ASG Law

Tag: Good Faith

  • Understanding Good Faith in Property Purchases: Lessons from a Landmark Philippine Supreme Court Ruling

    The Importance of Due Diligence in Property Transactions

    Spouses German v. Spouses Santuyo and Heirs of Helen Mariano, G.R. No. 210845, January 22, 2020

    Imagine investing your life savings into what you believe is your dream home, only to discover that the property you bought is entangled in a legal dispute. This nightmare scenario became a reality for the German Spouses, who found themselves embroiled in a legal battle over a property they thought was rightfully theirs. The central question in this case revolved around the concept of good faith in property transactions: Can a buyer claim good faith when purchasing property without thoroughly investigating its status, especially when there are clear signs of occupancy?

    In the case of Spouses German v. Spouses Santuyo and Heirs of Helen Mariano, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on the importance of due diligence in property purchases. The key issue was whether the Santuyo Spouses, who bought the property after the Germans, could be considered purchasers in good faith despite the Germans’ prior possession and claim to the property.

    Legal Context: The Principle of Good Faith in Property Law

    In Philippine property law, the concept of good faith is crucial, especially when dealing with registered land. According to the Civil Code, a buyer who registers the property first in good faith gains ownership over it. However, this principle is not absolute. The Supreme Court has established that when circumstances exist that should prompt a buyer to be cautious, they must conduct a thorough investigation.

    Good Faith: In legal terms, good faith refers to the honesty and sincerity of a person’s actions, without any intent to defraud or deceive. For a buyer to be considered in good faith, they must not have knowledge of any defects or issues with the property’s title.

    Article 1544 of the Civil Code: This article governs the situation of double sales, where the same property is sold to different buyers. It states that ownership goes to the person who first registers the property in good faith, or if not registered, to the person who first took possession in good faith.

    Relevant Case Law: In Spouses Vallido v. Spouses Pono, the Supreme Court emphasized that the presence of occupants on the property should prompt a buyer to investigate further, rather than relying solely on the certificate of title. This ruling underscores the need for due diligence in property transactions.

    Case Breakdown: The Journey of Spouses German and Santuyo

    The saga began in 1985 when the German Spouses started occupying a 400-square meter lot in Naga City as lessees. In 1986, the property’s registered owners, the Bautista Spouses, sold it to the Mariano Spouses, who then sold it to the Germans on the same day. However, the Germans’ full payment in 1988 did not result in the execution of the final Deed of Sale by the Marianos.

    In 1991, the Bautista Spouses sold the same property to the Santuyo Spouses, who registered it under their name in 1992. This led to a series of legal battles, culminating in the Supreme Court’s decision.

    The Regional Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the Germans, declaring the sale to the Santuyos void and ordering the cancellation of their title. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, stating that the Santuyos were purchasers in good faith because they relied on the certificate of title.

    The Supreme Court, however, found that the Santuyos were not in good faith. The Court noted:

    “When circumstances are present that should prompt a potential buyer of registered real property to be on guard, it is expected that they inquire first into the status of the property and not merely rely on the face of the certificate of title.”

    The Court highlighted the Germans’ continuous possession of the property, which should have alerted the Santuyos to investigate further:

    “The claim of defendants Santuyo cannot prevail upon the plaintiffs Germans who first acquired and possessed the property from spouses Mariano after the latter has bought the land from the Bautistas.”

    The involvement of Helen Mariano, who was related to Editha Santuyo and actively participated in the 1991 sale, further cast doubt on the Santuyos’ good faith.

    Practical Implications: Lessons for Property Buyers and Sellers

    This ruling underscores the importance of due diligence in property transactions. Buyers must not only rely on the certificate of title but should also investigate the property’s physical condition and any occupants. This case may influence future property disputes, emphasizing the need for thorough investigation before purchase.

    Key Lessons:

    • Always conduct an ocular inspection of the property to check for any occupants or signs of use.
    • Verify the extent of any occupant’s possessory rights and investigate any potential claims to the property.
    • Be cautious of transactions involving family members or related parties, as they may indicate prior knowledge of issues with the property.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is considered good faith in property purchases?

    Good faith in property purchases means that the buyer does not have knowledge of any defects or issues with the property’s title and acts without intent to defraud or deceive.

    How can I ensure I am purchasing property in good faith?

    To ensure you are purchasing in good faith, conduct a thorough investigation of the property, including an ocular inspection, and verify the seller’s title and any potential claims by occupants.

    What should I do if I find occupants on the property I am interested in buying?

    If you find occupants on the property, inquire about their possessory rights and the nature of their occupancy. This may involve speaking with the occupants and reviewing any documentation related to their claim.

    Can a property be sold to multiple buyers?

    Yes, a property can be sold to multiple buyers, but the Civil Code provides rules for resolving such double sales, prioritizing the buyer who first registers the property in good faith.

    What are the risks of not conducting due diligence in property transactions?

    Failing to conduct due diligence can lead to legal disputes over ownership, financial loss, and the inability to claim good faith as a defense in court.

    How can I protect myself from fraudulent property sales?

    To protect yourself, work with a reputable real estate lawyer, conduct thorough investigations, and be wary of deals that seem too good to be true.

    ASG Law specializes in property law and real estate transactions. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Negotiable Instruments: Upholding Holder in Due Course Rights Despite Stop Payment Orders

    This Supreme Court case clarifies the liabilities of parties involved in negotiable instruments, particularly when a stop payment order is issued. The Court ruled that a bank, as the drawer of a negotiable demand draft, remains liable to a holder in due course, even if payment was stopped at the request of the payee. This decision reinforces the principle that stopping payment does not discharge the drawer’s liability to a legitimate holder and underscores the importance of upholding the integrity of negotiable instruments in commercial transactions. This ruling emphasizes the importance of due diligence and the legal protections afforded to parties who acquire negotiable instruments in good faith.

    Casino Chips and Legal Wagers: Who Pays When the Music Stops?

    This case originated from a dispute between Star City Pty Limited (SCPL), an Australian casino, and Quintin Artacho Llorente, a casino patron. Llorente negotiated two Equitable PCI Bank (EPCIB) drafts totaling US$300,000 to participate in SCPL’s Premium Programme. After playing, Llorente stopped payment on the drafts, alleging fraudulent gaming practices. SCPL sued Llorente and EPCIB to recover the amount of the drafts. The central legal question revolves around whether EPCIB, as the drawer of the drafts, remains liable to SCPL, who claims to be a holder in due course, despite Llorente’s stop payment order and a subsequent indemnity agreement between Llorente and EPCIB.

    The legal framework for this case rests primarily on the **Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL)**, which governs the rights and liabilities of parties involved in negotiable instruments. A crucial aspect is whether SCPL qualifies as a **holder in due course**. Section 52 of the NIL defines a holder in due course as one who takes the instrument under the following conditions: that it is complete and regular on its face; that he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonored, if such was the fact; that he took it in good faith and for value; and that at the time it was negotiated to him, he had no notice of any infirmity or defect in the title of the person negotiating it.

    The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) finding that SCPL was indeed a holder in due course. The CA reasoned that SCPL took the drafts in good faith and for value, as Llorente used them to participate in the casino’s Premium Programme. The CA further stated that SCPL had no notice of any defect in Llorente’s title at the time of negotiation. This finding is significant because a holder in due course enjoys certain protections under the NIL, including the right to enforce payment against all parties liable on the instrument.

    However, the CA absolved EPCIB from liability, citing an Indemnity Agreement between EPCIB and Llorente, where EPCIB reimbursed Llorente for the face value of the drafts. The CA reasoned that holding EPCIB liable would result in unjust enrichment for Llorente. The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA’s decision to absolve EPCIB. The Court emphasized that EPCIB, as the drawer of the drafts, had a secondary liability under Section 61 of the NIL. This section states:

    Sec. 61. Liability of drawer. – The drawer by drawing the instrument admits the existence of the payee and his then capacity to indorse; and engages that, on due presentment, the instrument will be accepted or paid, or both, according to its tenor, and that if it be dishonored and the necessary proceedings on dishonor be duly taken, he will pay the amount thereof to the holder or to any subsequent indorser who may be compelled to pay it. But the drawer may insert in the instrument an express stipulation negativing or limiting his own liability to the holder.

    The Court further explained that while the drawer’s liability is generally secondary, it becomes primary when payment is stopped. The act of stopping payment is equivalent to dishonoring the instrument, thus triggering the drawer’s obligation to pay the holder. Therefore, Llorente’s stop payment order did not discharge EPCIB’s liability to SCPL.

    The Court also addressed the CA’s reliance on the Indemnity Agreement. It noted that the Indemnity Agreement was not formally offered as evidence and, even if it were, it would only be binding between Llorente and EPCIB, not SCPL. According to Article 1311 of the Civil Code, contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns, and heirs, except in cases where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law.

    Building on this principle, the Court found that applying the principle of unjust enrichment in favor of EPCIB was improper. The unjust enrichment principle, as embodied in Article 22 of the Civil Code, states that every person who through an act or performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him. The party who benefited from the reimbursement was Llorente, not SCPL. The court held that the recourse of EPCIB would be against Llorente, stating:

    Thus, if EPCIB is made liable on the subject demand/bank drafts, it has a recourse against the indemnity bond. To be sure, the posting of the indemnity bond required by EPCIB of Llorente is in effect an admission of his liability to SCPL and the provision in the Whereas clause that: “On 27 July 2002, Claimant [(Llorente)] applied for and executed a Stop Payment Order (SPO) on the two drafts, citing as reason that the drafts he issued/negotiated to Star Casino exceeded the amount he was [obliged] to pay” may be taken against him to weaken his allegation of fraud and unfair gaming practices against SCPL.

    The decision also clarified the nature of EPCIB’s liability, stating that the liability of EPCIB is not solidary but primary due to the SPO that Llorente issued against the subject demand/bank drafts. Consequently both Llorente and EPCIB are individually and primarily liable as endorser and drawer of the subject demand/bank drafts, respectively. Given the nature of their liability, SCPL may proceed to collect the damages simultaneously against both Llorente and EPCIB, or alternatively against either Llorente or EPCIB, provided that in no event can SCPL recover from both more than the damages awarded.

    The Supreme Court thus reinstated the RTC’s decision with modification, holding both Llorente and EPCIB individually and primarily liable to SCPL. The Court also modified the interest rates on the monetary awards, aligning them with prevailing jurisprudence. The outcome underscores the importance of honoring obligations arising from negotiable instruments and upholding the rights of holders in due course.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the bank (EPCIB), as the drawer of negotiable drafts, remained liable to the casino (SCPL), a holder in due course, despite a stop payment order issued by the payee (Llorente).
    What is a holder in due course? A holder in due course is someone who acquires a negotiable instrument in good faith, for value, and without notice of any defects or defenses against it. This status grants certain protections and rights under the Negotiable Instruments Law.
    What is the liability of a drawer of a negotiable instrument? The drawer of a negotiable instrument, like a check or draft, has a secondary liability to pay the instrument if it is dishonored, provided that proper notice of dishonor is given. However, this liability becomes primary when the drawer stops payment on the instrument.
    What is the effect of a stop payment order on the drawer’s liability? A stop payment order does not discharge the drawer’s liability to a holder in due course. It is equivalent to dishonoring the instrument, triggering the drawer’s obligation to pay.
    What is the significance of the Indemnity Agreement in this case? The Indemnity Agreement between EPCIB and Llorente was deemed not binding on SCPL because SCPL was not a party to the agreement. Moreover, this agreement was not properly presented as evidence in court.
    What is the principle of unjust enrichment, and how does it apply here? Unjust enrichment occurs when someone benefits at the expense of another without just or legal ground. The Court found that applying this principle in favor of EPCIB was improper because the party who benefited from the reimbursement was Llorente, not SCPL.
    What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court held both Llorente and EPCIB liable to SCPL, albeit not solidarily. It reinstated the RTC’s decision with modification, ordering them to pay the amount of the drafts plus interest and attorney’s fees.
    What recourse does EPCIB have, given the ruling? EPCIB has a cross-claim against Llorente and can seek reimbursement from him, pursuant to the indemnity clause in their Indemnity Agreement.

    This case serves as a reminder of the legal obligations associated with negotiable instruments and the importance of upholding the rights of holders in due course. It underscores the principle that parties cannot evade their responsibilities by issuing stop payment orders or entering into private agreements that prejudice the rights of third parties. This ensures stability and predictability in commercial transactions involving negotiable instruments.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Quintin Artacho Llorente vs. Star City Pty Limited, G.R. No. 212216, January 15, 2020

  • Usurpation of Authority: Delineating Official Functions and Good Faith in Public Office

    The Supreme Court, in Roel R. Degamo v. Office of the Ombudsman and Mario L. Relampagos, affirmed the Ombudsman’s dismissal of a complaint for usurpation of authority against a public official. The Court emphasized that for usurpation to exist, there must be a clear act of knowingly and falsely representing oneself as having authority one does not possess; acting under the instruction of a superior, within delegated powers, does not constitute usurpation. This decision clarifies the boundaries of official functions and the importance of demonstrating bad faith in charges of usurpation.

    The Withdrawn Funds: Did an Undersecretary Overstep or Act in Good Faith?

    This case revolves around Negros Oriental Governor Roel R. Degamo’s complaint against Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Undersecretary Mario L. Relampagos for Usurpation of Authority. The heart of the matter lies in Relampagos’s withdrawal of a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) intended for the province’s rehabilitation after Typhoon Sendong and a major earthquake. Degamo argued that Relampagos, in withdrawing the SARO, acted without proper authority and effectively usurped the powers of the President and the Executive Secretary. This prompted a legal battle scrutinizing the limits of delegated authority and the definitions of official misconduct.

    The legal framework for this case hinges on Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes both usurpation of authority and usurpation of official functions. Usurpation of authority involves knowingly and falsely representing oneself as an officer, agent, or representative of the government. Usurpation of official functions, on the other hand, entails performing an act pertaining to a public officer under pretense of official position without being lawfully entitled to do so. The distinction is critical, as the elements of each crime differ significantly, impacting the burden of proof and potential defenses.

    The Supreme Court began by emphasizing its policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause. As the Court stated in Dichaves v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al.:

    As a general rule, this Court does not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman’s exercise of its constitutional mandate. Both the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) give the Ombudsman wide latitude to act on criminal complaints against public officials and government employees. The rule on non-interference is based on the respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman.

    The Court reiterated that only a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion would warrant judicial intervention. Grave abuse of discretion implies an exercise of power in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner. Absent such a showing, the Court defers to the Ombudsman’s judgment.

    In analyzing the charge of usurpation of authority, the Court focused on whether Relampagos had falsely and knowingly represented himself as having presidential authority. The Court found that Relampagos, as DBM Undersecretary for Operations, signed the withdrawal letter “By Authority of the Secretary.” This indicated that he was acting under delegated authority, not misrepresenting himself as the President or Executive Secretary. The essence of usurpation of authority lies in the malicious misrepresentation of one’s status or powers, which was absent in this case.

    Turning to the charge of usurpation of official functions, the Court examined whether Relampagos performed an act pertaining to a public officer without being lawfully entitled to do so. The critical issue was whether Relampagos had the authority to withdraw the SARO. Relampagos argued that he acted under the instructions of DBM Secretary Abad, who in turn was acting on the verbal instruction of the President and in compliance with the 2012 General Appropriations Act. The Court considered the principle of qualified political agency, under which department secretaries may act for and on behalf of the President in matters within their respective departments.

    The Court also took into account Department Order No. 2011-11, which specifically authorized Relampagos to sign documents on behalf of the Secretary, including SAROs, Notices of Cash Allocation, and letters to agencies. This delegation of authority further supported Relampagos’s claim that he acted lawfully. The petitioner failed to prove that the respondent’s actions were not within the authority granted to him.

    Moreover, the Court emphasized the importance of good faith as a defense against usurpation charges, citing Ruzol v. Sandiganbayan. The Court found no evidence that Relampagos acted in bad faith. On the contrary, the Court noted that it was Degamo who appeared to have acted in bad faith by proceeding with infrastructure projects despite the withdrawal of the SARO and the directive to return the funds. The absence of bad faith on Relampagos’s part further undermined the claim of usurpation.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against Relampagos. The Court affirmed the Ombudsman’s findings, emphasizing the importance of delegated authority, the absence of malicious misrepresentation, and the presence of good faith in evaluating charges of usurpation of authority and official functions.

    FAQs

    What is usurpation of authority? Usurpation of authority occurs when someone knowingly and falsely represents themselves as an officer or agent of the government. It involves malicious misrepresentation of one’s official capacity.
    What is usurpation of official functions? Usurpation of official functions involves performing an act that pertains to a public officer, under pretense of official position, without legal entitlement. This means acting as if one has the authority to perform a specific function when they do not.
    What was the central issue in the Degamo v. Relampagos case? The central issue was whether Undersecretary Relampagos usurped authority by withdrawing a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) for Negros Oriental. Governor Degamo claimed Relampagos acted without proper authority.
    What is a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO)? A SARO is a document issued by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) authorizing an agency to incur obligations for specific projects or purposes. It essentially sets aside funds for a particular use.
    What is the doctrine of qualified political agency? The doctrine of qualified political agency allows department secretaries to act for and on behalf of the President on matters within their departments. This assumes that the President has delegated certain powers to the department secretaries.
    What role did “good faith” play in the Supreme Court’s decision? The Supreme Court emphasized that good faith is a valid defense in usurpation cases. Since Relampagos appeared to act on instructions and without malicious intent, the element of bad faith necessary for conviction was absent.
    How did the Court view Degamo’s actions in this case? The Court noted that Degamo proceeded with projects despite the withdrawal of the SARO, which the Court viewed as a possible indication of bad faith on his part.
    What is the significance of Department Order No. 2011-11? Department Order No. 2011-11 authorized Relampagos to sign documents on behalf of the DBM Secretary, including SAROs. This delegation of authority was a key factor in the Court’s finding that Relampagos acted lawfully.

    This case underscores the importance of understanding the scope of delegated authority and the need to demonstrate malicious intent in charges of usurpation. Public officials acting within their delegated powers and in good faith are protected from such accusations. This ruling provides clarity on the boundaries of official functions and serves as a reminder of the need for clear evidence of wrongdoing in prosecuting public officials.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Degamo v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212416, December 05, 2018

  • The High Cost of Good Intentions: When Government Employee Incentives Violate the Law

    The Supreme Court ruled that government employees must return benefits received without proper legal basis, regardless of good faith. This decision underscores the importance of strict compliance with government regulations in disbursing public funds. It clarifies that ignorance or good intentions do not excuse the unlawful receipt of allowances and incentives, reinforcing accountability in public service and protecting taxpayer money.

    BulSU’s Incentive Award: A Case of Misplaced Generosity or Legal Overreach?

    This case revolves around the Commission on Audit’s (COA) disallowance of an Accomplishment Incentive Award granted to officials and employees of Bulacan State University (BulSU). The BulSU Board of Regents (BoR) authorized the award to recognize employees’ contributions to the university’s excellence in education, sports, and culture. However, COA found the award to be irregular and without legal basis, leading to a demand for the recipients to return the disbursed funds. The central legal question is whether the award was a legitimate use of BulSU’s Special Trust Fund (STF) and whether the employees should be held liable for its return.

    The COA based its disallowance on several grounds, including Article IX-B, Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that no additional emoluments, perquisites, or allowances shall be granted to government officials or employees unless authorized by law. They also cited Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6758, the Salary Standardization Law, which aims to standardize compensation across government entities. Additionally, COA relied on COA Circular No. 2013-003, reiterating the audit disallowance of payments without legal basis. The COA argued that the Accomplishment Incentive Award did not fall under any legally authorized category of allowances or benefits.

    The petitioners, consisting of both officials and employees of BulSU, argued that the award was a valid use of the STF under Section 4(d) of R.A. No. 8292, the Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997. They contended that this law empowers the BoR to use the STF for instruction, research, extension, or any other program or project. They argued that the incentive was directly linked to the university’s programs and projects, as it motivated employees to contribute to the university’s goals. Furthermore, the petitioners claimed they acted in good faith, believing the payment was authorized under existing rules and regulations.

    The Supreme Court sided with the COA, emphasizing its constitutional mandate to ensure the proper use of government funds. The Court stated that it would not interfere with COA’s audit powers unless there was a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Court found no such abuse in this case, agreeing that the Accomplishment Incentive Award lacked legal basis. The Court emphasized that Section 4(d) of R.A. No. 8292 provides that STF shall only be used for expenditures pertaining to the basic and primary objectives of state universities and colleges to attain quality education. As such, the STF cannot be used for the payment of the Accomplishment Incentive Award, which is not part of BulSU’s academic program.

    The Court clarified that the phrase “other programs/projects” in Section 4(d) must be interpreted in line with the principle of ejusdem generis. This principle dictates that general words following specific ones are limited to things similar to those specifically enumerated. Thus, “other programs/projects” must relate to instruction, research, and extension, which the incentive award did not. The Court also rejected the petitioners’ reliance on COA Circular No. 2000-002, as this circular only applies to “authorized” allowances and benefits, which the incentive award was not.

    Crucially, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that recipients of illegally disbursed funds must return them, regardless of good faith. The Court quoted Article 22 of the Civil Code, stating that “[e]very person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.” This principle of unjust enrichment applies when a person is unjustly benefited at the expense of another.

    Moreover, the Court emphasized that even a mistaken belief in entitlement does not excuse the obligation to return the funds. The Court declared that payees are considered trustees of the disallowed amounts. The Court held that it is against equity and good conscience for them to continue holding on to benefits they received without legal basis. The Court stated that government entities and institutions are called to temper their propensity in granting benefits and allowances indiscriminately, in order to avoid the wastage of government resources. Public funds are in no way vast and unlimited, and thus, disbursement officers are called to be more prudent and circumspect in handling public funds. Any and all amounts illegally received must be returned to the government coffers.

    Specifically addressing the procedural issues, the Court upheld COA’s dismissal of the officials’ petition for review due to late filing. The Court noted that appeals must be filed within the prescribed period, and failure to do so renders the decision final and executory. In contrast, the Court excused the employees’ failure to file a motion for reconsideration, as the issues raised were already addressed by the COA. However, this procedural leniency did not affect the Court’s substantive ruling on the illegality of the incentive award.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the Accomplishment Incentive Award granted to BulSU employees was a valid use of the university’s Special Trust Fund and whether the recipients were obligated to return the disallowed amounts.
    Why did the COA disallow the incentive award? The COA disallowed the award because it lacked legal basis, contravened the Salary Standardization Law, and did not fall within the authorized uses of the Special Trust Fund under R.A. No. 8292.
    What was BulSU’s justification for granting the award? BulSU argued that the award was a valid use of the Special Trust Fund under Section 4(d) of R.A. No. 8292, as an incentive to employees for contributing to the university’s goals.
    What does ejusdem generis mean, and how did it apply in this case? Ejusdem generis is a principle of statutory construction that limits general words following specific ones to things similar to those specifically enumerated. The Court used it to interpret “other programs/projects” in R.A. No. 8292 as relating to instruction, research, and extension.
    Does good faith excuse the recipients from returning the funds? No, the Supreme Court ruled that good faith does not excuse the obligation to return illegally disbursed funds. Recipients are considered trustees of the amounts and must return them to prevent unjust enrichment.
    What is the significance of Article 22 of the Civil Code in this case? Article 22 of the Civil Code establishes the principle of unjust enrichment, requiring those who acquire something at another’s expense without just or legal ground to return it.
    What procedural issues were raised in the case? The officials’ petition was dismissed for late filing, while the employees’ failure to file a motion for reconsideration was excused because the issues were already addressed by the COA.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling for government employees? Government employees must be vigilant in ensuring that any benefits or allowances they receive have a clear legal basis. They may be required to return funds received without proper authorization, regardless of good faith.

    This case serves as a stern reminder to government entities and employees alike: compliance with legal requirements in disbursing and receiving public funds is paramount. It highlights the importance of due diligence and the potential financial consequences of overlooking established regulations. Moving forward, government institutions must exercise greater prudence in granting benefits and allowances, ensuring that all disbursements are firmly grounded in law.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Jessica M. Chozas, et al. v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 226319, October 8, 2019

  • Encroachment and Good Faith: Landowner Rights and Builder Protection Under Philippine Law

    In Sps. Yu v. Topacio, Jr., the Supreme Court addressed the rights and obligations of landowners and builders in cases of encroachment. The Court held that while a landowner has the right to recover possession of their property, a builder in good faith is entitled to protection under Article 448 of the Civil Code. This means the landowner must choose between paying for the improvements or requiring the builder to purchase the land, ensuring fairness and preventing unjust enrichment.

    When Titles Collide: Resolving Disputes Over Encroached Land

    This case began with a dispute over land in Dasmarinas, Cavite. Eulogio Topacio, Jr., claimed that Spouses Ernesto and Elsie Yu had encroached on his property, Lot 7402-E, covered by TCT No. T-348422. Topacio filed a suit for quieting of title, recovery of possession, and reconveyance, arguing that the spouses’ title, TCT No. T-490552, was invalid. The Spouses Yu countered that they had purchased their land from Spouses Martinez, who in turn acquired it from the Bureau of Lands in 1989. They asserted good faith, claiming they had conducted a relocation survey before building a fence and house on the property.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed Topacio’s complaint, finding no evidence of fraud in the spouses’ title. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, ordering the Spouses Yu to vacate the encroached area and pay compensation. The CA relied on a verification survey that showed the spouses’ structure was inside Topacio’s property. The Supreme Court then took up the case to resolve the conflicting claims and determine the appropriate remedies.

    The Supreme Court clarified the distinct remedies sought by Topacio: quieting of title, recovery of possession, and reconveyance. An action for **quieting of title** aims to remove any cloud or doubt on the title of real property. Articles 476 and 477 of the Civil Code govern this, requiring the plaintiff to have legal or equitable title and demonstrate that the adverse claim is invalid. As the Court explained:

    ART. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

    An action for **recovery of possession**, or *reinvindicatoria*, requires the plaintiff to prove both ownership and the identity of the property. Article 434 of the Civil Code emphasizes that the plaintiff must rely on the strength of their own title rather than the weakness of the defendant’s claim. Meanwhile, an action for **reconveyance** is available to a rightful landowner whose property was wrongfully registered in another’s name. The plaintiff must prove their ownership and the defendant’s fraudulent or erroneous registration.

    Building on this principle, the Court agreed with the lower courts that Topacio’s action to quiet title must fail. Topacio could not prove that TCT No. T-490552, held by the Spouses Yu, was invalid or ineffective. The spouses were able to trace the origin of their title to a sale from the Bureau of Lands. Furthermore, Topacio presented no evidence of fraud in the acquisition of the title by the Spouses Yu. As a result, no reconveyance in favor of Topacio could be ordered by the Court.

    However, the Court upheld the CA’s decision to grant Topacio’s action for recovery of possession, emphasizing the importance of the survey report prepared by Engr. Tañola of the CENRO. Despite the spouses’ objections, the Court found no reason to disregard the survey’s findings. The Court noted that the survey was conducted with the participation of all parties and the surveyor was a government official whose acts were presumed regular. The survey clearly showed that the structure of Spouses Yu was inside the property of Topacio.

    Significantly, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of good faith. The Court found that the Spouses Yu were builders in good faith, honestly believing they had the right to build on the property based on their title. The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the validity of one’s right, ignorance of a superior claim, and absence of intention to overreach another. Because of the good faith nature of the encroachment, the Court then applied Article 448 of the Civil Code, which governs the rights and obligations of landowners and builders in good faith:

    ART. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.

    The Court emphasized that the choice between appropriating the improvements or obliging the builder to pay for the land belongs to the landowner. Additionally, the Court deleted the award of damages and attorney’s fees, finding no bad faith on the part of the Spouses Yu. The Supreme Court’s decision balances the rights of landowners and the protections afforded to builders in good faith, ensuring fairness and preventing unjust enrichment in property disputes.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was determining the rights and obligations of a landowner when a builder in good faith encroaches on their property. The Court had to decide whether the landowner was entitled to recovery of possession and how Article 448 of the Civil Code should be applied.
    What is an action for quieting of title? An action for quieting of title is a legal remedy to remove any cloud or doubt on the title of real property. It aims to ensure the peaceful enjoyment and disposition of one’s property by addressing adverse claims or encumbrances.
    What is the significance of Article 448 of the Civil Code? Article 448 of the Civil Code governs the rights and obligations of landowners and builders in good faith. It provides options for the landowner to either appropriate the improvements after paying indemnity or to oblige the builder to purchase the land.
    What does it mean to be a builder in good faith? A builder in good faith is someone who builds on land believing they have a right to do so, without knowledge of any defect or flaw in their title. Good faith implies an honest intention and absence of fraudulent behavior.
    What is the effect of a Torrens title? A Torrens title is generally conclusive evidence of ownership of the land referred to therein. It carries a strong presumption of regularity and validity, and is considered indefeasible in the absence of fraud or other serious defects.
    What is an action for recovery of possession (reinvindicatoria)? An action for recovery of possession (reinvindicatoria) is a lawsuit filed by a landowner to recover possession of their property from someone who is unlawfully occupying it. The plaintiff must prove both ownership and the identity of the property being claimed.
    What factors did the court consider in determining good faith? The court considered whether the Spouses Yu had an honest belief in the validity of their right to possess the property, whether they were ignorant of any superior claim, and whether they acted without any intention to overreach another. Their reliance on their Torrens title and the absence of evidence of fraud were key factors.
    How did the court address the conflicting claims of ownership? The court relied on the survey report prepared by a government surveyor, which indicated that the Spouses Yu’s structure was located within Topacio’s property. The court gave weight to this report due to the surveyor’s official capacity and the participation of all parties in the survey.

    The Sps. Yu v. Topacio, Jr. case provides a comprehensive overview of the remedies available in property disputes involving encroachment and clarifies the application of Article 448 of the Civil Code. It underscores the importance of good faith in construction and the options available to landowners when faced with encroachments. The decision highlights the necessity of obtaining accurate surveys and verifying property boundaries before undertaking construction to avoid potential conflicts.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: SPS. ERNESTO V. YU AND ELSIE YU v. EULOGIO A. TOPACIO, JR., G.R. No. 216024, September 18, 2019

  • Encroachment and Good Faith: Resolving Land Disputes Under Philippine Law

    In Sps. Ernesto V. Yu and Elsie Yu vs. Eulogio A. Topacio, Jr., the Supreme Court addressed the complexities of land ownership disputes, specifically focusing on encroachment and good faith. The Court ruled that while a party’s title to a property may be valid, their physical possession of a portion belonging to another requires resolution under Article 448 of the Civil Code. This means the landowner whose property was encroached upon can choose to either appropriate the improvements by paying indemnity or require the encroacher to purchase the land.

    Overlapping Claims: When Good Faith Encounters Land Boundaries

    This case originated from an Amended Complaint filed by Eulogio A. Topacio, Jr., seeking to quiet title, recover possession, and secure reconveyance of land from spouses Ernesto V. Yu and Elsie Yu. Topacio claimed that the spouses Yu’s title cast a cloud on his own, leading to the legal battle. The central issue revolved around conflicting claims to parcels of land in Barangay Paliparan, Dasmarinas, Cavite. Topacio asserted ownership over Lot 7402-E covered by TCT No. T-348422, while the spouses Yu based their claim on TCT No. T-490552. The dispute highlighted the intricacies of land titles and the legal remedies available to landowners in the Philippines.

    The spouses Yu countered that they acquired their property from spouses Asislo Martinez and Norma Linatoc through an Absolute Deed of Sale dated June 10, 1994. Their predecessors, the spouses Martinez, had obtained the land from the Bureau of Lands on June 9, 1989, evidenced by Sales Certificate No. 1793, Deed No. V-70973. A relocation survey was conducted before the purchase to ascertain the property’s boundaries, further solidifying their belief in their rightful ownership. After the sale, the spouses Yu took possession, exercised dominion, and diligently paid real estate taxes, reinforcing their claim.

    To resolve the conflicting claims, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Topacio’s Motion for Joint Survey. A survey team from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of Trece Martirez City, led by Geodetic Engineer Ramoncito Tañola, conducted a verification survey on April 22, 2009. The survey revealed that while both properties shared a common point (Mon. 79), plotting their respective tie lines showed they were approximately 1,526 meters apart. Crucially, the survey indicated that the structure claimed by the spouses Yu, covering 450 square meters, was situated within Topacio’s property.

    The RTC initially dismissed Topacio’s Complaint, stating that there was insufficient proof that the spouses Yu obtained their title fraudulently. According to the RTC, since no fraud was established, there was no instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that constituted a cloud of doubt upon Topacio’s title. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC’s ruling, ordering the spouses Yu to vacate Topacio’s property, remove any improvements, and pay reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the land. The CA’s decision led to the Supreme Court review.

    The Supreme Court clarified the distinct actions involved in the case, particularly quieting of title and recovery of possession. An action for quieting of title aims to determine the respective rights of the complainant and other claimants. Articles 476 and 477 of the Civil Code provide the legal basis for such actions, allowing the removal of any cloud on the title. The Supreme Court emphasized that for an action for recovery of possession to succeed, the plaintiff must fully prove both ownership and the identity of the property claimed. This is governed by Article 434 of the Civil Code, which requires the plaintiff to rely on the strength of their title rather than the weakness of the defendant’s claim.

    ART. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

    Building on this principle, the Court found no error in the CA’s ruling that Topacio’s action for quieting of title was unavailing. To succeed in such an action, the plaintiff must prove both legal or equitable title in the property and that the claim casting a cloud on the title is invalid. While Topacio proved his legal title, he failed to demonstrate that the spouses Yu’s title was invalid or ineffective. The spouses Yu presented a valid chain of ownership, tracing their title back to a Sales Certificate from the Bureau of Lands. There was also no evidence of fraud in the procurement of their TCT, reinforcing its validity. Absent such evidence, the Court found no basis to invalidate TCT No. T-490552 issued in favor of the spouses Yu.

    The Supreme Court addressed the spouses Yu’s concerns regarding the verification survey conducted by Engr. Tañola. Despite their claims of irregularities, the Court upheld the CA’s reliance on the survey results. Engr. Tañola’s appointment was court-ordered, and the survey was attended by all parties and their representatives. As a government official from DENR/CENRO, Engr. Tañola’s actions are presumed to be regular, and the spouses Yu’s evidence was insufficient to overcome this presumption. Based on the survey and the technical descriptions of the properties, the Court concluded that the two certificates of title covered different parcels of land, negating the claim of double registration.

    That based on the actual verification survey the property claimed by Sps. Ernesto V. Yu and Elsie Yu with existing structure and with the total area of 450 square is inside the property of Eulogio A. Topacio, Jr. covered by Lot 7402-E, Psd-042106-054870.

    While the Court rejected Topacio’s actions for quieting of title and reconveyance, it upheld his right to recover possession of the encroached property. The survey revealed that the spouses Yu were physically occupying a portion of Topacio’s land, despite their valid title covering a different area. The Supreme Court agreed with the CA’s assessment that the spouses Yu had taken possession of land not described in their Torrens title, resulting in a physical encroachment on Topacio’s property. As the rightful owner of the encroached land, Topacio was entitled to seek recovery of its full possession.

    The Court, however, acknowledged that the spouses Yu acted in good faith when they possessed the disputed property. They genuinely believed in the validity of their right to possess the land based on their title. The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the validity of one’s right, ignorance of a superior claim, and absence of intention to overreach another. The spouses Yu were unaware of any flaw in their title or mode of acquisition that invalidated their claim. Given their good faith, the Court applied Article 448 of the Civil Code, which governs the rights and obligations of a builder in good faith on land owned by another.

    ART. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.

    Under Article 448, Topacio, as the landowner, has the option to either appropriate the improvements made by the spouses Yu by paying the proper indemnity or oblige them to pay the price of the land. If the land’s value is considerably more than that of the improvements, the spouses Yu shall pay reasonable rent if Topacio does not choose to appropriate the improvements. The choice belongs to the landowner. Consequently, the Supreme Court deleted the award of damages in favor of Topacio and the award of attorney’s fees, noting the absence of bad faith on the part of the spouses Yu.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the spouses Yu encroached on Topacio’s land, and what remedies were available given the good faith of the spouses Yu. The case involved conflicting land claims and the application of Article 448 of the Civil Code.
    What is an action for quieting of title? An action for quieting of title is a legal remedy to remove any cloud or doubt on the title to real property. It aims to ensure that the rightful owner can enjoy their property without fear of disturbance from adverse claims.
    What does it mean to be a builder in good faith? A builder in good faith is someone who builds on land believing they have a right to do so, unaware of any defect in their title or mode of acquisition. Good faith implies an honest intention and absence of fraudulent behavior.
    What are the rights of a landowner when someone builds in good faith on their property? Under Article 448 of the Civil Code, the landowner can choose to appropriate the improvements by paying indemnity or oblige the builder to purchase the land. If the land is more valuable, the builder pays rent if the landowner doesn’t want the improvements.
    Why was Topacio’s action for quieting of title not successful? Topacio failed to prove that the spouses Yu’s title was invalid or ineffective, which is a requirement for a successful action for quieting of title. The spouses Yu presented a valid chain of ownership and there was no evidence of fraud.
    What was the significance of the survey in this case? The survey established that the spouses Yu were physically occupying a portion of Topacio’s land, even though their title covered a different area. This finding was crucial in determining the encroachment and the applicable remedies.
    What is the effect of a Torrens title? A Torrens title serves as conclusive evidence of ownership of the land referred to, providing strong legal protection to the titleholder. It is generally presumed to be regularly issued and valid.
    What is the legal basis for recovering possession of property? The right to recover possession is based on Article 434 of the Civil Code, which requires the plaintiff to prove ownership and identify the property claimed. The plaintiff must rely on the strength of their title, not the weakness of the defendant’s claim.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of clearly defined property boundaries and the remedies available when disputes arise. The ruling reinforces the application of Article 448 of the Civil Code, ensuring fairness when a party builds in good faith on another’s land. The case highlights the need for landowners to be diligent in protecting their property rights and for builders to ascertain the true boundaries of the land before commencing construction.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: SPS. ERNESTO V. YU AND ELSIE YU vs. EULOGIO A. TOPACIO, JR., G.R. No. 216024, September 18, 2019

  • Encroachment and Good Faith: Resolving Land Disputes Under Article 448 of the Civil Code

    In a dispute over land ownership, the Supreme Court clarified the rights and obligations of parties when one party encroaches on the land of another, acting in good faith. The Court held that while the encroaching party must vacate the portion of land they are unlawfully occupying, the landowner must exercise the options provided under Article 448 of the Civil Code, either appropriating the improvements made by the encroacher after paying indemnity or obliging the encroacher to purchase the land.

    When Titles Collide: Resolving Possession Rights in Overlapping Land Claims

    This case revolves around a parcel of land in Dasmariñas, Cavite, claimed by both Eulogio A. Topacio, Jr. and spouses Ernesto V. Yu and Elsie Yu. Topacio, holding TCT No. T-348422, filed a suit to quiet title, recover possession, and seek reconveyance against the spouses Yu, who possessed TCT No. T-490552. The central question was whether the spouses Yu had unlawfully occupied a portion of Topacio’s land, and if so, what rights and remedies applied under the law. The RTC initially dismissed Topacio’s complaint, but the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the decision, ordering the spouses Yu to vacate the occupied area and pay compensation. This led to the Supreme Court review.

    The Supreme Court’s analysis began by dissecting the nature of the actions involved. An action to **quiet title**, as explained in Spouses Basa v. Loy Vda. De Senly Loy, aims to dispel any clouds or doubts on a property owner’s title, ensuring undisturbed enjoyment and use of the land. This action is rooted in Articles 476 and 477 of the Civil Code. Article 476 states:

    ART. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

    An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein.

    However, the Court emphasized that an action for quieting of title requires the plaintiff to demonstrate both a legal or equitable title to the property and that the opposing claim is actually invalid or inoperative. An action for **recovery of possession**, or reivindicatory action, requires the plaintiff to fully prove ownership and the identity of the land being claimed, including its location, area, and boundaries. This is in line with Article 434 of the Civil Code. An action for **reconveyance** is a remedy granted to a rightful landowner whose property has been wrongfully registered in another’s name. The plaintiff must prove their ownership and the defendant’s erroneous or fraudulent registration.

    In evaluating Topacio’s claim for quieting of title, the Court found it lacking. While Topacio demonstrated legal title through TCT No. T-348422, he failed to prove that TCT No. T-490552 held by the spouses Yu was invalid or ineffective. The spouses Yu presented evidence tracing the origin of their title back to a sale from spouses Martinez, who acquired the property from the Bureau of Lands in 1989. Moreover, there was no evidence of fraud in the acquisition of the title by the spouses Yu, reinforcing its validity. The Court acknowledged the general conclusiveness of a Torrens title as evidence of ownership, further noting the presumption of regularity in its issuance.

    The Court gave considerable weight to the survey report conducted by Engr. Tañola from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). This report indicated that the properties covered by the two titles were distinct and did not overlap. Despite the spouses Yu’s objections regarding alleged irregularities in the survey, the Court upheld the CA’s reliance on the report, highlighting that Engr. Tañola’s appointment was court-ordered upon the parties’ joint motion, and the survey was attended by all parties with their respective counsels and surveyors. The Court also invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by a government official, absent sufficient evidence to the contrary. The Survey Report categorically showed that the two certificates of title do not cover the same land:

    After computing the actual side-shots of the properties, reference lot, it was verified and ascertained.

    That Lot 7402-E, Psd-042106-054870 covered by TCT No. 348422 and registered in the name of Eulogio Topacio married to Alicia Cruz Tolentino with the total area of 9,878 square meters

    That Lot 8142-New, Fls-2286, Imus Estate covered by TCT No. 490552 and registered in the name of Sps. Ernesto V. Yu and Elsie Yu with a total area of 606 square meters.

    That the Tie Point of both Lot 7402-E, Psd-042106-054870 and Lot 8142-New, Fls-22 Imus Estate is Mon. No. 79, of Imus Estate and found out to be visible, undisturbed and still in con[not legible] position.

    That the Tie Point of both Lot 7402-E, Psd-042106-054870 and Lot 8142-New, Fls-2286. Imus Estate and when plotted using their respective Tie Line appeared that they fall apart with each other with the approximate distance of 1,526 meters.

    Given the distinct locations of the properties covered by the titles, the Court determined that the spouses Yu’s title did not create a cloud on Topacio’s title. Accordingly, the action for quieting of title was deemed inappropriate. Similarly, the Court dismissed the action for reconveyance, as Topacio lacked a superior right to the property covered by TCT No. T-490552.

    However, the Court affirmed the CA’s decision to grant Topacio the remedy of recovering possession, albeit with significant qualifications. The basis for this was the survey report indicating that the spouses Yu’s structure encroached upon Topacio’s property. The Court emphasized that a Torrens title grants the holder all attributes of ownership, including possession. While the spouses Yu possessed a valid title, they had mistakenly occupied a portion of land outside the boundaries of their property, leading to the encroachment. This ruling underscores the importance of accurately determining property boundaries to avoid disputes and ensure the proper exercise of ownership rights.

    Significantly, the Court found that the spouses Yu acted in good faith when they constructed improvements on Topacio’s land. Their good faith stemmed from their honest belief in the validity of their title and their lack of awareness of any flaw invalidating their possession. In line with Article 448 of the Civil Code, the Court outlined the options available to Topacio as the landowner. Article 448 of the Civil Code states:

    ART. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.

    Topacio, as the landowner, has the option to either appropriate the improvements made by the spouses Yu by paying the proper indemnity or oblige them to purchase the land if its value is not considerably more than that of the improvements. If the value of the land is considerably more, the spouses Yu must pay reasonable rent if Topacio does not choose to appropriate the improvements. The Court clarified that the choice of option lies solely with the landowner. The Court deemed it proper to delete the award of damages and attorney’s fees in favor of Topacio.

    FAQs

    What was the central issue in this case? The key issue was how to resolve the dispute between two landowners when one party, acting in good faith, encroached upon a portion of the other’s property.
    What is an action for quieting of title? It is a legal action taken to remove any cloud, doubt, or claim that may affect the title to real property, ensuring the owner’s peaceful enjoyment and use of the land.
    What is required for an action for quieting of title to succeed? The plaintiff must prove they have a legal or equitable title to the property and that the opposing claim is invalid or inoperative, despite its apparent validity.
    What options does a landowner have when someone builds on their land in good faith? Under Article 448 of the Civil Code, the landowner can either appropriate the improvements by paying indemnity or require the builder to purchase the land if its value is not considerably higher than the improvements.
    What happens if the value of the land is considerably more than the improvements? The builder or planter cannot be forced to buy the land; instead, they must pay reasonable rent if the landowner does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity.
    Why did the Supreme Court give weight to the CENRO survey report? The survey was court-ordered, attended by all parties, and conducted by a government official presumed to have acted regularly in the performance of their duties.
    What does it mean to possess property in ‘good faith’? Good faith means an honest belief in the validity of one’s right, ignorance of any superior claim, and the absence of any intention to overreach another.
    Why were damages and attorney’s fees not awarded in this case? The Supreme Court found no bad faith on the part of spouses Yu, as their actions were based on a good-faith belief in their title, and attorney’s fees are not awarded every time a party wins a suit.

    The Supreme Court’s decision provides essential guidance on resolving land disputes involving encroachment and good faith. It underscores the importance of accurate surveys, the rights afforded to landowners under Article 448 of the Civil Code, and the protection extended to parties who act in good faith. This case serves as a reminder that property disputes often require a nuanced approach, balancing the rights and obligations of all parties involved.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: SPS. ERNESTO V. YU AND ELSIE YU v. EULOGIO A. TOPACIO, JR., G.R. No. 216024, September 18, 2019

  • Redundancy Dismissal: Employer’s Duty to Prove Fair Criteria

    The Supreme Court has affirmed that employers must provide substantial evidence demonstrating fair and reasonable criteria when terminating employees due to redundancy. In this case, the Court found that FEATI University failed to adequately justify the dismissal of its employee, Antolin Pangan, because it did not prove that the redundancy was implemented in good faith or that fair criteria were used to select which positions would be eliminated. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to employees against arbitrary dismissals under the guise of redundancy, emphasizing the employer’s burden of proof.

    When Cost-Cutting Becomes Unjust: Did FEATI University Fairly Apply Redundancy?

    Antolin Pangan, the respondent, had been an employee of FEATI University for over three decades, starting as a canteen bookkeeper and eventually becoming the University Cashier. In 2002, the university offered a voluntary early retirement program due to declining enrolment. Pangan availed of this program, received his retirement pay, and signed a Release and Quitclaim. However, just a day before his retirement was approved, he was rehired as University Cashier. Later, his position was transferred to the Accounting Department, and he was reassigned as Assistant Program Coordinator. In 2005, he was terminated due to redundancy, which the university claimed was caused by declining enrolment in the Graduate Program. Pangan then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

    The Labor Arbiter initially sided with the university, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding the transfer to be dubious and anomalous. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s ruling. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether Pangan’s dismissal was valid based on redundancy. The Court emphasized that the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a valid or authorized cause and that substantial evidence must be presented to justify the termination.

    The Supreme Court referenced Article 283 of the Labor Code, which permits termination due to redundancy but requires specific procedures. This article states:

    “The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher…”

    The Court outlined the requirements for a valid redundancy dismissal, including:

    1. Written notice to both the employee and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at least one month prior to termination.
    2. Payment of separation pay equivalent to at least one month’s pay or one month’s pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.
    3. Good faith in abolishing the redundant position.
    4. Fair and reasonable criteria in determining which positions are redundant.

    In evaluating FEATI University’s actions, the Court focused on the third and fourth requirements, emphasizing the need for good faith and fair criteria. The Court reiterated that to establish good faith, the employer must provide substantial proof that the employee’s services are in excess of the company’s needs. Additionally, the employer must demonstrate the use of fair and reasonable criteria, such as less preferred status, efficiency, or seniority, in determining which positions are redundant.

    In this case, the Court found that FEATI University failed to provide adequate proof of fair and reasonable criteria. The university presented financial audits and enrolment lists, which only proved financial losses and declining enrolment but did not demonstrate how the decision to declare Pangan’s position redundant was reached. The Court cited the principle that “an employer cannot simply declare that it has become overmanned and dismiss its employees without adequate proof to sustain its claim of redundancy.”

    The Court also highlighted the questionable circumstances surrounding Pangan’s transfer to the Assistant Program Coordinator position, which was created specifically for him. The Court noted that there was no evidence to support the claim that Pangan’s previous position as University Cashier was justifiably redundant or that its tasks had been absorbed by the Accounting Department. The Court also questioned why Pangan was rehired in the same position shortly before his early retirement was approved, only to be declared redundant later. These inconsistencies raised doubts about the university’s good faith in implementing the redundancy measures.

    The Supreme Court, therefore, concluded that Pangan’s dismissal was illegal because FEATI University failed to prove that it used fair and reasonable criteria in determining that Pangan’s positions were redundant. As the NLRC had found that reinstatement was not feasible, the Court affirmed the award of separation pay, backwages, and attorney’s fees to Pangan. The separation pay was computed at one month’s salary for every year of service, less the amount Pangan had already received as early retirement pay. The Court also imposed a legal interest of six percent per annum on the total judgment award from the finality of the decision until its full satisfaction.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether FEATI University validly dismissed Antolin Pangan from employment on the ground of redundancy. The Supreme Court examined whether the university had proven good faith and the use of fair criteria in declaring his position redundant.
    What did the Supreme Court rule? The Supreme Court ruled that FEATI University failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify Pangan’s dismissal due to redundancy. It found that the university did not prove it used fair and reasonable criteria in determining which positions were redundant.
    What must an employer prove to justify a redundancy dismissal? An employer must prove that the dismissal was due to a valid cause, such as redundancy, and must provide substantial evidence of good faith and fair criteria in selecting employees for redundancy. This includes showing that the employee’s services are in excess of the company’s needs.
    What are some fair criteria that can be used in determining redundancy? Fair criteria include less preferred status (e.g., temporary employee), efficiency, and seniority. The employer must demonstrate that these criteria were applied fairly and reasonably in selecting employees for redundancy.
    What is separation pay, and how is it calculated in redundancy cases? Separation pay is the compensation an employee receives when terminated due to redundancy. It is typically equivalent to at least one month’s pay or one month’s pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.
    What is the significance of good faith in redundancy dismissals? Good faith ensures that the employer is not using redundancy as a pretext for unfairly dismissing employees. It requires the employer to act honestly and with a genuine business reason for the redundancy.
    What happens if an employer fails to prove valid redundancy? If an employer fails to prove valid redundancy, the dismissal is considered illegal. The employee is typically entitled to reinstatement, backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees.
    Why was Pangan awarded attorney’s fees? Pangan was awarded attorney’s fees because he was compelled to litigate to protect his rights after being illegally dismissed. This is a common remedy in illegal dismissal cases where the employee incurs legal expenses.

    This case underscores the importance of employers adhering to stringent requirements when implementing redundancy measures. The burden of proof lies with the employer to demonstrate not only the economic necessity of the redundancy but also the fairness and reasonableness of the criteria used in selecting employees for termination. Failure to meet these requirements can result in significant legal liabilities and damages.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: FEATI UNIVERSITY vs. ANTOLIN PANGAN, G.R. No. 202851, September 09, 2019

  • Bigamy Conviction Affirmed: The Indispensable Need for Judicial Declaration of Nullity Before Remarriage

    In a bigamy case, the Supreme Court reiterated that no one can unilaterally declare their marriage void; a judicial declaration of nullity is required before remarrying. This means that a person cannot simply assume their marriage is invalid and remarry without a court order. The Court emphasized that even if a marriage certificate has discrepancies or a Certificate of No Marriage Record is issued, it does not automatically dissolve a marriage. The accused, Prudencio De Guzman, was found guilty of bigamy for contracting a second marriage without a court declaration nullifying his first marriage. This decision reinforces the importance of following legal procedures to avoid criminal liability and protects the sanctity of marriage by requiring formal annulment processes.

    Second Chances or Second Crimes? Examining Bigamy Amidst Reconciliation

    This case revolves around Prudencio De Guzman, who married Arlene De Guzman in 1994. Years later, he abandoned his family and entered into a second marriage with Jean Basan in 2009. Arlene discovered the second marriage and filed a bigamy complaint against Prudencio. His defense was that his marriage to Arlene was void due to a missing signature on their marriage contract and that he was acting in good faith based on a Certificate of No Marriage Record. The central legal question is whether Prudencio could be convicted of bigamy despite his claims that his first marriage was void and his subsequent reconciliation with Arlene.

    The trial court found Prudencio guilty of bigamy, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court denied Prudencio’s petition, upholding the conviction. The Court emphasized the necessity of a judicial declaration of nullity before remarriage, citing Teves v. People, which firmly establishes the requirement for a final judgment declaring a previous marriage void before contracting a subsequent marriage. The ruling underscores that good faith, based on a Certificate of No Marriage Record, is insufficient to overcome the legal impediment of a prior existing marriage.

    The Supreme Court addressed Prudencio’s argument that the prosecution failed to present a copy of the marriage license. The Court stated that the certified true copy of the Marriage Certificate sufficed to establish the existence of the marriage. The absence of the marriage license was not a fatal flaw. This reflects the court’s understanding that the marriage certificate serves as primary evidence, especially when corroborated by other evidence like wedding photos and admissions made by the accused.

    Prudencio’s claim regarding the missing signature of the solemnizing officer was also dismissed. The trial court found that the absence was merely an inadvertent error. The court noted that another copy of the Marriage Certificate under the Local Civil Registry bore the required signature. The court also scrutinized the documents, stating that the:

    …two (2) marriage contracts contain the same details of the civil wedding ceremony between the accused and the complainant. Even the signatures of the parties and their witnesses have a striking resemblance to the naked eye. The only logical explanation for this is that the duplicate original that must have been forwarded by the local civil registry to the NSO was not signed by the solemnizing officer but the other duplicate original on file with the local civil registry is duly signed.

    This demonstrates the court’s focus on substance over form, recognizing that minor discrepancies do not invalidate a marriage if the essential elements are present.

    Arlene’s Affidavit of Desistance, executed after Prudencio’s conviction, was given little weight. The court generally views affidavits of desistance executed after a judgment of conviction with skepticism. The court observed that Arlene cited a “misunderstanding” as the reason for filing the complaint, which they had since resolved through reconciliation. The court noted that such an affidavit could not negate the established elements of bigamy. As the Court of Appeals emphasized, an afterthought holds no probative value. The Supreme Court echoed this sentiment, referencing People v. Dela Cerna, which provides that:

    An affidavit of desistance is a sworn statement, executed by a complainant in a criminal or administrative case, that he or she is discontinuing or disavowing the action filed upon his or her complaint for whatever reason he or she may cite. A survey of our jurisprudence reveals that the court attaches no persuasive value to a desistance, especially when executed as an afterthought.

    The decision highlights the elements of bigamy as established by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. These elements are that:

    (1) the marriage between the appellant and the private complainant is still existing; (2) the same has not been legally declared to be dissolved; (3) appellant contracted a subsequent marriage with a certain Jean Basan while his first marriage with the private complainant is still subsisting; and (4) the second marriage has all the essential requisites for its validity.

    All these elements were satisfied in Prudencio’s case, leading to his conviction. The Court also made reference to Article 40 of the Family Code which states that:

    The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.

    This article served as a crucial legal foundation for the Court’s decision.

    This case underscores the critical importance of obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity before remarrying. A Certificate of No Marriage Record or minor discrepancies in marriage documents are insufficient to dissolve a marriage. Individuals must seek legal remedies to formally annul or declare their marriage void to avoid criminal liability for bigamy. Furthermore, reconciliations and affidavits of desistance after a conviction do not automatically overturn a guilty verdict. The prosecution successfully proved all elements of bigamy beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, Prudencio De Guzman’s conviction was upheld, serving as a reminder of the legal consequences of bigamy and the necessity of adhering to established legal procedures.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Prudencio De Guzman was guilty of bigamy for contracting a second marriage without a judicial declaration nullifying his first marriage. The Court needed to determine if his claims of good faith and a defective marriage certificate were sufficient defenses.
    What is the significance of Article 40 of the Family Code? Article 40 states that a previous marriage can only be considered void for remarriage purposes if there is a final court judgment declaring it void. This means individuals cannot unilaterally decide their marriage is void; they must obtain a formal declaration from the court before remarrying.
    Why was the Certificate of No Marriage Record not a valid defense? The Court ruled that the Certificate of No Marriage Record was not a valid defense because it did not prove that Prudencio’s first marriage was legally dissolved. It was insufficient for him to assume his first marriage was voided.
    What evidence did the prosecution use to prove the first marriage? The prosecution used the certified true copy of the Marriage Certificate, wedding photos, and Prudencio’s admissions in his Counter-Affidavit to prove the existence of the first marriage. These pieces of evidence, taken together, were sufficient to establish the marriage.
    Why was the affidavit of desistance given little weight? The affidavit of desistance was given little weight because it was executed after the trial court’s judgment. Courts generally view such affidavits with skepticism, especially when they appear as an afterthought.
    What are the elements of bigamy that the prosecution had to prove? The prosecution had to prove that Prudencio had a prior existing marriage that had not been legally dissolved, and that he subsequently contracted a second marriage that had all the essential requisites for validity. All these elements were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    What was the penalty imposed on Prudencio De Guzman? Prudencio was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. He was also ordered to pay the costs of the suit.
    Does a missing signature on a marriage certificate automatically invalidate a marriage? Not necessarily. The court found that the missing signature of the solemnizing officer on one copy of the marriage certificate was an inadvertent error. The court considered the presence of a signed copy in the Local Civil Registry and other evidence.

    In conclusion, this case serves as a crucial reminder of the legal requirements for remarriage in the Philippines. Individuals must ensure they obtain a judicial declaration of nullity for their previous marriage before entering into a new one to avoid criminal liability for bigamy. The court’s decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and upholding the sanctity of marriage.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Prudencio De Guzman v. People, G.R. No. 224742, August 7, 2019

  • Redundancy Programs: Balancing Employer Prerogative and Employee Security in the Philippines

    The Supreme Court has affirmed the validity of redundancy programs implemented by companies to streamline operations, even if it results in employee termination. This decision reinforces the principle that employers have the right to make business decisions aimed at improving efficiency and reducing costs, as long as these decisions are made in good faith and comply with labor laws. The ruling offers clarity for both employers and employees regarding the scope and limitations of redundancy as a valid ground for termination, and it underscores the importance of providing fair compensation and benefits to affected employees during such restructuring.

    Coca-Cola’s Restructuring: Can Redundancy Justify Employee Dismissal?

    This case revolves around a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by thirteen employees of Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines, Inc. The employees were terminated due to a redundancy program implemented by the company, which involved abolishing the Product Availability Group (PAG) and outsourcing its functions. The central legal question is whether the company acted in good faith in implementing the redundancy program and whether the resulting dismissals were valid under Philippine labor laws.

    The respondents, who were part of the Product Availability Group (PAG) at Coca-Cola’s San Fernando City plant, lost their jobs when the company decided to eliminate the PAG and outsource its functions to The Redsystem Company, Inc. (TRCI). Aggrieved, the employees filed a complaint alleging illegal dismissal, arguing that the redundancy program was a scheme to undermine their job security. They also questioned whether TRCI was truly an independent contractor or merely a subsidiary of Coca-Cola, masking the true nature of the dismissal.

    Coca-Cola defended its actions by explaining that the redundancy program was a necessary step to improve operational efficiency and effectiveness. The company argued that outsourcing the distribution and coordination efforts of PAG to TRCI, an independent contractor, would streamline operations and reduce costs. Furthermore, Coca-Cola claimed it complied with all legal requirements by providing notice to the employees and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and by offering separation packages exceeding the minimum requirements under the law.

    The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially sided with the employees, finding that the redundancy program was implemented in bad faith and ordering Coca-Cola to reinstate the employees with full backwages and benefits. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA’s decision, upholding the validity of the redundancy program and the resulting dismissals. The Court of Appeals (CA) then reversed the NLRC’s ruling, reinstating the LA’s decision and finding that Coca-Cola failed to provide fair and reasonable criteria in determining which positions to abolish.

    The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized the importance of determining whether the CA correctly assessed if the NLRC had committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court noted that grave abuse of discretion exists when the NLRC’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. In this case, the Court found that the NLRC’s decision was indeed supported by substantial evidence and consistent with established legal principles.

    The Court then clarified the concept of redundancy as an authorized cause for termination under Article 298 of the Labor Code, which allows employers to terminate employment when an employee’s services are in excess of the company’s reasonable demands. The Court cited jurisprudence stating that redundancy can arise from various factors, including overhiring, decreased business volume, or the elimination of a particular line of service. The decision to declare redundancy is primarily a business judgment, but it must be exercised lawfully and with sufficient basis.

    To ensure a redundancy program is valid, the employer must demonstrate good faith in abolishing the redundant positions and establish fair and reasonable criteria for selecting employees to be dismissed. These criteria can include factors such as less preferred status (e.g., temporary employee), efficiency, and seniority. However, the Supreme Court found that in this case, the CA erred in requiring the company to demonstrate fair and reasonable criteria.

    The Court noted that Coca-Cola had abolished all positions under the PAG, making the selection criteria irrelevant. Citing the case of *Asian Alcohol Corporation v. NLRC*, the Court distinguished between situations where some positions are eliminated and those where an entire line of service is discontinued. In the latter scenario, as in this case, the fair and reasonable criteria for selecting employees for dismissal do not apply because all employees in the affected department are terminated.

    The Supreme Court highlighted that Coca-Cola’s decision to abolish the PAG was part of a broader effort to streamline its distribution systems and reduce costs. The company presented evidence showing that despite increased sales volumes, its operating income remained negative, necessitating a review of its distribution channels. This review led to the decision to outsource the functions of the PAG to TRCI, resulting in the elimination of all positions within the group.

    The Court found no evidence to support the employees’ claim that the redundancy program was a ruse to terminate union officers. The fact that Coca-Cola abolished its entire logistics operation, affecting approximately 200 employees nationwide, undermined the argument that the program was merely a pretext to target a small group of employees. Furthermore, the company’s provision of separation packages exceeding legal requirements further demonstrated its good faith.

    The Court also addressed the validity of the quitclaims executed by the employees. It reiterated that while quitclaims are not per se invalid, they must be executed voluntarily, with a full understanding of their implications, and for reasonable consideration. In this case, there was no evidence that the employees were coerced or tricked into signing the quitclaims, nor was there any indication that they received less than what they were entitled to. Thus, the Court upheld the validity of the quitclaims.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court found that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding the validity of the redundancy program and the employees’ subsequent dismissal. The Court held that Coca-Cola acted in good faith in implementing the program, complied with all legal requirements, and provided fair compensation to the affected employees. Therefore, the CA erred in reversing the NLRC’s decision.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Coca-Cola’s redundancy program, which led to the dismissal of several employees, was valid under Philippine labor law. The court examined whether the company acted in good faith and followed the necessary legal procedures.
    What is redundancy in the context of labor law? Redundancy occurs when an employee’s services are no longer needed due to factors like over-hiring, decreased business, or the dropping of a service line. It is a valid reason for termination, provided the employer acts in good faith.
    What must an employer prove to justify a redundancy program? An employer must prove that the redundancy was implemented in good faith and that fair and reasonable criteria were used in selecting employees for termination. This includes showing that the positions were genuinely redundant.
    What are some acceptable criteria for selecting employees for redundancy? Acceptable criteria include less preferred status (e.g., temporary employee), efficiency, and seniority. However, if all positions in a particular department or service line are eliminated, these criteria may not apply.
    Was TRCI considered an independent contractor in this case? The court did not explicitly rule on TRCI’s status as an independent contractor, but the fact that Coca-Cola outsourced the PAG’s functions to TRCI was a key factor in justifying the redundancy program.
    What is the significance of a quitclaim in labor disputes? A quitclaim is a document where an employee waives their rights or claims against the employer. For it to be valid, it must be executed voluntarily, with full understanding, and for reasonable consideration.
    What separation benefits were provided to the employees in this case? The employees received separation packages that exceeded the minimum legal requirements, including separation pay, commutation of leaves, proportionate 13th-month pay, HMO coverage, and a livelihood program.
    What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the NLRC’s ruling, which upheld the validity of Coca-Cola’s redundancy program and the employees’ dismissal.

    This case underscores the importance of balancing an employer’s prerogative to make business decisions with the employees’ right to security of tenure. While employers have the right to implement redundancy programs to improve efficiency and reduce costs, they must do so in good faith and in compliance with labor laws. Employees, on the other hand, must understand the circumstances under which redundancy is justified and ensure that their rights are protected during such processes.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Coca-Cola Femsa Philippines v. Macapagal, G.R. No. 232669, July 29, 2019