaint for revival of 4ud#0ent are different fro0 the na0es of the parties in theori#inal $ase would not ne$essaril" 0ean that the"are not the real parties3in3interest.Bhat is i0portant is that, as provided in Se$tion %, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, the"are >the part" who stands to )e )enefited or in4ured )" the 4ud#0ent in the suit, or thepart" entitled to the avails of the suit.> Definitel", as the prevailin# parties in the previous$ase for partition, the plaintiffs in the $ase for revival of 4ud#0ent would )e )enefited )"the enfor$e0ent of the de$ision in the partition $ase.

"
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt10


24/119

:oreover, it would appear that petitioners are 0ista2en in alle#in# that respondents arenot the real parties3in3interest. The $o0plaint for revival of 4ud#0ent i0pleaded thefollowin# parties1

GGreferen$e 3 http1@@s$.4udi$iar".#ov.ph@pdf@we)@viewer.ht0l

fileJ@4urispruden$e@+%@4ul"+%@%*-!79.pdf

P&INTIS DEEND&NTS

%. Ri5alina Clidoro 'de$eased(

rep. herein )" &u#usto =al0an5ar

%. Onofre Clidoro 'de$eased( rep.

)" 8re#oria Clidoro3Palan$a

'dau#hter(

+. 8re#orio Clidoro, =r. +. &ntonio Clidoro 'de$eased(

herein rep. )" Petronio Clidoro,

6. r)ana Costales 'de$eased( 6. Car0en Clidoro3Cardano, rep.

)" Cali;to Cardano, =r. 'hus)and(

. Cleneo Clidoro 'de$eased( . Dionisio Clidoro

!. Sene$a Clidoro Cio$son !. ourdes Clidoro3ari

-. :onserrat Clidoro -. olita Clidoro

*. Celestial Clidoro *. :ateo Clidoro

2
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/july2014/176598.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/july2014/176598.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/july2014/176598.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/july2014/176598.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/july2014/176598.pdf


25/119

9. &ristoteles Clidoro 'de$eased( INTERESTED P&RTIES

7. &pollo Clidoro %. &idaClidoro 'de$eased(

%. Rosalie Clidoro +. =osaphat Clidoro 'de$eased(,

herein rep. )" :arli5a Clidoro3De

na

%%. Sophie Clidoro

%+. =ose Clidoro, =r.

On the other hand, the parties to the ori#inal $ase for partition are na0ed as follows1

GGreferen$e 3 http1@@s$.4udi$iar".#ov.ph@pdf@we)@viewer.ht0l

fileJ@4urispruden$e@+%@4ul"+%@%*-!79.pdf

P&INTIS DEEND&NTS

%. Ri5alina Clidoro %. Onofre Clidoro

+. 8re#orio Clidoro, =r. +. &ntonio Clidoro

6. Sofia Cerdena INTERESTED P&RTIES

. r)ana Costales %. &ida Clidoro

&
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/july2014/176598.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/july2014/176598.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/july2014/176598.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/july2014/176598.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/july2014/176598.pdf


26/119

!. Cleneo Sene$a +. =osaphat Clidoro

-. :onserrat Clidoro

*. Celestial Clidoro

9. &ristoteles Clidoro

7. &pollo Clidoro

%. Rosalie Clidoro

& $o0parison of the fore#oin# would show that al0ost all of the plaintiffs in the ori#inal$ase for partition, in whose favor the $ourt ad4ud#ed $ertain shares in the estate ofde$eased :ateo Clidoro, are also the plaintiffs in the a$tion for revival of 4ud#0ent.:eanwhile, the defendants i0pleaded in the a$tion for revival are alle#edl" therepresentatives of the defendants in the ori#inal $ase, and this appears to hold water, as8re#oria ClidoroPalan$a, na0ed as the representative of defendant Onofre Clidoro inthe $o0plaint for revival of 4ud#0ent, was also 0entioned and awarded a portion of theestate in the 4ud#0ent in the ori#inal partition $ase. In fa$t, the trial $ourt itself stated inits Order%%of dis0issal dated De$e0)er 9, +6, that >Gso0e of the parties are a$tuall"not parties to the ori#inal $ase, )ut representin# the ori#inal parties who are indi$atedas de$eased.>

In Aas)as v. Sa"son,%+the Court pointed out that even 4ust one of the $o3owners, )"hi0self alone, $an )rin# an a$tion for the re$over" of the $oowned propert", eventhrou#h an a$tion for revival of 4ud#0ent, )e$ause the enfor$e0ent of the 4ud#0entwould result in su$h re$over" of propert". Thus, as in Aas)as, it is not ne$essar" in this$ase that all of the parties, in whose favor the $ase for partition was ad4ud#ed, )e 0adeplaintiffs to the a$tion for revival of 4ud#0ent. &n" whi$h one of said prevailin# parties,

6
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_176598_2014.html#fnt12


27/119

who had an interest in the enfor$e0ent of the de$ision, 0a" file the $o0plaint for revivalof 4ud#0ent, even 4ust )" hi0self.

Veril", the trial $ourt erred in dis0issin# the $o0plaint for revival of 4ud#0ent on the#round of la$2 of, or failure to state a $ause of a$tion. The alle#ations in the $o0plaint,

re#ardin# the parties/ interest in havin# the de$ision in the partition $ase e;e$uted ori0ple0ented, suffi$ientl" state a $ause of a$tion. The ?uestion of whether respondentswere the real partiesin3interest who had the ri#ht to see2 e;e$ution of the final ande;e$utor" 4ud#0ent in the partition $ase should have )een threshed out in a full3)lowntrial.

BHEREORE, the petition is DENIED. The De$ision of the Court of &ppeals, datedO$to)er %*, +-, and its Resolution dated e)ruar" -, +* in C&38.R. No. 9++7, arehere)" &IR:ED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

LPB vs Cacayuran

S$!CIA" S!COND DIVISION

G.R. N-. 1917, A4r 22, 2015

"AND BANK O TH! $HI"I$$IN!S, Petitioner, v.!D&ARDO M.CACA#&RAN, Respondent,

M&NICI$A"IT# O AGOO, "A &NION, Intervenor.

A M ! N D ! D D ! C I S I O N

$!R"AS6B!RNAB!,J.:

Before the &ourt are the following 3otions; (a) the otion foreconsideration#dated ay , +#2, filed by petitioner @and Bank of the'hilippines (@B') assailing the ecisiondated April #%, +#2 of the &ourt(April #%, +#2 ecision), which upheld the ecision2dated arch :, +#+of the &ourt of Appeals (&A) in &A/.. &0. 1o. *$%2 affir3ing with

3odification the ecision!dated April #+, ++% of the egional Trial &ourt ofAgoo, @a Dnion, Branch 2# in &ivil &ase 1o. A!%28 (b) the otion for@eave to 5ntervene with 'leadingin5ntervention Attached "dated -uly *,+#2, filed by the unicipality of Agoo, @a Dnion (unicipality) praying thatit be allowed to intervene in this case8 and (c) the otion foreconsiderationin5ntervention:dated -uly *, +#2, filed by the unicipality

3


28/119

seeking that the &ourt set aside its April #%, +#2 ecision and pro3ulgate anew one in its stead dis3issing the case (sub>ect 3otions).

Th* ac+

The instant case arose fro3 two () loans (Sub>ect @oans) entered into bythe unicipality with @B' in order to finance the edevelop3ent 'lan of theAgoo 'ublic 'laJa ('ublic 'laJa). Through esolution 1os. :*++"%and #2$++",*the Sangguniang Bayan of the unicipality (Sangguniang Bayan)authoriJed its thenayor =ufranio =riguel (ayor =riguel) to enter into a'!,+++,+++.++loan with @B', the proceeds of which were used to constructten (#+) kiosks at the 'ublic 'laJa. Around a year later, the SB issuedesolution 1os. "*++:$and #*++:,#+this ti3e authoriJing ayor=riguel to obtain a '*,+++,+++.++loan fro3 @B' for the construction of aco33ercial center na3ed 9Agoo 'eopleEs &enter9 within the pre3ises of the'ublic 'laJa. 5n order to secure the Sub>ect @oans, the unicipality used ascollateral, a3ong others, a ,22.%"sFuare 3eter lot situated at the southeastern portion of the 'ublic 'laJa ('laJa @ot).##

6owever, a group of residents, led by respondent =duardo . &acayuran(&acayuran), opposed the redevelop3ent of the 'ublic 'laJa, as well as thefunding therefor thru the Sub>ect @oans, clai3ing that these were 9highlyirregular, violative of the law, and detri3ental to public interests, and willresult to wanton desecration of the H'ublic 'laJaI.9#7urther, &acayuranreFuested the 3unicipal officers to furnish hi3 with the various docu3entsrelating to the 'ublic 'laJaEs redevelop3ent, which, however, went

unheeded.#2

Thus, &acayuran, invoking his right as a ta?payer, filed aco3plaint#!against @B' and various officers of the unicipality, includingayor =riguel (but e?cluding the unicipality itself as partydefendant),assailing the validity of the aforesaid loan agree3ents and praying that theco33ercialiJation of the 'ublic 'laJa be en>oined.#"

5nitially, the 3unicipal officers 3oved for the outright dis3issal of theco3plaint, which was denied, thus constraining the3 to file their respectiveanswers. 7or its part, @B' asserted, inter alia, that &acayuran did not haveany cause of action since he was not privy to the loan agree3ents enteredinto by @B' and the unicipality.#:

uring the pendency of the proceedings, the construction of the Agoo'eopleEs &enter was co3pleted. @ater on, the Sangguniang Bayanpassedunicipal 4rdinance 1o. +++%#%declaring the area where such buildingstood as patri3onial property of the unicipality.#*

Th* RTC R/'

)


29/119

5n a ecision#$dated April #+, ++%, the T& declared the Sub>ect @oans nulland void, finding that the resolutions approving the procure3ent of thesa3e were passed in a highly irregular 3anner and thus, ultra vires. Assuch, it pronounced that the unicipality was not bound by the Sub>ect

@oans and that the 3unicipal officers should, instead, be held personallyliable for the sa3e. 7urther, it ruled that since the 'laJa @ot is a property forpublic use, it cannot be used as collateral for the Sub>ect @oans.+

Aggrieved, @B' and the 3unicipal officers appealed#to the &A. 6owever, theappeal of the 3unicipal officers was dee3ed abandoned and dis3issed fortheir failure to file an appellantsE brief despite due notice. Thus, only @B'Esappeal was given due course by the &A.2

Th* CA R/'

5n a ecision!dated arch :, +#+, the &A affir3ed the ruling of the T&,with 3odification e?cluding then0ice ayor Antonio =slao fro3 personalliability arising fro3 the Sub>ect @oans. 5t held that; (a) &acayuran had locusstandito file the instant co3plaint, considering that he is a resident of theunicipality and the issue at hand involved public interest of transcendentali3portance8 (b) esolution 1os. :*++", #2*++", "*++:, #:++:were invalidly passed due to nonco3pliance with certain provisions ofepublic Act 1o. %#:+,"otherwise known as the @ocal /overn3ent &ode of#$$# (@/&)8 (c) the 'laJa @ot is property of public do3inion, and thus,cannot be used as collateral8 and (d) the procure3ent of the Sub>ect @oans

were ultra viresacts for having been entered into without proper authorityand that the collaterals used therefor constituted i3proper disburse3ent ofpublic funds.:

issatisfied, @B' filed a petition for review on certiorari%before this &ourt.

$r-c**' B*-r* +h* C-/r+

5n a ecision*dated April #%, +#2 the &ourt denied @B'Es petition, andaccordingly, affir3ed the ruling of the &A. Agreeing with the &A, the &ourtheld that; (a) &acayuran had legal standing to institute a ta?payerEs

suit8$(b) esolution 1os. :*++", #2$++", "*++:, #:++: cannotbe relied upon to validate the Sub>ect @oans, as the @/& reFuires the passingof an ordinance in order for any loan agree3ent to be valid8 2+and (c) theprocure3ent of the Sub>ect @oans are ultra viresacts of the 3unicipalofficers who approved the sa3e, and thus, liability therefor shall devolveupon the3.2#

9


30/119

Dndaunted, @B' 3oved for reconsideration, basically reiterating its earlierposition that &acayuran had no legal standing to sue, and that esolution1os. :*++", #2$++", "*++:, and #:++: 3ay be relied upon invalidating the Sub>ect @oans.2

eanwhile, the unicipality filed a otion for @eave to 5ntervene with'leading5n5ntervention Attached22dated -uly *, +#2 and a otion foreconsideration in5ntervention2!of even date, praying that it be included asa partylitigant to the instant case. 5t contends that as a contracting party tothe Sub>ect @oans, it is an indispensable party to the action filed by&acayuran. As such, there cannot be any 9real disposition9 of the instant suitby reason of its e?clusion fro3 the sa3e.

5n opposition,2"&acayuran 3aintains that @B' did not raise any new 3atterto warrant reconsideration of the April #%, +#2 ecision. Anent theunicipalityEs 3otion to intervene, &acayuran insists that the unicipality isnot a real partyininterest to the instant case as his co3plaint is against the3unicipal officers in their personal capacity for theirultra viresacts whichare not binding on the unicipality.

7inally, in its &o33ent on the otion for @eave to 5ntervene and otion foreconsiderationin5ntervention2:dated ay :, +#!, @B' agrees with theunicipality that the latter is an indispensable party to the instant case andas such, should be included herein.

Th* I/* B*-r* +h* C-/r+

The core issue for the &ourtEs resolution is whether or not the unicipalityshould be dee3ed as an indispensable party to the instant case, and thus,be ordered i3pleaded herein.

Th* C-/r+ R/'

The &ourt rules in the affir3ative.

Section %, ule 2 of the ules of &ourt 3andates that all indispensableparties should be >oined in a suit, viz.;

S=&. %. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. 'artiesininterestwithout who3 no final deter3ination can be had of an action shall be >oinedeither as plaintiffs or defendants.

9An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the courtEsaction in the litigation, and without who3 no final deter3ination of the case

"-


31/119

can be had. The partyEs interest in the sub>ect 3atter of the suit and in therelief sought are so ine?tricably intertwined with the other partiesE that hislegal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. 5n hisabsence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before thecourt which is effective, co3plete, or eFuitable.92%Thus, the absence of an

indispensable party renders all subseFuent actions of the court null and void,for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as tothose present.2*

1evertheless, it 3ust be stressed that the failure to i3plead anyindispensable party to a suit does not necessarily result in the outrightdis3issal of the co3plaint. 5n Heirs of Mesina v. Heirs of ian! Sr.2$the &ourtdefinitively e?plained that in instances of non>oinder of indispensableparties, the proper re3edy is to i3plead the3 and not to dis3iss the case;

Th* '-'6-'*r - '4*'a* 4ar+* '-+ a r-/' -r +h*a - a' ac+-'. At any stage of a >udicial proceeding andGor at suchti3es as are >ust, parties 3ay be added on the 3otion of a party or on theinitiative of the tribunal concerned. 5f the plaintiff refuses to i3plead anindispensable party despite the order of the court, that court 3ay dis3issthe co3plaint for the plaintiffs failure to co3ply with the order.Th* r**; +- 4*a +h* '-'64ar+; ca* +- * '4*'a*.!+("mp#asesand underscoring supplied)

5n this case, a >udicious review of the records reveals that &acayuranEsco3plaint against @B' and the 3unicipal officers pri3arily prays that the

co33ercialiJation of the 'ublic 'laJa be en>oined and also, that the Sub>ect@oans be declared null and void for having been unlawfully entered into bythe said officers. 6owever, &acayuran failed to i3plead in his co3plaint theunicipality, a real partyininterest!#and an indispensable party that standsto be directly affected by any >udicial resolution on the case, consideringthat; (a) the contracting parties to the Sub>ect @oans are @B' and theunicipality8 and (b) the unicipality owns the 'ublic 'laJa as well as thei3prove3ents constructed thereon, including the Agoo 'eopleEs &enter. Asthe unicipality aptly points out;!

2. To recapitulate; The case had its beginnings in +h* +and by the Board esolutionspassed and adopted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Agoo, @a Dnion, togetherwith the ayor and 0iceayor of the unicipality.

? ? ? ?

2d. The two () @oans were covered and evidenced by separate @oan

"1


32/119

Agree3ents and ortgageGAssign3ent ocu3ents. Th* 4ar+* a -rr-


33/119

proceedings. 5ndeed, the presence of indispensable parties is necessary tovest the court with >urisdiction!!and, corollarily, the issue on >urisdiction 3aybe raised at any stage of the proceedings.!"Thus, as it has now co3e to thefore that any resolution of this case would not be possible and, hence, notattain any real finality due to the non>oinder of the unicipality, the &ourt is

constrained to set aside all subseFuent actuations of the courts a $uoin thiscase, including that of the &ourtEs, and re3and the case all the way back tothe T& for the inclusion of all indispensable parties to the case and itsi33ediate disposition on the 3erits.!:ect 3otions are $ART"# GRANT!D. The ecisiondated April #%, +#2 of the &ourt, which upheld the ecision dated arch:, +#+ of the &ourt of Appeals in &A/.. &0. 1o. *$%2 affir3ing with3odification the ecision dated April #+, ++% of the egional Trial &ourt ofAgoo, @a Dnion, Branch 2# in &ivil &ase 1o. A!%2 is hereby S!T ASID!.Accordingly, the instant case is R!MAND!Dto the court a $uo, which ishereby DIR!CT!Dto order respondent =duardo . &acayuran to i3plead allindispensable parties and thereafter, $ROC!!Dwith the resolution of thecase on the 3erits ITH DIS$ATCH.

SO ORD!R!D.

Resident Marine mamals vs Reyes

!N BANC

G.R. N-. 180771, A4r 21, 2015

R!SID!NT MARIN! MAMMA"S O TH! $ROT!CT!D S!ASCA$! TANONSTRAIT, !.G., TOOTH!D HA"!S, DO"$HINS, $OR$OIS!S, ANDOTH!R C!TAC!AN S$!CI!S, EOIN!D IN AND R!$R!S!NT!D H!R!INB# H&MAN B!INGS G"ORIA !ST!N)O RAMOS AND ROS!6"I)A!ISMA6OSORIO, IN TH!IR CA$ACIT# AS "!GA" G&ARDIANS O TH!"!SS!R "I!6ORMS AND AS R!S$ONSIB"! ST!ARDS O GODSCR!ATIONS, Petitioners, v.S!CR!TAR# ANG!"O R!#!S, IN HISCA$ACIT# AS S!CR!TAR# O TH! D!$ARTM!NT O !N!RG# (DO!%,S!CR!TAR# EOS! ". ATI!N)A, IN HIS CA$ACIT# AS S!CR!TAR# OTH! D!$ARTM!NT O !NVIRONM!NT AND NAT&RA" R!SO&RC!S(D!NR%, "!ONARDO R. SIBBA"&CA, D!NR R!GIONA" DIR!CTOR6R!GION VII AND IN HIS CA$ACIT# AS CHAIR$!RSON O TH! TANONSTRAIT $ROT!CT!D S!ASCA$! MANAG!M!NT BOARD, B&R!A& O

""


34/119

ISH!RI!S AND AF&ATIC R!SO&RC!S (BAR%, DIR!CTOR MA"CO"MI. SARMI!NTO, ER., BAR R!GIONA" DIR!CTOR OR R!GION VIIANDR!S M. BOEOS, EA$AN $!TRO"!&M !$"ORATION CO., "TD.(EA$!%, AS R!$R!S!NT!D B# ITS $HI"I$$IN! AG!NT, S&$$"#OI"I!"D S!RVIC!S, INC., Respondents.

G.R. N-. 181527

C!NTRA" VISA#AS ISH!RO"K D!V!"O$M!NT C!NT!R (ID!C%,C!RI"O D. !NGARCIA", RAMON #ANONG, RANCISCO "ABID, INTH!IR $!RSONA" CA$ACIT# AND AS R!$R!S!NTATIV!S O TH!S&BSIST!NC! ISH!RO"KS O TH! M&NICI$A"ITI!S OA"OG&INSAN AND $INAM&NGAEAN, C!B&, AND TH!IR AMI"I!S,AND TH! $R!S!NT AND &T&R! G!N!RATIONS O I"I$INOSHOS! RIGHTS AR! SIMI"AR"# A!CT!D, Petitioners,v.S!CR!TAR#ANG!"O R!#!S, IN HIS CA$ACIT# AS S!CR!TAR# O TH!D!$ARTM!NT O !N!RG# (DO!%, EOS! ". ATI!N)A, IN HIS CA$ACIT#AS S!CR!TAR# O TH! D!$ARTM!NT O !NVIRONM!NT ANDNAT&RA" R!SO&RC!S (D!NR%, "!ONARDO R. SIBBA"&CA, IN HISCA$ACIT# AS D!NR R!GIONA" DIR!CTOR6R!GION VII AND ASCHAIR$!RSON O TH! TAON STRAIT $ROT!CT!D S!ASCA$!MANAG!M!NT BOARD, A"AN ARRANG&!), IN HIS CA$ACIT# ASDIR!CTOR !NVIRONM!NTA" MANAG!M!NT B&R!A&6R!GION VII,DO! R!GIONA" DIR!CTOR OR R!GION VIII1ANTONIO "ABIOS,EA$AN $!TRO"!&M !$"ORATION CO., "TD. (EA$!%, ASR!$R!S!NT!D B# ITS $HI"I$$IN! AG!NT, S&$$"# OI"I!"D

S!RVIC!S, INC., Respondent.

D ! C I S I O N

"!ONARDO6D! CASTRO,J.:

Before Ds are two consolidated 'etitions filed under ule :" of the #$$%ules of &ourt, concerningS*r@c* C-'+rac+ N-. (SC6%, whichallowed the e?ploration, develop3ent, and e?ploitation of petroleu3resources within TaMon Strait, a narrow passage of water situated betweenthe islands of 1egros and &ebu.

The 'etition docketed as G.R. N-. 180771is an original 'etitionfor Certiorari, Mandamus, and 5n>unction, which seeks to en>oin respondentsfro3 i3ple3enting S&!: and to have it nullified for willful and grossviolation of the #$*% &onstitution and certain international and 3unicipallaws.2

"2


35/119

@ikewise, the 'etition docketed as G.R. N-. 181527is an original 'etitionfor Certiorari, 'rohibition, and Mandamus, which seeks to nullify the=nviron3ental &o3pliance &ertificate (=&&) issued by the =nviron3entalanage3ent Bureau (=B) of the epart3ent of =nviron3ent and 1aturalesources (=1), egion 055 in connection with S&!:8 to prohibit

respondents fro3 i3ple3enting S&!:8 and to co3pel public respondents toprovide petitioners access to the pertinent docu3ents involving the TaMonStrait 4il =?ploration 'ro>ect.!

ANT!C!D!NT ACTS AND $ROC!!DINGS

'etitioners in /.. 1o. #*+%%#, collectively referred to as the 9esidentarine a33als9 in the petition, are the toothed whales, dolphins,porpoises, and other cetacean species, which inhabit the waters in andaround the TaMon Strait. They are >oined by /loria =stenJo a3os (a3os)and ose@iJa =is3a4sorio (=is3a4sorio) as their legal guardians and asfriends (to be collectively known as 9the Stewards9) who allegedly e3pathiJewith, and seek the protection of, the afore3entioned 3arine species. Alsoi3pleaded as an unwilling copetitioner is for3er 'resident /loriaacapagalArroyo, for her e?press declaration and undertaking in the AS=A1&harter to protect the TaMon Strait, a3ong others."

'etitioners in /.. 1o. #*#"% are the &entral 0isayas 7isherfolkevelop3ent &enter (75=&), a nonstock, nonprofit, nongovern3entalorganiJation, established for the welfare of the 3arginal fisherfolk in egion0558 and &erilo . =ngarcial (=ngarcial), a3on anong (anong) and

7rancisco @abid (@abid), in their personal capacities and as representatives ofthe subsistence fisherfolk of the 3unicipalities of Aloguinsan and'ina3unga>an, &ebu.

1a3ed as respondents in both petitions are the late Angelo T. eyes, as thenSecretary of the epart3ent of =nergy (4=)8 -ose @. AtienJa, as thenSecretary of the =18 @eonardo . Sibbaluca, as then =1egionalirector for egion 055 and &hair3an of the TaMon Strait 'rotected Seascapeanage3ent Board8 -apan 'etroleu3 =?ploration &o., @td. (-A'=N), aco3pany organiJed and e?isting under the laws of -apan with a 'hilippinebranch office8 and Supply 4ilfield Services, 5nc. (S4S), as the alleged'hilippine agent of -A'=N.

5n /.. 1o. #*#"%, the following were i3pleaded as additional publicrespondents; Alan &. ArrangueJ (ArrangueJ) and Antonio @abios (@abios), intheir capacities as then irector of the =B, egion 055 and then egionalirector of the 4=, egion 055, respectively.:

"&


36/119

4n -une #2, ++, the /overn3ent of the 'hilippines, acting through the4=, entered into a /eophysical Survey and =?ploration &ontract#+(/S=+) with -A'=N. This contract involved geological and geophysicalstudies of the TaMon Strait. The studies included surface geology, sa3pleanalysis, and reprocessing of seis3ic and 3agnetic data. -A'=N, assisted by

4=, also conducted geophysical and satellite surveys, as well as oil and gassa3pling in TaMon Strait.%

4n ece3ber #, ++!, 4= and -A'=N for3ally converted /S=+ intoS&!: for the e?ploration, develop3ent, and production of petroleu3resources in a block covering appro?i3ately ,*"+ sFuare kilo3etersoffshore the TaMon Strait.*

7ro3 ay $ to #*, ++", -A'=N conducted seis3ic surveys in and aroundthe TaMon Strait. A 3ultichannel subbotto3 profiling coveringappro?i3ately %"# kilo3eters was also done to deter3ine the areaEsunderwater co3position.$

-A'=N co33itted to drill one e?ploration well during the second subphaseof the pro>ect. Since the well was to be drilled in the 3arine waters ofAloguinsan and 'ina3unga>an, where the TaMon Strait was declared aprotected seascape in #$**,#+-A'=N agreed to co3ply with the=nviron3ental 53pact Assess3ent reFuire3ents pursuant to 'residentialecree 1o. #"*:, entitled 9=stablishing An =nviron3ental 53pact State3entSyste3, 5ncluding 4ther =nviron3ental anage3ent elated easures And7or 4ther 'urposes.9##

4n -anuary 2#, ++%, the 'rotected Area anage3ent Board#of the TaMonStrait ('ABTaMon Strait) issued esolution 1o. ++%++#,#2wherein itadopted the 5nitial =nviron3ental =?a3ination (5==) co33issioned by-A'=N, and favorably reco33ended the approval of -A'=NEs application foran =&&.

4n arch :, ++%, the =B of =1 egion 055 granted an =&& to the 4=and -A'=N for the offshore oil and gas e?ploration pro>ect in TaMonStrait.#!onths later, on 1ove3ber #:, ++%, -A'=N began to drill an

e?ploratory well, with a depth of 2,#"+ 3eters, near 'ina3unga>an town inthe western &ebu 'rovince.#"This drilling lasted until 7ebruary *, ++*.#:

5t was in view of the foregoing state of affairs that petitioners applied to this&ourt for redress, via two separate original petitions both dated ece3ber#%, ++%, wherein they co33only seek that respondents be en>oined fro3i3ple3enting S&!: for, a3ong others, violation of the #$*% &onstitution.

"6


37/119

4n arch 2#, ++*, S4S filed a otion to Strike #%its na3e as a respondenton the ground that it is not the 'hilippine agent of -A'=N. 5n support of its3otion, it sub3itted the branch office application of -A'=N,#*wherein thelatterEs resident agent was clearly identified. S4S clai3ed that it had actedas a 3ere logistics contractor for -A'=N in its oil and gas e?ploration

activities in the 'hilippines.

'etitioners esident arine a33als and Stewards opposed S4SEs 3otionon the ground that it was pre3ature, it was profor3a, and it was patentlydilatory. They clai3ed that S4S ad3itted that 9it is in law a (sic) privy to-A'=N9 since it did the drilling and other e?ploration activities in TaMon Straitunder the instructions of its principal, -A'=N. They argued that it would bepre3ature to drop S4S as a party as -A'=N had not yet been >oined in thecase8 and that it was 9convenient9 for S4S to ask the &ourt to si3ply dropits na3e fro3 the parties when what it should have done was to either notifyor ask -A'=N to >oin it in its 3otion to enable proper substitution. At this>uncture, petitioners esident arine a33als and Stewards also asked the&ourt to i3plead -A'=N 'hilippines as a corespondent or as a substitute forits parent co3pany, -A'=N.#$

4n April *, ++*, the &ourt resolved to consolidate /.. 1o. #*+%%# and/.. 1o. #*#"%.

4n ay :, ++*, the 75=& 3anifested+that they were adopting intotothe 4pposition to Strike with otion to 53plead filed by petitionersesident arine a33als and Stewards in /.. 1o. #*+%%#.

4n -une #$, ++*, public respondents filed their anifestation#that theywere not ob>ecting to S4SEs otion to Strike as it was not -A'=NEs residentagent. -A'=N during all this ti3e, did not file any co33ent at all.

Thus, on 7ebruary %, +#, this &ourt, in an effort to ensure that all theparties were given a3ple chance and opportunity to answer the issuesherein, issued a esolution directing the &ourtEs process servicing unit toagain serve the parties with a copy of the Septe3ber 2, ++* esolution ofthe &ourt, which gave due course to the petitions in /.. 1os. #*+%%# and

#*#"%, and which reFuired the parties to sub3it their respective3e3oranda. The 7ebruary %, +# esolutionreads asfollows;chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryG.R. N-. 180771(esident arine a33als of the 'rotected SeascapeTaMon Strait,e.g., Toothed


38/119

&ourt esolved to direct the 'rocess Servicing Dnit to R!6S!NDtheresolution dated Septe3ber 2, ++* to the following parties and counsel,together with this resolution;chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryA++;. Ar+*-O. CarJ-

+th7loor 'earlbank &entre

&ounsel forespondentSupply

#!: 0alero Street

4ilfieldServices, 5nc.

Salcedo 0illage, akati &ity

EA$!$h44'*"+.

+th7loor 'earlbank &entre

#!: 0alero Street Salcedo 0illage, akati &ityEA$!$h44'*"+.

#$th7loor 'earlbank &entre

cGo Atty. aria7arah O./.

#!: 0alero Street

1icolasSuchianco

Salcedo 0illage, akati &ity

A++;. Mara

arah ).G. Suite !+! iscovery &entreNc-a6S/cha'c-

" AB Avenue

esident Agentof -A'=N

4rtigas &enter, 'asig &ity

'hilippines @td.This esolution was personally served to the above parties, at the aboveaddresses on 7ebruary 2, +#. 4n arch +, +#, -A'=N 'hilippines, @td.(-A'=N '6), by way of special appearance, filed a otion to Ad3it2itsotion for &larification,!wherein -A'=N '6 reFuested to be clarified as to

whether or not it should dee3 the 7ebruary %, +# esolution as this&ourtEs 4rder of its inclusion in the case, as it has not been i3pleaded. 5talso alleged that -A'=N '6 had already stopped e?ploration activities in theTaMon Strait way back in ++*, rendering this case 3oot.

4n arch , +#, -A'=N '6, also by special appearance, filed a otion for=?tension of Ti3e"to file its e3orandu3. 5t stated that since it receivedthe 7ebruary %, +# esolution on 7ebruary 2, +#, it had until arch

")


39/119

, +# to file its e3orandu3. -A'=N '6 then asked for an additionalthirty days, supposedly to give this &ourt so3e ti3e to consider its otionfor &larification.

4n April !, +#, this &ourt issued a esolution:granting -A'=N '6Es

otion to Ad3it its otion for &larification. This &ourt, addressing -A'=N'6Es otion for &larification, held;chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryured by the >udg3ent in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of thesuit. &ontrary to -A'=N 'hilippines, @td.Es allegation that it is a co3pletelydistinct corporation, which should not be confused with -A'=N &o3pany,@td., -A'=N 'hilippines, @td. is a 3ere branch office, established by -A'=N&o3pany, @td. for the purpose of carrying out the latterEs businesstransactions here in the 'hilippines. Thus, -A'=N 'hilippines, @td., has noseparate personality fro3 its 3other foreign corporation, the partyi3pleaded in this case.

oreover, Section #* of the &orporation &ode provides for theresponsibilities and duties of a resident agent of a foreigncorporation;chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryS=&T541 #*. Resident agent% service of process. P The Securities and=?change &o33ission shall reFuire as a condition precedent to the issuanceof the license to transact business in the 'hilippines by any foreign

corporation that such corporation file with the Securities and =?change&o33ission a written power of attorney designating so3e person who 3ustbe a resident of the 'hilippines, on who3 any su33ons and other legalprocesses 3ay be served in all actions or other legal proceedings againstsuch corporation, and consenting that service upon such resident agent shallbe ad3itted and held as valid as if served upon the duly authoriJed officersof the foreign corporation at its ho3e office. Any such foreign corporationshall likewise e?ecute and file with the Securities and =?change &o33issionan agree3ent or stipulation, e?ecuted by the proper authorities of saidcorporation, in for3 and substance as follows;

9The (na3e of foreign corporation) does hereby stipulate and agree, inconsideration of its being granted by the Securities and =?change&o33ission a license to transact business in the 'hilippines, that if at anyti3e said corporation shall cease to transact business in the 'hilippines, orshall be without any resident agent in the 'hilippines on who3 anysu33ons or other legal processes 3ay be served, then in any action orproceeding arising out of any business or transaction which occurred in the

"9


40/119

'hilippines, service of any su33ons or other legal process 3ay be 3adeupon the Securities and =?change &o33ission and that such service shallhave the sa3e force and effect as if 3ade upon the dulyauthoriJed officersof the corporation at its ho3e office.9


41/119

in the TaMon Strait, petitioners esident arine a33als and Stewards averthat a study 3ade after the seis3ic survey showed that the fish catch wasreduced drastically by "+ to %+ percent. They clai3 that before the seis3icsurvey, the average harvest per day would be fro3 #" to + kilos8 but afterthe activity, the fisherfolk could only catch an average of # to kilos a day.

They attribute this 9reduced fish catch9 to the destruction of the 9payao9 alsoknown as the 9fish aggregating device9 or 9artificial reef.92#'etitionersesident arine a33als and Stewards also i3pute the incidences of 9fishkill92observed by so3e of the local fisherfolk to the seis3ic survey. And theyfurther allege that the =&& obtained by private respondent -A'=N is invalidbecause public consultations and discussions with the affected stakeholders,a prereFuisite to the issuance of the =&&, were not held prior to the =&&Esissuance.

5n its separate petition, petitioner 75=& confir3s petitioners esidentarine a33als and StewardsE allegations of reduced fish catch and lack ofpublic consultations or discussions with the fisherfolk and other stakeholdersprior to the issuance of the =&&. oreover, it alleges that during the seis3icsurveys and drilling, it was barred fro3 entering and fishing within a %kilo3eter radius fro3 the point where the oilrig was located, an area greaterthan the #."kilo3eter radius 9e?clusion Jone9 stated in the 5==.225t alsoagrees in the allegation that public respondents =1 and =B abused theirdiscretion when they issued an =&& to public respondent 4= and privaterespondent -A'=N without ensuring the strict co3pliance with the proceduraland substantive reFuire3ents under the =nviron3ental 53pact Assess3entsyste3, the 7isheries &ode, and their i3ple3enting rules and

regulations.2!5t further clai3s that despite several reFuests for copies of allthe docu3ents pertaining to the pro>ect in Taflon Strait, only copies of the'ABTaMon Strait esolution and the =&& were given to the fisherfolk.2"

Public Respondents' Counter-Allegations

'ublic respondents, through the Solicitor /eneral, contend that petitionersesident arine a33als and Stewards have no legal standing to file thepresent petition8 that S&!: does not violate the #$*% &onstitution and thevarious laws cited in the petitions8 that the =&& was issued in accordancewith e?isting laws and regulations8 that public respondents 3ay not beco3pelled by mandamusto furnish petitioners copies of all docu3entsrelating to S&!:8 and that all the petitioners failed to show that they areentitled to in>unctive relief. They further contend that the issues raised inthese petitions have been rendered 3oot and acade3ic by the fact that S&!: had been 3utually ter3inated by the parties thereto effective -une #,++*.2:

21


42/119

ISS&!S

The following are the issues posited by petitioners esident arine a33alsand Stewards in /.. 1o. #*+%%#;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

5.


43/119

SD&6 AS T6= TA141 STA5T '4T=&T= S=AS&A'= &4174= T4@A< A1 =N5ST51/ D@=S A1 =/D@AT541S 41 T6= ATT=.

0.


44/119

The esident arine a33als, through the Stewards, 9clai39 that they havethe legal standing to file this action since they stand to be benefited orin>ured by the >udg3ent in this suit.!+&iting 'posa v. actoran! -r.,!#theyalso assert their right to sue for the faithful perfor3ance of international and

3unicipal environ3ental laws created in their favor and for their benefit. 5nthis regard, they propound that they have the right to de3and that they beaccorded the benefits granted to the3 in 3ultilateral internationalinstru3ents that the 'hilippine /overn3ent had signed, under the conceptof stipulationpour autrui.!

7or their part, the Stewards contend that there should be no Fuestion oftheir right to represent the esident arine a33als as they have stakes inthe case as forerunners of a ca3paign to build awareness a3ong theaffected residents of TaMon Strait and as stewards of the environ3ent sincethe pri3ary steward, the /overn3ent, had failed in its duty to protect theenviron3ent pursuant to the public trust doctrine.!2

'etitioners esident arine a33als and Stewards also aver that this &ourt3ay lower the bench3ark in locus standias an e?ercise of epistolary>urisdiction.!!

5n opposition, public respondents argue that the esident arine a33alshave no standing because Section #, ule 2 of the ules of &ourt reFuiresparties to an action to be either natural or >uridicalpersons, viz.;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Section #. #o may be parties% plaintiff and defendant. 4nly natural or>uridical persons, or entities authoriJed by law 3ay be parties in a civilaction. The ter3 9plaintiff 3ay refer to the clai3ing party, the counterclai3ant, the crossclai3ant, or the third (fourth, etc.)party plaintiff. Theter3 9defendant9 3ay refer to the original defending party, the defendant ina counterclai3, the crossdefendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)partydefendant.The public respondents also contest the applicability of 'posa, pointing outthat the petitioners therein were all natural persons, albeit so3e of the3were still unborn.!"

As regards the Stewards, the public respondents likewise challenge theirclai3 of legal standing on the ground that they are representing ani3als,which cannot be parties to an action. oreover, the public respondents arguethat the Stewards are not the real partiesininterest for their failure to showhow they stand to be benefited or in>ured by the decision in this case. !:

5nvoking the alter ego principle in political law, the public respondents clai3

22


45/119

that absent any proof that for3er 'resident Arroyo had disapproved of theiracts in entering into and i3ple3enting S&!:, such acts re3ain to be herown.!%

The public respondents contend that since petitioners esident arine

a33als and StewardsE petition was not brought in the na3e of a realpartyininterest, it should be dis3issed for failure to state a cause ofaction.!*

The issue of whether or not ani3als or even inani3ate ob>ects should begiven legal standing in actions before courts of law is not new in the field ofani3al rights and environ3ental law. 'etitioners esident arine a33alsand Stewards cited the #$% Dnited States case Sierra Club v. Rogers C.B.Morton,!$wherein -ustice ect about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads andbulldoJers and where in>ury is the sub>ect of public outrage, ? ? ?.

5nani3ate ob>ects are so3eti3es parties in litigation. A ship has a legalpersonality, a fiction found useful for 3ariti3e purposes. The corporationsole a creature of ecclesiastical law is an acceptable adversary and largefortunes ride on its cases. The ordinary corporation is a 9person9 forpurposes of the ad>udicatory processes, whether it represents proprietary,

spiritual, aesthetic, or charitable causes.

So it should be as respects valleys, alpine 3eadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries,beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swa3pland, or even air that feels thedestructive pressures of 3odern technology and 3ode3 life. The river, fore?a3ple, is the living sy3bol of all the life it sustains or nourishesPfish,aFuatic insects, water ouJels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all otherani3als, including 3an, who are dependent on it or who en>oy it for itssight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unitof life that is part of it. Those people who have a 3eaningful relation to that

body of waterPwhether it be a fisher3an, a canoeist, a Joologist, or aloggerP3ust be able to speak for the values which the river represents andwhich are threatened with destruction."+(&itations o3itted.)The pri3ary reason ani3al rights advocates and environ3entalists seek togive ani3als and inani3ate ob>ects standing is due to the need to co3plywith the strict reFuire3ents in bringing a suit to court. 4ur own #$$% ulesof &ourt de3and that parties to a suit be either natural or >uridical persons,or entities authoriJed by law. 5t further necessitates the action to be brought

2&


46/119

in the na3e of the real partyininterest, even if filed by arepresentative, viz.;chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryule 2'arties to &ivil Actions

Section #. #o may be parties% plaintiff and defendant. 4nly natural or>uridical persons, or entities authoriJed by law 3ay be parties in a civilaction. The ter3 9plaintiff 3ay refer to the clai3ing party, the counterclai3ant, the crossclai3ant, or the third (fourth, etc.)party plaintiff. Theter3 9defendant9 3ay refer to the original defending party, the defendant ina counterclai3, the crossdefendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)partydefendant.

Sec. . Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the party who standsto be benefited or in>ured by the >udg3ent in the suit, or the party entitledto the avails of the suit. Dnless otherwise authoriJed by law or these ules,every action 3ust be prosecuted or defended in the na3e of the real partyin interest.

Sec. 2. Representatives as parties. oining

the principal e?cept when the contract involves things belonging to theprincipal.5t had been suggested by ani3al rights advocates and environ3entaliststhat not only natural and >uridical persons should be given legal standingbecause of the difficulty for persons, who cannot show that they bythe3selves are real partiesininterests, to bring actions in representation ofthese ani3als or inani3ate ob>ects. 7or this reason, 3any environ3entalcases have been dis3issed for failure of the petitioner to show that heGshewould be directly in>ured or affected by the outco3e of the case. 6owever, inour >urisdiction, locus standiin environ3ental cases has been given a 3ore

liberaliJed approach.


47/119

7ilipino citiJen to file an action before our courts for violations of ourenviron3ental laws;chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryS=&. ". Citizen suit. A'; 4'- c+*' ' r*4r**'+a+-' - -+h*r,'c/' '-r -r *'*ra+-' ;*+ /'-r', a; * a' ac+-' +-*'-rc* rh+ -r -a+-' /'*r *'@r-'*'+a a


48/119

issue of locus standiin environ3ental cases. 5n'posa, we allowed the suit tobe brought in the na3e of generations yet unborn 9based on the concept ofintergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced andhealthful ecology is concerned.9":7urther3ore, we said that the right to abalanced and healthful ecology, a right that does not even need to be stated

in our &onstitution as it is assu3ed to e?ist fro3 the inception ofhu3ankind, carries with it the correlative duty to refrain fro3 i3pairing theenviron3ent."%

5n light of the foregoing, the need to give the esident arine a33alslegal standing has been eli3inated by our ules, which allow any 7ilipinocitiJen, as a steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environ3entallaws. 5t is worth noting here that the Stewards are >oined as real parties inthe 'etition and not >ust in representation of the na3ed cetacean species.The Stewards, a3os and =is3a4sorio, having shown in their petition thatthere 3ay be possible violations of laws concerning the habitat of theesident arine a33als, are therefore declared to possess the legalstanding to file this petition.chanoblesvirtual@awlibrary

Impleading ormer President !loria Macapagal-Arro"o as an#nwilling Co-Petitioner

'etitioners Stewards in G.R. N-. 180771i3pleaded as an unwilling copetitioner for3er 'resident /loria acapagalArroyo for the followingreasons, which we Fuote;chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryH*r !?c**'c; G-ra Maca4aa6Arr-;-, also of legal age, 7ilipino and

resident of alacaMang 'alace, anila 'hilippines. Steward /loriaacapagalArroyo happens to be the incu3bent 'resident of the 'hilippine5slands. She is personally i3pleaded in this suit as an unwilling copetitionerby reason of her e?press declaration and undertaking under the recentlysigned AS=A1 &harter to protect our 'etitionersE habitat, a3ong others.She is 3eanti3e do3inated as an unwilling copetitioner due to lack of3aterial ti3e in seeking her signature and i3pri3atur hereof and due topossible legal co3plications that 3ay hereafter arise by reason of her officialrelations with public respondents under the alter ego principle in politicallaw."*cralawlawlibraryThis is incorrect.

Section #+, ule 2 of the ules of &ourt provides;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarySec. #+. (n/illing co0plaintiff. 5f the consent of any party who should be>oined as plaintiff can not be obtained, he 3ay be 3ade a defendant and thereason therefor shall be stated in the co3plaint.Dnder the foregoing rule, when the consent of a party who should be >oinedas a plaintiff cannot be obtained, he or she 3ay be 3ade a party defendant

2)


49/119

to the case. This will put the unwilling party under the >urisdiction of the&ourt, which can properly i3plead hi3 or her through its processes. Theunwilling partyEs na3e cannot be si3ply included in a petition, without his orher knowledge and consent, as such would be a denial o

civpro assigned cases 2

Documents