Lawyerly

GR NO. 141593-94

2006-07-12

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

On 21 August 1996, petitioners Berbosos filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review[23] of the Decision dated 1 March 1996 of the Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 5994. This Petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 41568. Again, on 11 October 1996, petitioners Berbosos filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review[24] of the Decision of DARAB Head Office, Quezon City, in DARAB Case No. 1283. This was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 42122. On 3 April 1997, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution[25] which ordered the consolidation of CA-G.R. SP No. 42122 and No. 41568.

GR NO. 141593-94

2006-07-12

MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

On 26 March 1992, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision[17] in CA-G.R. SP No. 20147, denying Emiliano Berboso's Petition for Review, thus:

GR NO. 141593-94

2006-07-12

MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

On 1 March 1996, the Office of the President rendered a Decision[21] reversing and setting aside the Order of DAR Secretary Garilao dated 5 January 1994 and reinstating the Order of the former DAR Secretary Estrella dated 22 January 1975, the dispositive portion of which is reproduced below:

GR NO. 141593-94

2006-07-12

MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In the case at bar, petitioners Berbosos submitted as evidence TCTs No. EP-149-M and No. EP-150-M,[33] issued by the Registry of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan, in their favor, to prove their claim of ownership over the subject lands. However, the manner by which petitioners Berbosos acquired such TCTs is highly irregular, which casts doubt on their validity.

GR NO. 141593-94

2006-07-12

MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It can be recalled that DAR Secretary Garilao issued an Order[36] dated 5 January 1994 granting the Petition filed by petitioners Berbosos for the Cancellation of the Conversion Order[37] dated 22 January 1975 issued by former DAR Secretary Estrella. The Order dated 5 January 1994 declared as null and void, for lack of due process, the Conversion Order because petitioners Berbosos were not notified of the pendency of private respondents Carloses' Application for Conversion Order. It also directed that emancipation patents be issued in the name of petitioners Berbosos.

GR NO. 141593-94

2006-07-12

MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

On 2 February 1994, private respondents Carloses filed a Motion[38] for Reconsideration to Set Aside the Order dated 5 January 1994 contending that they were denied due process since they were not notified of the filing of such a Petition, and that they were denied the opportunity to present their evidence. On 28 January 1994, private respondent JKM likewise filed a Motion to Set Aside the Order dated 5 January 1994[39] alleging that petitioners Berbosos were duly notified of the 22 January 1975 Conversion Order. Furthermore, on 16 February 1994, private respondent JKM filed a Supplement to the Motion to Set Aside[40] the 5 January 1994 Order. All these Motions were, however, denied by the DAR. Subsequently, private respondents Carloses appealed the said denial with the Office of the President, which, in turn, reversed and set aside[41] the 5 January 1994 Order, and reinstated the 22 January 1975 Conversion Order. On 5 November 1999, private respondent JKM filed a Manifestation and Motion[42] with the Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases of CA-G.R. SP No. 41568 and No. 42122, stating that the issuance of TCTs No. EP-149-M and No. EP-150-M to petitioners Berbosos was not made known to it since the Registry of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan, did not send to it a written request requiring the surrender of its owner's duplicate copies of the TCTs covering the subject land for cancellation; that there was no Motion for Execution filed by petitioners Berbosos and no Writ of Execution was issued to implement the 5 January 1994 Order; that its owner's duplicate copies of the TCTs are still in its possession; and that in order to protect its rights over the subject land, it caused the registration of the "Notice of Lis Pendens" on the TCTs No. EP-149-M and No. EP-150-M of petitioners Berbosos with the Registry of Deeds, Meycauayan, Bulacan.

GR NO. 141593-94

2006-07-12

MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Unfortunately, they did not question the Conversion Order dated 22 January 1975 in the manner and within the period stated above. Instead, Emiliano Berboso (acting as successor-in-interest of his deceased father, Macario Berboso, and in representation of his siblings petitioners Berbosos), together with private respondents Carloses, chose to file with the DARAB a Joint Motion to Determine Amount of the Disturbance Compensation on 7 October 1989. When the DARAB rendered a Decision on 18 December 1989 fixing the amount of disturbance compensation due to Emiliano Berboso at P112,644.00, Emiliano Berboso and petitioners Berbosos contested the lawfulness of the said amount by filing a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals. It was only on 9 December 1992, or after 17 years from the issuance of the 22 January 1975 Conversion Order that they questioned the validity of the said Conversion Order when they filed a Petition[46] with the Office of the DAR Secretary for the cancellation of the same. By then, the period for petitioners Berbosos to question the Conversion Order had long since expired. Hence, they are now barred from assailing the said Order under the doctrine of estoppel. Estoppel by laches arises from the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[47] Once final and executory, the Conversion Order can no longer be questioned.[48]

GR NO. 141593-94

2006-07-12

MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Unfortunately, they did not question the Conversion Order dated 22 January 1975 in the manner and within the period stated above. Instead, Emiliano Berboso (acting as successor-in-interest of his deceased father, Macario Berboso, and in representation of his siblings petitioners Berbosos), together with private respondents Carloses, chose to file with the DARAB a Joint Motion to Determine Amount of the Disturbance Compensation on 7 October 1989. When the DARAB rendered a Decision on 18 December 1989 fixing the amount of disturbance compensation due to Emiliano Berboso at P112,644.00, Emiliano Berboso and petitioners Berbosos contested the lawfulness of the said amount by filing a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals. It was only on 9 December 1992, or after 17 years from the issuance of the 22 January 1975 Conversion Order that they questioned the validity of the said Conversion Order when they filed a Petition[46] with the Office of the DAR Secretary for the cancellation of the same. By then, the period for petitioners Berbosos to question the Conversion Order had long since expired. Hence, they are now barred from assailing the said Order under the doctrine of estoppel. Estoppel by laches arises from the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[47] Once final and executory, the Conversion Order can no longer be questioned.[48]

GR NO. 141593-94

2006-07-12

MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

(b) While Administrative Order No. 15 applies to the petition for conversion filed in 1989, Sections IV-H and X-D thereof provide that the one year period commences to run only after the issuance of the development permit by the HLURB. The developer, JKM International Inc., claimed that no permit has yet been issued by the said agency. In view of the non-issuance, the one year deadline could not have operated against the rights of the appellants.[52]

GR NO. 141593-94

2006-07-12

MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

When private respondents Carloses applied for the issuance of the Conversion Order with the DAR in 1973, one of the original tenants in the subject land was petitioners Berbosos' father, Macario Berboso. While the said application is still pending with the DAR, all tenants of private respondents Carloses, including Macario Berboso, were notified and interviewed by DAR Officer Guillermo V. Sta. Ana as regards the said application.[54] All of the said tenants, including Macario Berboso, made written declarations and manifestations with regard to the said application.[55] Despite said notices, Macario Berboso did not initiate any proceedings to contest the processing of the application and the subsequent issuance of the Conversion Order.

GR NO. 155791

2005-03-16

MELBA QUINTO v. DANTE ANDRES

CALLEJO, SR., J.

(b) the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.[27] If a person inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon in such a manner as to put life in jeopardy and death follows as a consequence of their felonious act, it does not alter its nature or diminish its criminality to prove that other causes cooperated in producing the factual result. The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his delictual act caused, accelerated or contributed to the death of the victim.[28] A different doctrine would tend to give immunity to crime and to take away from human life a salutary and essential safeguard.[29] This Court has emphasized that: … Amid the conflicting theories of medical men, and the uncertainties attendant upon the treatment of bodily ailments and injuries, it would be easy in many cases of homicide to raise a doubt as to the immediate cause of death, and thereby to open a wide door by which persons guilty of the highest crime might escape conviction and punishment. …[30] In People v. Quianzon,[31] the Supreme Court held: … The Supreme Court of Spain, in a Decision of April 3, 1879, said in a case similar to the present, the following: Inasmuch as a man is responsible for the consequences of his act and in this case, the physical condition and temperament of the offended party nowise lessen the evil, the seriousness whereof is to be judged, not by the violence of the means employed, but by the result actually produced; and as the wound which the appellant inflicted upon the deceased was the cause which determined his death, without his being able to counteract its effects, it is evident that the act in question should be qualified as homicide, etc.[32] In the present case, the respondents were charged with homicide by dolo. In People v. Delim,[33] the Court delineated the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for homicide or murder: In the case at bar, the prosecution was burdened to prove the corpus delicti which consists of two things: first, the criminal act and second, defendant's agency in the commission of the act. Wharton says that corpus delicti includes two things: first, the objective; second, the subjective element of crimes. In homicide (by dolo) and in murder cases, the prosecution is burdened to prove: (a) the death of the party alleged to be dead; (b) that the death was produced by the criminal act of some other than the deceased and was not the result of accident, natural cause or suicide; and (c) that defendant committed the criminal act or was in some way criminally responsible for the act which produced the death. To prove the felony of homicide or murder, there must be incontrovertible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the victim was deliberately killed (with malice); in other words, that there was intent to kill. Such evidence may consist inter alia in the use of weapons by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim and the words uttered by the malefactors before, at the time or immediately after the killing of the victim. If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactor, intent to kill is conclusively presumed.[34] Insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned, the prosecution or the private complainant is burdened to adduce preponderance of evidence or superior weight of evidence. Although the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is stronger than that presented by the defendant, he is not entitled to a judgment if his evidence is not sufficient to sustain his cause of action. The plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of the defendants'.[35] Section 1, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Evidence provides how preponderance of evidence is determined: Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstance of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.[36] In the present case, we rule that, as held by the trial court and the CA, the prosecution failed to adduce preponderant evidence to prove the facts on which the civil liability of the respondents rest, i.e., that the petitioner has a cause of action against the respondents for damages.

	GR NO. 141593-94 2006-07-12	MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On 21 August 1996, petitioners Berbosos filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review[23] of the Decision dated 1 March 1996 of the Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 5994. This Petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 41568. Again, on 11 October 1996, petitioners Berbosos filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review[24] of the Decision of DARAB Head Office, Quezon City, in DARAB Case No. 1283. This was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 42122. On 3 April 1997, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution[25] which ordered the consolidation of CA-G.R. SP No. 42122 and No. 41568.
	GR NO. 141593-94 2006-07-12	MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On 26 March 1992, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision[17] in CA-G.R. SP No. 20147, denying Emiliano Berboso's Petition for Review, thus:
	GR NO. 141593-94 2006-07-12	MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On 1 March 1996, the Office of the President rendered a Decision[21] reversing and setting aside the Order of DAR Secretary Garilao dated 5 January 1994 and reinstating the Order of the former DAR Secretary Estrella dated 22 January 1975, the dispositive portion of which is reproduced below:
	GR NO. 141593-94 2006-07-12	MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the case at bar, petitioners Berbosos submitted as evidence TCTs No. EP-149-M and No. EP-150-M,[33] issued by the Registry of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan, in their favor, to prove their claim of ownership over the subject lands. However, the manner by which petitioners Berbosos acquired such TCTs is highly irregular, which casts doubt on their validity.
	GR NO. 141593-94 2006-07-12	MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It can be recalled that DAR Secretary Garilao issued an Order[36] dated 5 January 1994 granting the Petition filed by petitioners Berbosos for the Cancellation of the Conversion Order[37] dated 22 January 1975 issued by former DAR Secretary Estrella. The Order dated 5 January 1994 declared as null and void, for lack of due process, the Conversion Order because petitioners Berbosos were not notified of the pendency of private respondents Carloses' Application for Conversion Order. It also directed that emancipation patents be issued in the name of petitioners Berbosos.
	GR NO. 141593-94 2006-07-12	MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On 2 February 1994, private respondents Carloses filed a Motion[38] for Reconsideration to Set Aside the Order dated 5 January 1994 contending that they were denied due process since they were not notified of the filing of such a Petition, and that they were denied the opportunity to present their evidence. On 28 January 1994, private respondent JKM likewise filed a Motion to Set Aside the Order dated 5 January 1994[39] alleging that petitioners Berbosos were duly notified of the 22 January 1975 Conversion Order. Furthermore, on 16 February 1994, private respondent JKM filed a Supplement to the Motion to Set Aside[40] the 5 January 1994 Order. All these Motions were, however, denied by the DAR. Subsequently, private respondents Carloses appealed the said denial with the Office of the President, which, in turn, reversed and set aside[41] the 5 January 1994 Order, and reinstated the 22 January 1975 Conversion Order. On 5 November 1999, private respondent JKM filed a Manifestation and Motion[42] with the Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases of CA-G.R. SP No. 41568 and No. 42122, stating that the issuance of TCTs No. EP-149-M and No. EP-150-M to petitioners Berbosos was not made known to it since the Registry of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan, did not send to it a written request requiring the surrender of its owner's duplicate copies of the TCTs covering the subject land for cancellation; that there was no Motion for Execution filed by petitioners Berbosos and no Writ of Execution was issued to implement the 5 January 1994 Order; that its owner's duplicate copies of the TCTs are still in its possession; and that in order to protect its rights over the subject land, it caused the registration of the "Notice of Lis Pendens" on the TCTs No. EP-149-M and No. EP-150-M of petitioners Berbosos with the Registry of Deeds, Meycauayan, Bulacan.
	GR NO. 141593-94 2006-07-12	MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Unfortunately, they did not question the Conversion Order dated 22 January 1975 in the manner and within the period stated above. Instead, Emiliano Berboso (acting as successor-in-interest of his deceased father, Macario Berboso, and in representation of his siblings petitioners Berbosos), together with private respondents Carloses, chose to file with the DARAB a Joint Motion to Determine Amount of the Disturbance Compensation on 7 October 1989. When the DARAB rendered a Decision on 18 December 1989 fixing the amount of disturbance compensation due to Emiliano Berboso at P112,644.00, Emiliano Berboso and petitioners Berbosos contested the lawfulness of the said amount by filing a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals. It was only on 9 December 1992, or after 17 years from the issuance of the 22 January 1975 Conversion Order that they questioned the validity of the said Conversion Order when they filed a Petition[46] with the Office of the DAR Secretary for the cancellation of the same. By then, the period for petitioners Berbosos to question the Conversion Order had long since expired. Hence, they are now barred from assailing the said Order under the doctrine of estoppel. Estoppel by laches arises from the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[47] Once final and executory, the Conversion Order can no longer be questioned.[48]
	GR NO. 141593-94 2006-07-12	MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Unfortunately, they did not question the Conversion Order dated 22 January 1975 in the manner and within the period stated above. Instead, Emiliano Berboso (acting as successor-in-interest of his deceased father, Macario Berboso, and in representation of his siblings petitioners Berbosos), together with private respondents Carloses, chose to file with the DARAB a Joint Motion to Determine Amount of the Disturbance Compensation on 7 October 1989. When the DARAB rendered a Decision on 18 December 1989 fixing the amount of disturbance compensation due to Emiliano Berboso at P112,644.00, Emiliano Berboso and petitioners Berbosos contested the lawfulness of the said amount by filing a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals. It was only on 9 December 1992, or after 17 years from the issuance of the 22 January 1975 Conversion Order that they questioned the validity of the said Conversion Order when they filed a Petition[46] with the Office of the DAR Secretary for the cancellation of the same. By then, the period for petitioners Berbosos to question the Conversion Order had long since expired. Hence, they are now barred from assailing the said Order under the doctrine of estoppel. Estoppel by laches arises from the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[47] Once final and executory, the Conversion Order can no longer be questioned.[48]
	GR NO. 141593-94 2006-07-12	MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
(b) While Administrative Order No. 15 applies to the petition for conversion filed in 1989, Sections IV-H and X-D thereof provide that the one year period commences to run only after the issuance of the development permit by the HLURB. The developer, JKM International Inc., claimed that no permit has yet been issued by the said agency. In view of the non-issuance, the one year deadline could not have operated against the rights of the appellants.[52]
	GR NO. 141593-94 2006-07-12	MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
When private respondents Carloses applied for the issuance of the Conversion Order with the DAR in 1973, one of the original tenants in the subject land was petitioners Berbosos' father, Macario Berboso. While the said application is still pending with the DAR, all tenants of private respondents Carloses, including Macario Berboso, were notified and interviewed by DAR Officer Guillermo V. Sta. Ana as regards the said application.[54] All of the said tenants, including Macario Berboso, made written declarations and manifestations with regard to the said application.[55] Despite said notices, Macario Berboso did not initiate any proceedings to contest the processing of the application and the subsequent issuance of the Conversion Order.
	GR NO. 155791 2005-03-16	MELBA QUINTO v. DANTE ANDRES CALLEJO, SR., J.
(b) the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.[27] If a person inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon in such a manner as to put life in jeopardy and death follows as a consequence of their felonious act, it does not alter its nature or diminish its criminality to prove that other causes cooperated in producing the factual result. The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his delictual act caused, accelerated or contributed to the death of the victim.[28] A different doctrine would tend to give immunity to crime and to take away from human life a salutary and essential safeguard.[29] This Court has emphasized that: … Amid the conflicting theories of medical men, and the uncertainties attendant upon the treatment of bodily ailments and injuries, it would be easy in many cases of homicide to raise a doubt as to the immediate cause of death, and thereby to open a wide door by which persons guilty of the highest crime might escape conviction and punishment. …[30] In People v. Quianzon,[31] the Supreme Court held: … The Supreme Court of Spain, in a Decision of April 3, 1879, said in a case similar to the present, the following: Inasmuch as a man is responsible for the consequences of his act and in this case, the physical condition and temperament of the offended party nowise lessen the evil, the seriousness whereof is to be judged, not by the violence of the means employed, but by the result actually produced; and as the wound which the appellant inflicted upon the deceased was the cause which determined his death, without his being able to counteract its effects, it is evident that the act in question should be qualified as homicide, etc.[32] In the present case, the respondents were charged with homicide by dolo. In People v. Delim,[33] the Court delineated the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for homicide or murder: In the case at bar, the prosecution was burdened to prove the corpus delicti which consists of two things: first, the criminal act and second, defendant's agency in the commission of the act. Wharton says that corpus delicti includes two things: first, the objective; second, the subjective element of crimes. In homicide (by dolo) and in murder cases, the prosecution is burdened to prove: (a) the death of the party alleged to be dead; (b) that the death was produced by the criminal act of some other than the deceased and was not the result of accident, natural cause or suicide; and (c) that defendant committed the criminal act or was in some way criminally responsible for the act which produced the death. To prove the felony of homicide or murder, there must be incontrovertible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the victim was deliberately killed (with malice); in other words, that there was intent to kill. Such evidence may consist inter alia in the use of weapons by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim and the words uttered by the malefactors before, at the time or immediately after the killing of the victim. If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactor, intent to kill is conclusively presumed.[34] Insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned, the prosecution or the private complainant is burdened to adduce preponderance of evidence or superior weight of evidence. Although the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is stronger than that presented by the defendant, he is not entitled to a judgment if his evidence is not sufficient to sustain his cause of action. The plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of the defendants'.[35] Section 1, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Evidence provides how preponderance of evidence is determined: Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstance of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.[36] In the present case, we rule that, as held by the trial court and the CA, the prosecution failed to adduce preponderant evidence to prove the facts on which the civil liability of the respondents rest, i.e., that the petitioner has a cause of action against the respondents for damages.

PEOPLE v. INOGENTES MOLDES