Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 108947 September 29, 1997 ROLANDO SANC E!, "LOR#DA M#ERL$ SANC E!, AL"REDO T. SANC E! %&' M$RNA T. SANC E!,petitioners, vs. T E ONORA(LE COURT O" APPEALS, ROSAL#A S. LUGOD, ARTURO S. LUGOD, E)EL$N LUGOD*RAN#SES %&' RO(ERTO S. LUGOD, respondents.

PANGAN#(AN, J.: Is a petition for certiorari, in lieu of appeal, the proper re ed! to correct orders of a probate court nullif!in" certain deeds of sale and, thus, effectivel! passin" upon title to the properties sub#ect of such deeds$ Is a co pro ise a"ree ent partitionin" inherited properties valid even %ithout the approval of the trial court hearin" the intestate estate of the deceased o%ner$ The Case These &uestions are ans%ered b! this 'ourt as it resolves the petition for revie% on certiorari before us assailin" the Nove ber (), *++( Decision 1 of the 'ourt of ,ppeals 2 in ',-..R. SP No. (/01* %hich annulled the decision+ of the trial court 4 and %hich declared the co pro ise a"ree ent a on" the parties valid and bindin" even %ithout the said trial court2s approval. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads3 4H5R56OR5, for the reasons hereinabove set forth and discussed, the instant petition is .R,NT5D and the challen"ed decision as %ell as the subse&uent orders of the respondent court are ,NN7885D and S5T ,SID5. The te porar! restrainin" order issued b! this 'ourt on October *9, *++( is ade P5RM,N5NT. The co pro ise a"ree ent dated October ):, *+1+ as odified b! the e orandu of a"ree ent of ,pril *), *+0: is D5'8,R5D valid and bindin" upon herein parties. ,nd Special Proceedin"s No. 99-M and *:(( are dee ed '8OS5D and T5RMIN,T5D.
SO ORD5R5D. ,

The Antecedent Facts The facts are narrated b! the 'ourt of ,ppeals as follo%s3 ;Herein private respondent< Rosalia S. 8u"od is the onl! child of spouses =uan '. Sanche> and Maria Villafranca %hile ;herein private respondents< ,rturo S. 8u"od,

5vel!n 8. Ranises and Roberto S. 8u"od are the le"iti ate children of ;herein private respondent< Rosalia. ;Herein petitioners< Rolando, 6lorida Mierl!, ,lfredo and M!rna, all surna ed Sanche>, are the ille"iti ate children of =uan '. Sanche>. 6ollo%in" the death of her other, Maria Villafranca, on Septe ber (+, *+10, ;herein private respondent< Rosalia filed on =anuar! ((, *+1/, thru counsel, a petition for letters of ad inistration over the estate of her other and the estate of her father, =uan '. Sanche>, %ho %as at the ti e in state of senilit! ?,nne@ ABA, PetitionC. On Septe ber ):, *+1/, ;herein private respondent< Rosalia, as ad inistratri@ of the intestate estate of her other, sub itted an inventor! and appraisal of the real and personal estate of her late other ?,nne@ A'A, PetitionC. Before the ad inistration proceedin"s Special in Proceedin"s No. 99-M could for all! be ter inated and closed, =uan '. Sanche>, ;herein private respondent< Rosalia2s father, died on October (*, *+1/.
On =anuar! *9, *+1+, ;herein petitioners< as heirs of =uan '. Sanche>, filed a petition for letters of ad inistration ?Special Proceedin"s No. *:((C over the intestate estate of =uan '. Sanche>, %hich petition %as opposed b! ?herein private respondentC Rosalia. -

On October ):, *+1+, ho%ever, ;herein private respondent< Rosalia and ;herein petitioners< assisted b! their respective counsels e@ecuted a co pro ise a"ree ent ?,nne@ ADA, PetitionC %herein the! a"reed to divide the properties enu erated therein of the late =uan '. Sanche>. On Nove ber ), *+1+, petitioner Rosalia %as appointed b! ;the trial court<, and tooD her oath as the ad inistratri@ of her father2s intestate estate. On =anuar! *+, *+0:, ;herein petitioners< filed a otion to re&uire ad inistratri@, ;herein private respondent< Rosalia, to deliver deficienc! of (9 hectares and or to set aside co pro ise a"ree ent ?,nne@ A5A, PetitionC. 7nder date of ,pril *), *+0:, ?herein private respondentC Rosalia and ;herein petitioners< entered into and e@ecuted a e orandu of a"ree ent %hich odified the co pro ise a"ree ent ?,nne@ A6A. PetitionC On October (E, *+0+, or nine !ears later, ;herein petitioners< filed, thru counsel, a otion to re&uire ;herein private respondent< Rosalia to sub it a ne% inventor! and to render an accountin" over properties not included in the co pro ise a"ree ent ?,nne@ A.A, PetitionC. The! liDe%ise filed a otion to defer the approval of the co pro ise a"ree ent ?,nne@ AHA, IbidC, in %hich the! pra!ed for the annul ent of the co pro ise a"ree ent on the "round of fraud. On 6ebruar! 9, *+/:, ho%ever, counsel for ;herein petitioners< oved to %ithdra% his appearance and the t%o otions he flied, ,nne@ A.A and AHA ?,nne@ AIA, PetitionC. On 6ebruar! (/, *+/:, the ;trial< court issued an order directin" ;herein private respondent< Rosalia to sub it a ne% inventor! of properties under her ad inistration

and an accountin" of the fruits thereof, %hich pro pted ;herein private respondent< Rosalia to file a re#oinder on March )*, *+/: ?,nne@ AFA, PetitionC. On Ma! *(, *+/:, ;herein petitioners<, thru ne% counsel, filed a otion to chan"e ad inistratri@ ?,nne@ A8A, PetitionC to %hich ;herein private respondent< Rosalia filed an opposition ?,nne@ AMA, IbidC. The parties %ere subse&uentl! ordered to sub it their respective position papers, %hich the! did ?,nne@es ANA and AOA, PetitionC. On Septe ber *9, *+/+, for er counsel of ?herein petitionersC entered his re-appearance as counsel for ?herein petitionersC. On the bases of e oranda sub itted b! the parties, the ;trial court<, this ti e presided b! =ud"e Vivencio ,. .alon, pro ul"ated its decision on =une (1, *++*, the dispositive portion of %hich states3 4H5R56OR5, pre ises considered, #ud" ent is hereb! rendered as follo%s b! declarin" and orderin"3 *. That the entire intestate estate of Maria Villafranca Sanche> under Special Proceedin"s No. 99-M consists of all her paraphernal properties and one-half ?*G(C of the con#u"al properties %hich ust be divided e&uall! bet%een Rosalia Sanche> de 8u"od and =uan '. Sanche>H (. That the entire intestate estate of =uan '. Sanche> under Special Proceedin"s No. *:(( consists of all his capital properties, one-half ?*G(C fro the con#u"al partnership of "ains and one-half ?*G(C of the intestate estate of Maria Villafranca under Special Proceedin"s No. 99-MH ). That one-half ?*G(C of the entire intestate estate of =uan '. Sanche> shall be inherited b! his onl! le"iti ate dau"hter, Rosalia V. Sanche> de 8u"od %hile the other one-half ?*G(C shall be inherited and be divided e&uall! b!, bet%een and a on" the si@ ?1C ille"iti ate children, na el!3 Patricia ,lburo, Maria Ra uso Sanche>, Rolando Pedro T. Sanche>, 6lorida Mierl! T. Sanche>, ,lfredo T. Sanche> and M!rna T. Sanche>H 9. That all the Deed ?sicC of ,bsolute Sales e@ecuted b! =uan '. Sanche> and Maria Villafranca in favor of Rosalia Sanche> 8u"od, ,rturo S. 8u"od, 5vel!n S. 8u"od and Roberto S. 8u"od on =ul! (1, *+1) and =une (1, *+10 are all declared si ulated and fictitious and ust be sub#ect to collation and partition a on" all heirsH E. That %ithin thirt! ?):C da!s fro finalit! of this decision, Rosalia Sanche> 8u"od is hereb! ordered to prepare a pro#ect of partition of the intestate estate of =uan '. Sanche> under Special Proceedin"s No. *:(( and distribute and deliver to all heirs their correspondin" shares. If she fails to do so %ithin the said thirt! ?):C da!s, then a Board of 'o issioners is hereb! constituted, %ho are all entitled to honorariu and per die s and other necessar! e@penses char"eable

to the estate to be paid b! ,d inistratri@ Rosalia S. 8u"od, appointin" the 'o unit! 5nviron ent and Natural Resources Officer ?'5NROC of .in"oo" 'it! as e bers thereof, %ith the tasD to prepare the pro#ect of partition and deliver to all heirs their respective shares %ithin ninet! ?+:C da!s fro the finalit! of said decisionH 1. That %ithin thirt! ?):C da!s fro receipt of this decision, ,d inistratri@ Rosalia Sanche> Vda. de 8u"od is hereb! ordered to sub it t%o ?(C separate certified true and correct accountin", one for the inco e of all the properties of the entire intestate estate of Maria Villafranca under Special Proceedin"s No. 99-M, and another for the properties of the entire intestate estate of =uan '. Sanche> under Special Proceedin"s No. *:(( dul! both si"ned b! her and both verified b! a 'ertified Public ,ccountant and distribute and deliver to her si@ ?1C ille"iti ate brothers and sisters in e&ual shares, one-half ?*G(C of the net inco e of the estate of =uan '. Sanche> fro October (*, *+1/ up to the finalit! of this decisionH 0. 6or failure to render an accountin" report and failure to "ive cash advances to the ille"iti ate children of =uan '. Sanche> durin" their inorit! and hour of need fro the net inco e of the estate of =uan '. Sanche>, %hich adversel! pre#udiced their social standin" and pursuit of colle"e education, ?the trial courtC hereb! orders Rosalia Sanche> Vda. de 8u"od to pa! her si@ ?1C ille"iti ate brothers and sisters the su of 6ive Hundred Thousand ?PE::,:::.::C Pesos, as e@e plar! da a"es, and also the su of One Hundred 6ift! Thousand ?P*E:,:::.::C Pesos for attorne!2s feesH /. 7pon release of this decision and durin" its pendenc!, should appeal be ade, the Re"ister of Deeds and ,ssessors of the Provinces and 'ities %here the properties of =uan '. Sanche> and Maria Villafranca are located, are all ordered to re"ister and annotate in the title andGor ta@ declarations, the dispositive portion of this decision for the protection of all heirs and all those %ho a! be concerned. SO ORD5R5D. ;Herein private respondent< Rosalia filed a otion for reconsideration dated =ul! *0, *++* ?,nne@ APA, PetitionC on ,u"ust 1, *++*. On ,u"ust *), *++*, ;herein petitioners< filed a otion for e@ecution and opposition to ;herein private respondent< Rosalia2s otion for reconsideration ?,nne@ AIA, PetitionC. On Septe ber ), *++*, ;the trial court< issued an O nibus Order ?,nne@ ASA, PetitionC declarin", a on" other thin"s, that the decision at issue had beco e final and e@ecutor!.

;Herein private respondent< Rosalia then filed a otion for reconsideration of said O nibus Order ?,nne@ ATA, PetitionC. Said ;herein private respondent< %as allo%ed to file a e orandu in support of her otion ?,nne@ AVA, PetitionC.
On =une (1, *++*, ;the trial court< issued and Order den!in" petitioner Rosalia2s for reconsideration ?,nne@ A4A, PetitionC. 7 otion

Thereafter, private respondents elevated the case to the 'ourt of ,ppeals via a petition for certiorari and contended3 I The ;trial court< has no authorit! to disturb the co pro ise a"ree ent. II The ;trial court< has arbitraril! faulted ;herein private respondent< Rosalia S. 8u"od for alle"ed failure to render an accountin" %hich %as i possible. III The ;trial court< acted %ithout #urisdiction in dero"ation of the constitutional ri"hts of ;herein private respondents< ,rturo S. 8u"od, 5vel!n 8. Ranises and Roberto S. 8u"od %hen ;the trial court< decided to annul the deed of sale bet%een the said ;herein private respondents< and =uan '. Sanche> %ithout affordin" the their da! in court. IV ;The trial court #ud"e< defied %ithout rh! e or reason %ell-established and entrenched #urisprudence %hen he deter ined facts sans an! evidence thereon. V
;The trial court< "rossl! ri"ht to appeal. 8 isinterpreted ;herein private respondent< Rosalia S. 8u"od2s

6or clarit!2s saDe, this 'ourt hereb! reproduces verbati

the co pro ise a"ree ent 9 of the parties3

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
'OM5 NO4, the parties in the above-entitled case, otivated b! their utual desire to preserve and aintain har onious relations bet%een and a on" the selves, for utual valuable considerations and in the spirit of "ood %ill and fair pla!, and, for the purpose of this 'o pro ise ,"ree ent, a"ree to the follo%in"3

*. That the deceased =uan '. Sanche> %ho died intestate on October (*, *+1/ %as le"all! arried to Maria Villafranca de Sanche>, %ho predeceased her on Septe ber (+, *+10, out of %hose %edlocD Rosalia Sanche> 8u"od, Oppositor herein, %as born, thus aDin" her the sole and onl! survivin" le"iti ate heir of her deceased parentsH

(. That the said deceased =uan '. Sanche>, left ille"iti ate children, IntervenorsOppositors and Petitioners, respectivel!, herein na el!H ?*C Patricio ,lburo, born out of %edlocD on March *0, *+(1 at 'ebu 'it!, Philippines, to 5 ilia ,lburoH ?(C Maria Ra oso Sanche>, born out of %edlocD on Ma! +, *+)0 at .in"oo", Misa is Oriental, no%, .in"oo" 'it!, to ,lberta Ra osoH ?)C ?aC Rolando Pedro Sanche>, born on Ma! *+, *+90, ?bC 6lorida Mierl! Sanche>, born on 6ebruar! *1, *+9+, ?cC ,lfredo Sanche>, born on =ul! (*, *+E:, and ?dC M!rna Sanche>, born on =une *1, *+E(, all born out of %edlocD to 8aureta Ta pus in .in"oo" 'it!, Philippines. ). That the deceased =uan '. Sanche> left the follo%in" properties, to %it3 I. S5P,R,T5 ',PIT,8 O6 =7,N '. S,N'H5J N,T7R5, D5S'RIPTION ,ND ,R5, ,SS5SS5D V,875 ?*C ,"ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@. Decl. No. :19E/, 'ad. 8ot No. *:9* '-(, located at Murallon, .in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot Nos. *:)), *:)E, *:)1, *:)0, *:)+, *:9:, *:9( K *:9)H South b! 8ot No. *:/:, *://, *:/0 K *:/9H 5ast b! 8ot Nos. *:/+, *:1* K ()*+H 4est b! 8ot Nos. +E9, *:)/, *:E0 K *:E1, containin" an area of ON5 H7NDR5D 5I.HTL THR55 THO7S,ND SIM H7NDR5D S5V5NTL T4O ?*/), 10(C s&. s. ore or less. P(*,1+:.:: II. 'ON=7.,8 PROP5RTL O6 =7,N '. S,N'H5J ,ND M,RI, VI88,6R,N', D5 S,N'H5J ?*C ,"ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. :1990, 'ad. 8ot No. (09E, '-0 located at ,"a!-a!an, .in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot Nos. (099, (09(, (09/H South b! 8ot No. (0)+H 5ast b! 8ot No. (091H 4est b! 8ot No. (09*, containin" an area of 6O7RT55N THO7S,ND S5V5N H7NDR5D ?*9,0::C s&. s. ore or less. P*,+::.:: ?(C ,"ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. :199+, 'ad, 8ot No. )(0* '-0 located at Pan!an"an, 8anao, .in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot No. )(0:H South b! 8ot Nos. (+:: K )91(H 5ast b! Pan!an"an River K 6. 8u anaoH and

Part of 8ot )(0(H and 4est b! Sa a! 'reeD, containin" an area of ON5 H7NDR5D 6O7R THO7S,ND SIM H7NDR5D ?*:9,1::C s&. s. ore or less. P**,E/:.:: ?)C ,"ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. :199+, 'ad. 8ot No. ()*+, 'ase (, located at Murallon, .in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot No. *:1*H South b! Hinopolan 'reeDH 5ast b! 8ot No. *:99H and 4est b! 8ot No. *:9*, containin" an area of THR55 THO7S,ND T4O H7NDR5D T45NTL 6IV5 ?),((EC s&. s. ore or less. ?9C ,"ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. :19E(, 'ad. 8ot No. )(0(, '-0 Part 9 located at Pan!an"an, 8unao, .in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot Nos. )(0: K )(0)H 5ast b! Pan!an"an RiverH South b! Pan!an"an RiverH and 4est b! 8ot Nos. )(0: K )(0*, containin" an area of 6I6TL 6IV5 THO7S,ND SIM H7NDR5D ?EE,1::C s&. s. ore or less, bein" clai ed b! Da ian Iuerubin. P(,)0:.:: ?EC ,"ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. :19E), 'ad. 8ot No. )(0: 'ase 0, located at Suno", 8unao, .in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! Sa a! 'reeD K 8ot )(10H South b! 8ot Nos. )(0* K )(0(H 5ast b! 8ot Nos. )(1+ K )(0)H and 4est b! Sa a! 'reeD, containin" an area of 6O7R H7NDR5D 5I.HT THR55 THO7S,ND SIM H7NDR5D ?9/),1::C s&. s. ore or less. P1*,1/:.:: ?1C ,"ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. :19E0, 'ad. 8ot No. )(0), '-0 Part ( located at Pan!an"an, 8unao, .in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot No. )(1+H South b! 8ot No. )(0(H 5ast b! Pan!an"an RiverH and 4est b! 8ot No. )(0:, containin" an area of THIRTL 6O7R THO7S,ND THR55 H7NDR5D ?)9,)::C s&. s. ore or less, bein" clai ed b! Mi"uel Tuto. P),//:.:: ?0C ,"ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. *(:::, 'ad. 8ot No. (/:1, 'ase 0 located at ,"a!a!an, .in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! ,"a!a!an RiverH South b! Victoriano BarbacH 5ast b! Isabelo Ra osoH and 4est b! Restituto Baol, containin" an area of SIM THO7S,ND SIM H7NDR5D S5V5NTL SIM ?1,101C s&. s. ore or less. P)/:.:: ?/C ,"ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. *(+(9, 'ad. 8ot No. *(:1 '-* located at 'ahulo"an, .in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the N4., b! 8ot No. *(:+H S4., b! 8ot No. *(:0H 5astb! National Hi"h%a!H and 4est b! 8ot No. *(:0H containin" an area of 6O7R THO7S,ND 6IV5 H7NDR5D THIRT55N ?9,E*)C s&. s. ore or less. P09:.::

?+C ,"ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. *(+(E, 'ad. 8ot No. EEE9, located at Tina!ta!an, Pi"salohan, .in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot Nos. EEE+ K EEE/H South b! 8ot No. )9/1H 5ast b! 8ot No. EEEEH and 4est b! 8ot No. E)EE, containin" an area of 5I.HT55N THO7S,ND 6IV5 H7NDR5D T45NTL 5I.HT ?*/,E(/C s&. s. ore or less. P)(:.:: ?*:C ,"ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. *(+(1, 'ad. 8ot No. EEEE '-0 located at Tina!ta!an, Pi"salo#an, .in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! Tina!ta!an 'reeD K 8ot Nos. EEE0 K EEE/H South b! 8ot Nos. )9/1, )9/0, )9//, )9+* K )9+1H 5ast b! 'r. K 8ot No. )9+1H and 4est b! 8ot No. EEE9, containin" an area of S5V5NTL S5V5N THO7S,ND S5V5N H7NDR5D S5V5NTL SIM ?00,001C s&. s. ore or less. P*,)E:.:: ?**C , 'o ercial 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. :19E9, 'ad. 8ot No. 1*-'-* located at .uno-'onde>a Sts., .in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot 19H South b! Road-8ot 1*) 'onde>a StH 5ast b! 8ot Nos. 1), and 1(H 4est b! Road-8ot 1*9-.uno St., containin" an area of ON5 THO7S,ND 6ORTL T4O ?*,:9(C s&. s. ore or less. P+,)(:.:: ?*(C , 'o ercial 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. :19/9, 8ot No. E, BlocD (, located at 'abu!oan, .in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot No. 9, blocD (H South b! 8ot No. /, blocD (H 5ast b! 8ot No. 1, blocD (, 4est b! Subdivision Road, containin" an area of 6O7R H7NDR5D ?9::C s&. s. ore or less. P*(,(9:.:: ?*)C , 'o ercial 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. *E0+/, BlocD No. 0-,-*1-: located at 'abu!oan, .in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot No. 0-,-*1-:H South b! 8ot No. 0-*1-:H 5ast b! 8ot No. 0-,-*/-RoadH 4est b! 8ot No. /, PS7*(:0:9-=ulito Arengo vs. Restituto Baol, containin" an area of T4O H7NDR5D SIMT55N ?(*1C s&. s. ore or less. P*,:E:.:: ?*9C ,"ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@, Decl. No. :10/+, 'ad. 8ot No. E*E0-'-0, located at Fio"at, ,"a!a!an, .in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot No. E*E/, E*E+, E*E1H South b! S5-Steep BanDH 5ast b! N4, b! 8ot No. E*E/, Villafranca, containin" an area of NIN5TL SIM THO7S,ND T4O H7NDR5D ?+1,(::C s&. s. ore or less. P),)0:.:: III. P5RSON,8 5ST,T5 ?'ON=7.,8C N,T7R5 ,ND D5S'RIPTION 8O',TION ,PPR,IS,8

*. 6ift! ?E:C shares of stocD Rural BanD of .in"oo", Inc. at P*::.:: per share PE,:::.:: (. 6our ?9C shares of Preferred StocD %ith San Mi"uel 'orporation 9::.:: 9. That, the parties hereto have a"reed to divide the above-enu erated properties in the follo%in" anner, to %it3 ?aC To Patricio ,lburo, Maria Ra oso Sanche>, Roland Pedro T. Sanche>, 6lorida Mierl! Sanche>, ,lfredo T. Sanche> and M!rna T. Sanche>, in e&ual pro-indiviso shares, considerin" not onl! their respective areas but also the i prove ents e@istin" thereon, to %it3 ,"ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. :19E), 'ad. 8ot No. )(0: 'ase 0, located at Suno", 8unao, .in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! Sa a! 'reeD K 8ot )(10H South b! 8ot Nos. )(0* and )(0(H 5ast b! 8ot Nos. )(1+ K )(0)H and 4est b! Sa a! 'reeD, containin" an area of 6O7R H7NDR5D 5I.HTL THR55 THO7S,ND SIM H7NDR5D ?9/),1::C s&. s. and assessed in the su of P1*,1/:.::. ?bC To Rosalia Sanche> 8u"od all the rest of the properties, both real and personal, enu erated above %ith the e@ception of the follo%in"3 ?*C T%o Preferred Shares of StocD in the San Mi"uel 'orporation, indicated in San Mi"uel 'orporation StocD 'ertificate No. ):(*0, %hich t%o shares she is cedin" in favor of Patricio ,lburoH ?(C The house and lot desi"nated as 8ot No. E, BlocD ( to"ether %ith the i prove ents thereon and identified as parcel No. II-*(, lot covered b! Ta@ Decl. No. *E0+/ identified as Parcel No. II-*) in the above enu erated, and 'ad. 8ot No. E*E0-'-0 to"ether %ith the i prove ents thereon, %hich is identified as parcel No. II-*9 of the above-enu eration of properties, %hich said Rosalia S. 8u"od is liDe%ise cedin" and renouncin" in favor of Rolando Pedro, 6lorida Mierl!,

,lfredo and M!rna, all surna ed Sanche>, in e&ual pro-indiviso sharesH E. That Rolando Pedro, 6lorida Mierl!, ,lfredo and M!rna, all surna ed Sanche> hereb! acDno%led"e to have received #ointl! and severall! in for of advances after October (*, *+1/ the a""re"ate su of 5I.HT THO7S,ND 6IV5 H7NDR5D THIRTL-THR55 P5SOS ?P/,E)).+9C and NIN5TL-6O7R '5NT,VOSH 1. That the parties hereto liDe%ise acDno%led"e and reco"ni>e in the indebtedness of the deceased =uan .. Sanche> and his deceased %ife Maria Villafranca Sanche> to the 8u"od 5nterprises, Inc., in the su of P9),:19.++H 0. That the parties hereto shall be responsible for the pa! ent of the estate and inheritance ta@es proportionate to the value of their respective shares as a! be deter ined b! the Bureau of Internal Revenue and shall liDe%ise be responsible for the e@penses of surve! and se"re"ation of their respective sharesH /. That Patricio ,lburo, Maria Ra oso Sanche>, Roland Pedro Sanche>, 6lorida Mierl! Sanche>, ,lfredo Sanche> and M!rna Sanche> hereb! %aive, relin&uish and renounce, #ointl! and individuall!, in a anner that is absolute and irrevocable, all their ri"hts and interests, share and participation %hich the! have or i"ht have in all the properties, both real and personal, Dno%n or unDno%n andGor %hich a! not be listed herein, or in e@cess of the areas listed or entioned herein, andGor %hich i"ht have been, at one ti e or another, o%ned b!, re"istered or placed in the na e of either of the spouses =uan '. Sanche> or Maria Villafranca de Sanche> or both, and %hich either one or both i"ht have sold, ceded, transferred, or donated to an! person or persons or entit! and %hich parties hereto do hereb! confir and ratif! to"ether %ith all the i prove ents thereon, as %ell as all the produce and proceeds thereof, and particularl! of the properties, real and personal listed herein, as %ell as de andable obli"ations due to the deceased spouses =uan '. Sanche>, before and after the death of the afore entioned spouses =uan '. Sanche> and Maria Villafranca de Sanche>, in favor of oppositor Rosalia S. 8u"odH +. That the e@penses of this liti"ation includin" attorne!2s fees shall be borne respectivel! b! the parties heretoH *:. That 8aureta Ta pus for herself and "uardian ad-lite of her inor children, na el!3 6lorida Mierl!, ,lfredo, and M!rna, all surna ed Sanche>, hereb! declare that she has no ri"ht, interest, share and participation %hatsoever in the estate left b! =uan '. Sanche> andGor Maria Villafranca de Sanche>, or both, and that she liDe%ise %aives, renounces, and relin&uishes %hatever ri"id, share, participation or interest therein %hich she has or i"ht have in favor of Rosalia S. 8u"odH **. That, the parties hereto utuall! %aive and renounce in favor of each other an! %hatever clai s or actions, arisin" fro , connected %ith, and as a result of Special Proceedin"s Nos. 99-M and *:(( of the 'ourt of 6irst Instance of Misa is Oriental, Rosalia S. 8u"od, %arrantin" that the parcel of land ceded to the other parties herein contains 9/ hectares and )1 ares. *(. That, Rosalia S. 8u"od shall assu e as she hereb! assu es the pa! ent to 8u"od 5nterprises, Inc., of the su of PE*,E+/.+) representin" the indebtedness of the estate of =uan '. Sanche> and Maria Villafranca de Sanche> and the advances

ade to Rolando Pedro, Mierl!, ,lfredo, and M!na all surna ed Sanche>, entioned in para"raphs E hereto a"ree to have letters of ad inistration issued in favor of Rosalia S. 8u"od %ithout an! bond. That Rosalia S. 8u"od liDe%ise a"rees to deliver possession and en#o! ent of the parcel of land herein ceded to petitioners and intervenors i ediatel! after the si"nin" of this a"ree ent and that the latter also utuall! a"ree a on" the selves to have the said lot subdivided and partitioned i ediatel! in accordance %ith the proportion of one si@th ?*G1C part for ever! petitioner and intervenor and that in the eanti e that the partition and subdivision is not !et effected, the ad inistrations of said parcel of land shall be vested #ointl! %ith 8aureta Ta pos, "uardian ad lite of petitioners and Maria Ra oso, one of the intervenors %ho shall see to it that each petitioner and intervenor is "iven one si@th ?*G1C of the net proceeds of all a"ricultural harvest ade thereon. 4H5R56OR5, it is ost respectfull! pra!ed that the fore"oin" co pro ise a"ree ent be approved. Medina, Misa is Oriental, October ):, *+1+. ?S"d.C ?S"d.C P,TRI'IO ,8B7RO ROS,8I, S. 87.OD Intervenor-Oppositor Oppositor ?S"d.C M,RI, R,MOSO S,N'H5J ,SSIST5D BL3 Intervenor-Oppositor ?S"d.C ,SSIST5D BL3 P,B8O S. R5L5S R-*:*-Navarro Bld". ?S"d.C Don ,. Vele> St. R5LN,8DO 8. 65RN,ND5J 'a"a!an de Oro 'it! .in"oon" 'it! ?S"d.C ?S"d.C RO8,NDO P5DRO T. S,N'H5J ,86R5DO T. S,N'H5J Petitioner Petitioner ?S"d.C ?S"d.C 68ORID, MI5R8L T. S,N'H5J MLRN, T. S,N'H5J Petitioner Petitioner ?S"d.C 8,7R5T, T,MP7S 6or herself and as .uardian ,d-8ite of the inors 6lorida Mierl!, ,lfredo, and M!rna, all surna ed Sanche> ,SSIST5D BL3

T5O.5N5S V585J, =R. 'ounsel for Petitioners 'a"a!an de Oro 'it! The 'lerD of 'ourt 'ourt of 6irst Instance Branch III, Medina, Mis. Or. .reetin"s3 Please set the fore"oin" co pro ise a"ree ent for the approval of the Honorable 'ourt toda!, Oct. ):, *+1+. ?S"d.C ?S"d.C ?S"d.C P,B8O S. R5L5S T5O.5N5S V585J, =R. R5LN,8DO 8. 65RN,ND5J The Me orandu of ,"ree ent dated ,pril *), *+0:, %hich the parties entered into %ith the assistance of their counsel, a ended the above co pro ise. ?It %ill be reproduced later in our discussion of the second issue raised b! the petitioners.C The 'ourt of ,ppeals, in a Resolution 10 dated Septe ber 9, *++(, initiall! dis issed private respondents2 petition. ,ctin", ho%ever, on a otion for reconsideration and a supple ental otion for reconsideration dated Septe ber *9, *++( and Septe ber (E, *++(, respectivel!, 11 Respondent 'ourt thereafter reinstated private respondents2 petition in a resolution 12 dated October *9, *++(. In due course, the 'ourt of ,ppeals, as earlier stated, rendered its assailed Decision "rantin" the petition, settin" aside the trial court2s decision and declarin" the odified co pro ise a"ree ent valid and bindin". Hence, this appeal to this 'ourt under Rule 9E of the Rules of 'ourt. The Issues In this appeal, petitioners invite the 'ourt2s attention to the follo%in" issues3 I The respondent court "rossl! erred in "rantin" the petition for certiorari under Rule 1E considerin" that the special civil action of certiorari a! not be availed of as a substitute for an appeal and that, in an! event, the "rounds invoDed in the petition are erel! alle"ed errors of #ud" ent %hich can no lon"er be done in vie% of the fact that the decision of the lo%er court had lon" beco e final and e@ecutor!. II Prescindin" fro the fore"oin", the respondent court erred in annullin" the decision of the lo%er court for the reason that a co pro ise a"ree ent or partition as the court construed the sa e to be, e@ecuted b! the parties on October ):, *+1+ %as void and unenforceable the sa e not havin" been approved b! the intestate court and that the sa e havin" been seasonabl! repudiated b! petitioners on the "round of fraud.

III The respondent court "rossl! erred in i"norin" and disre"ardin" findin"s of facts of the lo%er court that the alle"ed conve!ances of real properties ade b! the spouses =uan '. Sanche> and Maria Villafranca #ust before their death in favor of their dau"hter and "randchildren, private respondents herein, are tainted %ith fraud or ade in conte plation of death, hence, collationable. IV In an! event, the respondent court "rossl! erred in treatin" the lo%er court2s declaration of fictitiousness of the deeds of sale as a final ad#udication of annul ent. V The respondent court "rossl! erred in declarin" the ter ination of the intestate proceedin"s even as the lo%er court had not ade a final and enforceable distribution of the estate of the deceased =uan '. Sanche>. VI
Prescindin" fro the fore"oin", the respondent court "rossl! erred in not at least directin" respondent Rosalia S. 8u"od to deliver the deficienc! of ei"ht ?/C hectares due petitioners under the co pro ise a"ree ent and e orandu of a"ree ent, and in not further directin" her to include in the inventor! properties conve!ed under the deeds of sale found b! the lo%er court to be part of the estate of =uan '. Sanche>. 1+

The salient aspects of so e issues are closel! intert%inedH hence, the! are hereb! consolidated into three ain issues specificall! dealin" %ith the follo%in" sub#ects3 ?*C the propriet! of certiorari as a re ed! before the 'ourt of ,ppeals, ?(C the validit! of the co pro ise a"ree ent, and ?)C the presence of fraud in the e@ecution of the co pro ise andGor collation of the properties sold. The Court's Ruling The petition is not eritorious. First Issue3 Pro riet! o" Certiorari #e"ore the Court o" A eals Since private respondents had ne"lected or failed to file an ordinar! appeal %ithin the re"le entar! period, petitioners alle"e that the 'ourt of ,ppeals erred in allo%in" private respondent2s recourse to Rule 1E of the Rules of 'ourt. The! contend that private respondents2 invocation of certiorari %as Aprocedurall! defective.A 14 The! further ar"ue that private respondents, in their petition before the 'ourt of ,ppeals, alle"ed errors of the trial court %hich, bein" erel! errors of #ud" ent and not errors of #urisdiction, %ere not correctable b! certiorari. 1, This 'ourt disa"rees. Doctrinall! entrenched is the "eneral rule that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Ho%ever, =ustice 6loren> D. Re"alado lists several e@ceptions to this rule, vi$.3 A?*C %here the appeal does not constitute a speed! and ade&uate re ed! ?Salvadades vs. Pa#arillo, et al., 0/ Phil. 00C, as %here )) appeals %ere involved fro orders issued in a sin"le proceedin" %hich %ill inevitabl! result in a proliferation of ore appeals ?P'IB vs. 5scolin, et al., 8-(0/1: and (0/+1, Mar. (+, *+09CH ?(C %here

the orders %ere also issued either in e@cess of or %ithout #urisdiction ?,"uilar vs. Tan, 8-()1::, =un ):, *+0:, 'f. Bautista, et al. vs. Sar iento, et al., 8-9E*)0, Sept. ()*+/ECH ?)C for certain special consideration, as public %elfare or public polic! ?See =ose vs. Julueta, et al. *1E+/, Ma! )*, *+1* and the cases cited thereinCH ?9C %here in cri inal actions, the court re#ects rebuttal evidence for the prosecution as, in case of ac&uittal, there could be no re ed! ?People vs. ,balos, 8:(+:)+, Nov. (/, *+1/CH ?EC %here the order is a patent nullit! ?Marcelo vs. De .u> an, et al., 8-(+:00, =une (+, *+/(CH and ?1C %here the decision in the certiorari case %ill avoid future liti"ations ?St. Peter Me orial ParD, Inc. vs. 'a pos, et al., 8-)/(/:, Mar. (*, *+0EC.A 1- 5ven in a case %here the re ed! of appeal %as lost, the 'ourt has issued the %rit of certiorari %here the lo%er court patentl! acted in e@cess of or outside its #urisdiction, 17 as in the present case. , petition for certiorari under Rule 1E of the Rules of 'ourt is appropriate and allo%able %hen the follo%in" re&uisites concur3 ?*C the %rit is directed a"ainst a tribunal, board or officer e@ercisin" #udicial or &uasi-#udicial functionsH ?(C such tribunal, board or officer has acted %ithout or in e@cess of #urisdiction, or %ith "rave abuse of discretion a ountin" to lacD or e@cess of #urisdictionH and ?)C there is no appeal or an! plain, speed! and ade&uate re ed! in the ordinar! course of la%. 18 ,fter a thorou"h revie% of the case at bar, %e are convinced that all these re&uire ents %ere et. ,s a probate court, the trial court %as e@ercisin" #udicial functions %hen it issued its assailed resolution. The said court had #urisdiction to act in the intestate proceedin"s involved in this case %ith the caveat that, due to its li ited #urisdiction, it could resolve &uestions of title onl! provisionall!. 19 It is hornbooD doctrine that Ain a special proceedin" for the probate of a %ill, the &uestion of o%nership is an e@traneous atter %hich the probate court cannot resolve %ith finalit!. This pronounce ent no doubt applies %ith e&ual force to an intestate proceedin" as in the case at bar.A 20 In the instant case, the trial court rendered a decision declarin" as si ulated and fictitious all the deeds of absolute sale %hich, on =ul! (1, *+1) and =une (1, *+10, =uan '. Sanche> and Maria Villafranca e@ecuted in favor of their dau"hter, Rosalia Sanche> 8u"odH and "randchildren, na el!, ,rturo S. 8u"od, 5vel!n S. 8u"od and Roberto S. 8u"od. The trial court ruled further that the properties covered b! the said sales ust be sub#ect to collation. 'itin" ,rticle *9:+ ?(C of the 'ivil 'ode, the lo%er court nullified said deeds of sale anddeter%ined &ith "inalit! the o&nershi o" the ro erties sub'ect thereo" . In doin" so, it clearl! overstepped its #urisdiction as a probate court. =urisprudence teaches3
;,< probate court or one in char"e of proceedin"s %hether testate or intestate cannot ad#udicate or deter ine title to properties clai ed to be a part of the estate and %hich are clai ed to belon" to outside parties. ,ll that the said court could do as re"ards said properties is to deter ine %hether the! should or should not be included in the inventor! or list of properties to be ad inistered b! the ad inistrator. If there is not dispute, %ell and "ood, but if there is, then the parties, the ad inistrator, and the opposin" parties have to resort to an ordinar! action for a final deter ination of the conflictin" clai s of title because the probate court cannot do so. 21

6urther ore, the trial court co itted "rave abuse of discretion %hen it rendered its decision in disre"ard of the parties2 co pro ise a"ree ent. 22 Such disre"ard, on the "round that the co pro ise a"ree ent A%as nor approved b! the court,A 2+ is tanta ount to Aan evasion of positive dut! or to a virtual refusal to perfor the dut! en#oined or to act in conte plation and %ithin the bounds of la%. A 24 The fore"oin" issues clearl! involve not onl! the correctness of the trial court2s decision but also the latter2s #urisdiction. The! enco pass plain errors of #urisdiction and "rave abuse of discretion, not erel! errors of #ud" ent. 2, Since the trial court e@ceeded its #urisdiction, a petition for certiorari is certainl! a proper re ed!. Indeed, it is %ell-settled that A?aCn act done b! a probate court in e@cess of its #urisdiction a! be corrected b!certiorari.A 2-

'onsistent %ith the fore"oin", the follo%in" dis&uisition b! respondent appellate court is apt3
,s a "eneral proposition, appeal is the proper re ed! of petitioner Rosalia here under Rule *:+ of the Revised Rules of 'ourt. But the availabilit! of the ordinar! course of appeal does not constitute sufficient "round to ;prevent< a part! fro aDin" use of the e@traordinar! re ed! of certiorari %here appeal is not an ade&uate re ed! or e&uall! beneficial, speed! and sufficient ?5chau> vs. 'ourt of ,ppeals, *++ S'R, )/*C. Here, considerin" that the respondent court has disre"arded the co pro ise a"ree ent %hich has lon" been e@ecuted as earl! as October, *+1+ and declared null and void the deeds of sale %ith finalit!, %hich, as a probate court, it has no #urisdiction to do, 4e dee ordinar! appeal is inade&uate. 'onsiderin" further the ;trial court2s< "rantin" of ;herein petitioners2C otion for e@ecution of the assailed decision, 27 ;herein private respondent< Rosalia2s resort to the instant petition ;for revie% on certiorari< is all the ore %arranted under the circu stances. 28

4e thus hold that the &uestioned decision and resolutions of the trial court a! be challen"ed throu"h a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 1E of the Rules of 'ourt. ,t the ver! least, this case is a clear e@ception to the "eneral rule that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal because the trial court2s decision and resolutions %ere issued %ithout or in e@cess of #urisdiction, %hich a! thus be challen"ed or attacDed at an! ti e. A, void #ud" ent for %ant of #urisdiction is no #ud" ent at all. It cannot be the source of an! ri"ht nor the creator of an! obli"ation. ,ll acts perfor ed pursuant to it and all clai s e anatin" fro it have no le"al effect. Hence, it can never beco e final and an! %rit of e@ecution based on it is voidH 2 . . . it a! be said to be a la%less thin" %hich can be treated as an outla% and slain at si"ht, or i"nored %herever and %henever it e@hibits its head.2 A 29 Second Issue3 (alidit! o" Co% ro%ise Agree%ent Petitioners contend that, because the co pro ise a"ree ent %as e@ecuted durin" the pendenc! of the probate proceedin"s, #udicial approval is necessar! to shroud it %ith validit!. The! stress that the probate court had #urisdiction over the properties covered b! said a"ree ent. The! add that Petitioners 6lorida Mierl!, ,lfredo and M!rna %ere all iners represented onl! b! their otherGnatural "uardian, 8aureta Ta pus. +0 These contentions lacD erit. ,rticle (:(/ of the 'ivil 'ode defines a co pro ise a"ree ent as Aa contract %hereb! the parties, b! aDin" reciprocal concessions, avoid a liti"ation or put an end to one alread! co enced.A Bein" a consensual contract, it is perfected upon the eetin" of the inds of the parties. =udicial approval is not re&uired for its perfection. +1 Petitioners2 ar"u ent that the co pro ise %as not valid for lacD of #udicial approval is not novelH the sa e %as raised in Ma!uga vs. Court o" A eals, +2 %here the 'ourt, throu"h =ustice Irene R. 'ortes, ruled3 It is alle"ed that the lacD of #udicial approval is fatal to the co pro ise. , co pro ise is a consensual contract. ,s such, it is perfected upon the eetin" of the inds of the parties to the contract. ?Hernande> v. Barcelon, () Phil. E++ ;*+*(<H see also De los Re!es v. de 7"arte, 0E Phil. E:E ;*+9E<.C ,nd fro that o ent not onl! does it beco e bindin" upon the parties ?De los Re!es v. De 7"arte, su ra C, it also has upon the the effect and authorit! of res 'udicata ?'ivil 'ode, ,rt. (:)0C,even i" not 'udiciall! a roved ?Meneses v. De la Rosa, 00 Phil. )9 ;*+91<H Vda. De .uilas v. David, *)( Phil. (9*, 8-(9(/:, () S'R, 01( ;Ma! (0, *+1/<H 'ochin"!an v. 'loribel, 8-(0:0:-0* ;,pril ((, *+00<, 01 S'R, )1*C. ?5 phasis found in the ori"inal.C

In the case before us, it is ineludible that the parties Dno%in"l! and freel! entered into a valid co pro ise a"ree ent. ,de&uatel! assisted b! their respective counsels, the! each ne"otiated its ter s and provisions for four onthsH in fact, said a"ree ent %as e@ecuted onl! after the fourth draft. ,s noted b! the trial court itself, the first and second drafts %ere prepared successivel! in =ul!, *+1+H the third draft on Septe ber (E, *+1+H and the fourth draft, %hich %as finall! si"ned b! the parties on October ):, *+1+, ++ follo%ed. Since this co pro ise a"ree ent %as the result of a lon" dra%n out process, %ith all the parties abl! strivin" to protect their respective interests and to co e out %ith the best the! could, there can be no doubt that the parties entered into it freel! and voluntaril!. ,ccordin"l!, the! should be bound thereb!. +4 To be valid, it is erel! re&uired under the la% to be based on real clai s and actuall! a"reed upon in "ood faith b! the parties thereto. +, Indeed, co pro ise is a for of a icable settle ent that is not onl! allo%ed but also encoura"ed in civil cases. +-,rticle (:(+ of the 'ivil 'ode andates that a Acourt shall endeavor to persuade the liti"ants in a civil case to a"ree upon so e fair co pro ise.A In opposin" the validit! and enforce ent of the co pro ise a"ree ent, petitioners harp on the inorit! of 6lorida Mierl!, ,lfredo and M!na. 'itin" ,rticle (:)( of the 'ivil 'ode, the! contend that the court2s approval is necessar! in co pro ises entered into b! "uardians and parents in behalf of their %ards or children. +7 Ho%ever, %e observe that althou"h deno inated a co pro ise a"ree ent, the docu ent in this case is essentiall! a deed of partition, pursuant to ,rticle *:/( of the 'ivil 'ode %hich provides that A;e<ver! act %hich is intended to put an end to indivision a on" co-heirs and le"atees or devisees is dee ed to be a partition, althou"h it should purport to be a sale, an e@chan"e, a co pro ise, or an! other transaction.A 6or a partition to be valid, Section *, Rule 09 of the Rules of 'ourt, re&uires the concurrence of the follo%in" conditions3 ?*C the decedent left no %illH ?(C the decedent left no debts, or if there %ere debts left, all had been paidH ?)C the heirs and li&uidators are all of a"e, or if the! are inors, the latter are represented b! their #udicial "uardian or le"al representativesH and ?9C the partition %as ade b! eans of a public instru ent or affidavit dul! filed %ith the Re"ister of Deeds. +8 4e find that all the fore"oin" re&uisites are present in this case. 4e therefore affir the validit! of the parties2 co pro ise a"ree entGpartition in this case. In an! event, petitioners neither raised nor ventilated this issue in the trial court. This ne% &uestion or atter %as anifestl! be!ond the pale of the issues or &uestions sub itted and threshed out before the lo%er court %hich are reproduced belo%, vi$.3 I ,re the properties %hich are the ob#ect of the sale b! the deceased spouses to their "randchildren collationable$ II ,re the properties %hich are the ob#ect of the sale b! the deceased spouses to their le"iti ate dau"hter also collationable$
III The first and second issues bein" resolved, ho% uch then is the ri"htful share of the four ?9C reco"ni>ed ille"iti ate children$ +9

6urther ore, the (0-pa"e Me orandu dated 6ebruar! *0, *++: filed b! petitioners before the Re"ional Trial 'ourt 40 readil! reveals that the! never &uestioned the validit! of the co pro ise. In their co ent before the 'ourt of ,ppeals, 41 petitioners based their ob#ection to sad co pro ise a"ree ent on the solitar! Areason that it %as tainted %ith fraud and deception,A >eroin" specificall! on the alle"ed fraud co itted b! private respondent Rosalia S. 8u"od. 42 The issue of inorit! %as

first raised onl! in petitioners2 Motion for Reconsideration of the 'ourt of ,ppeals2 DecisionH 4+ thus, it Ais as if it %as never dul! raised in that court at all.A 44 Hence, this 'ourt cannot no%, for the first ti e on appeal, entertain this issue, for to do so %ould plainl! violate the basic rule of fair pla!, #ustice and due process. 4, 4e taDe this opportunit! to reiterate and e phasi>e the %ell-settled rule that A?aCn issue raised for the first ti e on appeal and not raised ti el! in the proceedin"s in the lo%er court is barred b! estoppel. Iuestions raised on appeal ust be %ithin the issues fra ed b! the parties and, conse&uentl!, issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first ti e on appeal.A 4The petitioners liDe%ise assail as void the provision on %aiver contained in No. / of the afore&uoted co pro ise, because it alle"edl! constitutes a relin&uish ent b! petitioners of Aa ri"ht to properties %hich %ere not Dno%n.A 47The! ar"ue that such %aiver is contrar! to la%, public polic!, orals or "ood custo . The 'ourt disa"rees. The assailed %aiver pertained to their hereditar! ri"ht to properties belon"in" to the decedent2s estate %hich %ere not included in the inventor! of the estate2s properties. It also covered their ri"ht to other properties ori"inall! belon"in" to the spouses =uan Sanche> and Maria Villafranca de Sanche> %hich have been transferred to other persons. In addition, the parties a"reed in the co pro ise to confir and ratif! said transfers. The %aiver is valid because, contrar! to petitioners2 protestation, the parties %aived a Dno%n and e@istin" interest N their hereditar! ri"ht %hich %as alread! vested in the b! reason of the death of their father. ,rticle 000 of the 'ivil 'ode provides that A?tChe ri"hts to the succession are trans itted fro the o ent of death of the decedent.A Hence, there is no le"al obstacle to an heir2s %aiver of hisGher hereditar! share Aeven if the actual e@tent of such share is not deter ined until the subse&uent li&uidation of the estate.A 48 ,t an! rate, such %aiver is consistent %ith the intent and letter of the la% advocatin" co pro ise as a vehicle for the settle ent of civil disputes. 49 6inall!, petitioners contend that Private Respondent Rosalia T. 8u"od2s alle"ed fraudulent acts, specificall! her conceal ent of so e of the decedent2s properties, attended the actual e@ecution of the co pro ise a"ree ent.,0 This ar"u ent is debunDed b! the absence of an! substantial and convincin" evidence on record sho%in" fraud on her part. ,s aptl! observed b! the appellate court3 ;Herein petitioners< accuse ;herein private respondent< Rosalia of fraud or deception b! alle"in", inter alia, that the parcel of land "iven to the never confor ed to the stated area, i.e., fort!-ei"ht ?9/C hectares, as stated in the co pro ise a"ree ent. 4e find this ar"u ent unconvincin" and un eritorious. ;Herein petitioners2< aver ent of fraud on the part of ;herein private respondent< Rosalia beco es untenable %hen 4e consider the e orandu of a"ree ent the! later e@ecuted %ith ;herein private respondent< Rosalia %herein said co pro ise a"ree ent %as odified b! correctin" the actual area "iven to ;herein petitioners< fro fort!-ei"ht ?9/C hectares to thirt!-si@ ?)1C hectares onl!. If the actual area allotted to the did not confor to the 9/ hectare area stated in the co pro ise a"ree ent, then %h! did the! a"ree to the e orandu of a"ree ent %hereb! their share in the estate of their father %as even reduced to #ust )1 hectares$ 4here is fraud or deception there$ 'onsiderin" that ;herein petitioners< %ere abl! represented b! their la%!ers in e@ecutin" these docu ents and %ho presu abl! had e@plained to the the i port and conse&uences thereof, it is hard to believe their char"e that the! %ere defrauded and deceived b! ;herein private respondent< Rosalia.
If the parcel of land "iven to ;herein petitioners<, %hen actuall! surve!ed, happened to be different in area to the stated area of 9/ hectares in the co pro ise a"ree ent, this circu stance is not enou"h proof of fraud or deception on ;herein private respondent< Rosalia2s part. Note that Ta@ Declaration No. :19E) plainl! discloses that the land transferred to ;herein petitioners< pursuant to the co pro ise a"ree ent contained an area of 9/ hectares ?,nne@ A,A, Supple ental Repl!C. ,nd %hen ;herein petitioners< discovered that the land allotted to the actuall! contained onl! (9 hectares, a

conference bet%een the parties tooD place %hich led to the e@ecution and si"nin" of the e orandu of a"ree ent %herein ;herein petitioners2< distributive share %as even reduced to )1 hectares. In the absence of convincin" and clear evidence to the contrar!, the alle"ation of fraud and deception cannot be successfull! i puted to ;herein private respondent< Rosalia %ho ust be presu ed to have acted in "ood faith. ,1

The e orandu of a"ree ent freel! and validl! entered into b! the parties on ,pril *), *+0: and referred to above reads3 MEMORAN)*M OF AGREEMENT
The parties assisted b! their respective counsel have a"reed as the! hereb! a"ree3

*. To a end the co pro ise a"ree ent e@ecuted b! the as to include the follo%in"3

on October ):, *+1+ so

a. 'orrection of the actual area bein" "iven to the petitioners and intervenors, all ille"iti ate children of the late =uan '. Sanche>, fort!ei"ht ?9/C hectares, thirt!-si@ ?)1C ares as e bodied in the afore entioned co pro ise a"ree ent to thirt!-si@ ?)1C hectares onl!, thus enablin" each of the to "et si@ ?1C hectares each. b. That the said )1-hectare area shall be taDen fro that parcel of land %hich is no% covered b! O.'.T. No. *91 ?Patent No. )::*(C and the ad#oinin" areas thereof desi"nated as 8ot , and 8ot ' as reflected on the sDetch plan attached to the record of this case prepared b! .eodetic 5n"ineer Ole"ario 5. Jalles pursuant to the 'ourt2s co ission of March *:, *+0: provided, ho%ever, that if the said )1-hectare area could not be found after addin" thereto the areas of said lots , and ', then the additional area shall be taDen fro %hat is desi"nated as 8ot B, liDe%ise also reflected in the said sDetch plan attached to the recordsH c. That the partition a on" the si@ ille"iti ate children of the late =uan '. Sanche> ?petitioners and intervenorsC shall be effective a on" the selves in such a anner to be a"reed upon b! the , each undertaDin" to assu e rede ption of %hatever plants found in their respective shares %hich need rede ption fro the tenants thereof as %ell as the continuit! of the tenanc! a"ree ents no% e@istin" and coverin" the said shares or areas. d. The subdivision surve! shall be at the e@pense of the said petitioners and intervenors prorata. e. That the ad inistratri@ a"rees to deliver te porar! ad inistration of the area desi"nated as 8ot E of the Valles SDetch Plan pendin" final surve! of the said )1-hectare area. 'a"a!an de Oro 'it!, ,pril *), *+0:. ?S"d.C 8,7R5T, T,MPOS

6or herself and as .uardian ad-lite of Rolando, Mierl!, ,lfredo and M!rna, all surna ed Sanche> ,ssisted b!3 ?S"d.C T5O.5N5S V585J, =r. 'ounsel for Petitioners ?S"d.C ROS,8I, S. 87.OD ,d inistratri@ ,ssisted b!3
?S"d.C P,B8O S. R5L5S 'ounsel for ,d inistratri@ ?S"d.C M,RI, R,BOSO S,N'H5J Intervenor ,2

Not onl! did the parties Dno%in"l! enter into a valid co pro ise a"ree entH the! even a ended it %hen the! reali>ed so e errors in the ori"inal. Such correction e phasi>es the voluntariness of said deed. It is also si"nificant that all the parties, includin" the then inors, had alread! consu%%ated and availed the%selves o" the bene"its o" their co% ro%ise . ,+ This 'ourt has consistentl! ruled that Aa part! to a co pro ise cannot asD for a rescission after it has en#o!ed its benefits.A ,4 B! their acts, the parties are ineludibl! estopped fro &uestionin" the validit! of their co pro ise a"ree ent. Bolsterin" this conclusion is the fact that petitioners &uestioned the co pro ise onl! nine !ears after its e@ecution, %hen the! filed %ith the trial court their Motion to Defer ,pproval of 'o pro ise ,"ree ent, dated October (1, *+0+. ,, In hindsi"ht, it is not at all farfetched that petitioners filed said otion for the sole reason that the! a! have felt shortchan"ed in their co pro ise a"ree ent or partition %ith private respondents, %hich in their vie% %as un%ise and unfair. 4hile %e a! s! pathi>e %ith this rueful senti ent of petitioners, %e can onl! stress that this alone is not sufficient to nullif! or disre"ard the le"al effects of said co pro ise %hich, b! its ver! nature as a perfected contract, is bindin" on the parties. Moreover, courts have no #urisdiction to looD into the %isdo of a co pro ise or to render a decision different therefro . ,- It is a %ell-entrenched doctrine that Athe la% does not relieve a part! fro the effects of an un%ise, foolish, or disastrous contract, entered into %ith all the re&uired for alities and %ith full a%areness of %hat he %as doin"A ,7 and Aa co pro ise entered into and carried out in "ood faith %ill not be discarded even if there %as a istaDe of la% or fact, ?Mc'arth! vs. Barber Stea ship 8ines, 9E Phil. 9//C because courts have no po%er to relieve parties fro obli"ations voluntaril! assu ed, si pl! because their contracts turned out to be disastrous deals or un%ise invest ents.A ,8 (olenti non "it in'uria. 'orollaril!, the petitioners contend that the 'ourt of ,ppeals "ravel! abused its discretion in dee in" Special Proceedin"s Nos. 99-M and *:(( A'8OS5D and T5RMIN,T5D,A ar"uin" that there %as as !et no order of distribution of the estate pursuant to Rule +: of the Rules of 'ourt. The! add that the! had not received their full share thereto. ,9 4e disa"ree. 7nder Section *, Rule +: of the Rules

of 'ourt, an order for the distribution of the estate a! be ade %hen the Adebts, funeral char"es, and e@penses of ad inistration, the allo%ance to the %ido%, and inheritance ta@, if an!,A had been paid. This order for the distribution of the estate2s residue ust contain the na es and shares of the persons entitled thereto. , perusal of the %hole record, particularl! the trial court2s conclusion, -0 reveals that all the fore"oin" re&uire ents alread! concurred in this case. The pa! ent of the indebtedness of the estates of =uan '. Sanche> and Maria Villafranca in the a ount of PE*,E+/.+) %as shouldered b! Private Respondent Rosalia, %ho also absorbed or char"ed a"ainst her share the advances of Rolando T. 8u"od in the su of P/,E)).+9, in co pliance %ith ,rticle *:1* of the 'ivil 'ode on collation. -16urther ore, the co pro ise of the parties, %hich is the la% bet%een the , alread! contains the na es and shares of the heirs to the residual estate, %hich shares had also been delivered. On this point, %e a"ree %ith the follo%in" discussion of the 'ourt of ,ppeals3
But %hat the ?trial courtC obviousl! overlooDed in its appreciation of the facts of this case are the uncontroverted facts that ?herein petitionersC have been in possession and o%nership of their respective distributive shares as earl! as October ):, *+1+ and the! have received other properties in addition to their distributive shares in consideration of the co pro ise a"ree ent %hich the! no% assail. Proofs thereof are Ta@ Declarations No. (:+/9, (:+/E, (:+/1, (:+/0, (:+//, (:+/+ and (:++: ?,nne@es ABA to AHA, Supple ental Repl!C in the respective na es of ?herein petitionersC, all for the !ear *+0(. ?Herein petitionersC also retained a house and lot, a residential lot and a parcel of a"ricultural land ?,nne@es AIA, A=A and AFA, Ibid.C all of %hich %ere not considered in the co pro ise a"ree ent bet%een the parties. Moreover, in the co pro ise a"ree ent er se+it is undoubtedl! stated therein that cash advances in the a""re"ate su of P/,E)).+9 %ere received b! ?herein petitionersC after October (*, *+1/ ?'o pro ise ,"ree ent, par. EC -2

,ll the fore"oin" sho% clearl! that the probate court had essentiall! finished said intestate proceedin"s %hich, conse&uentl!, should be dee ed closed and ter inated. In vie% of the above discussion, the 'ourt sees no reversible error on the part of the 'ourt of ,ppeals. Third Issue3 Fraud and Collation Petitioners fault Respondent 'ourt for not orderin" Private Respondent Rosalia T. 8u"od to deliver to the the deficienc! as alle"edl! provided under the co pro ise a"ree ent. The! further contend that said court erred in not directin" the provisional inclusion of the alle"ed deficienc! in the inventor! for purposes of collatin" the properties sub#ect of the &uestioned deeds of sale. -+ 4e see no such error. In the trial court, there %as onl! one hearin" conducted, and it %as held onl! for the reception of the evidence of Rosalia S. 8u"od to install her as ad inistratri@ of the estate of Maria Villafranca. There %as no other evidence, %hether testi onial or other%ise, Areceived, for all! offered to, and subse&uentl! ad itted b! the probate court belo%AH nor %as there Aa trial on the erits of the parries2 conflictin" clai s.A -4 In fact, the petitioners A oved for the defer ent of the co pro ise a"ree ent on the basis of alle"ed fraudulent conceal ent of properties N NOT because of an! deficienc! in the land conve!ed to the under the a"ree ents.A -, Hence, there is no hard evidence on record to bacD up petitioners2 clai s. In an! case, the trial court noted Private Respondent Rosalia2s %illin"ness to rei burse an! deficienc! actuall! proven to e@ist. It subse&uentl! ordered the "eodetic en"ineer %ho prepared the certification and the sDetch of the lot in &uestion, and %ho could have provided evidence for the petitioners, Ato brin" records of his relocation surve!.A -- Ho%ever, .eodetic 5n"ineer Idulsa did not co pl! %ith the court2s sub oena duces tecu% and ad testi"icandu%. Neither did he furnish the re&uired relocation surve!. -7 No %onder, even after a thorou"h scrutin! of the records, this 'ourt

cannot find an! evidence to support petitioners2 alle"ations of fraud a"ainst Private Respondent Rosalia. Si ilarl!, petitioners2 alle"ations of fraud in the e@ecution of the &uestioned deeds of sale are bereft of substance, in vie% of the palpable absence of evidence to support the . The le"al presu ption of validit! of the &uestioned deeds of absolute sale, bein" dul! notari>ed public docu ents, has not been overco e. -8 On the other hand, fraud is not presu ed. It ust be proved b! clear and convincin" evidence, and not b! ere con#ectures or speculations. 4e stress that these deeds of sale did not involve "ratuitous transfers of future inheritanceH these %ere contracts of sale perfected b! the decedents durin" their lifeti e. -9 Hence, the properties conve!ed thereb! are not collationable because, essentiall!, collation andated under ,rticle *:1* of the 'ivil 'ode conte plates properties conve!ed inter vivos b! the decedent to an heir b! %a! of donation or other "ratuitous title. In an! event, these alle"ed errors and deficiencies re"ardin" the deliver! of shares provided in the co pro ise, conceal ent of properties and fraud in the deeds of sale are factual in nature %hich, as a rule, are not revie%able b! this 'ourt in petitions under Rule 9E. 70 Petitioners have failed to convince us that this case constitutes an e@ception to such rule. ,ll in all, %e find that the 'ourt of ,ppeals has sufficientl! addressed the issues raised b! the . Indeed, the! have not persuaded us that said 'ourt co itted an! reversible error to %arrant a "rant of their petition. 4H5R56OR5, the petition is hereb! D5NI5D and the assailed Decision of the 'ourt of ,ppeals is ,66IRM5D. SO ORD5R5D. Narvasa+ C,-,+ Ro%ero+ Melo and Francisco+ --,+ concur, "oot&ote. * Rollo, pp. 9/-1:. ( 6ourteenth Division, co posed of -. 8uis 8. Victor, onente, and --. 6idel P. Purisi a and Oscar M. Herrera, actin" chair an. ) Rollo, pp. /E-**0. 9 Penned b! =ud"e Vivencio ,. .alon. E Decision of the 'ourt of ,ppeals, p. *)H rollo, p. 1:. 1 T%o other ille"iti ate children of =uan '. Sanche>, na el!, Patricio ,lburo and Maria Ra oso, intervened in the intestate proceedin"s. Ho%ever, the! are not parties in the present controvers! before the Supre e 'ourt. 0 Decision of the 'ourt of ,ppeals, pp. *-1H rollo, pp. 9/-E). / Ibid., p. 1H rollo, p. E). + 'opied fro the trial court2s decision, pp. 0-*)H rollo, pp. +*-+0H ,nne@ A=A, petition. See also ,nne@ A(A, 'o ent dated =ul! (, *++)H rollo, pp. *E+-*10.

*: Record of the 'ourt of ,ppeals, pp. *1*-*1). ** Ibid., pp. *1+-*+*. *( Ibid., pp. (E:-(E(. *) Petition, pp. *E-*1H rollo, pp. ()-(9. See also Me orandu *(-*9H rollo, pp. 999-991. *9 Me orandu for Petitioners, p. *0H rollo, p. 99+. for Petitioners, pp.

*E Ibid., pp. *+-(:H rollo, pp. 9E*-9E(. *1 Re edial 8a% 'o pendiu , Volu e One, p. 0:/, ?*++0C. *0 Philippine National BanD vs. 6lorendo, (:1 S'R, E/(, E/+, 6ebruar! (1, *++(. See also Heirs of Ma!or No encio .alve> vs. 'ourt of ,ppeals, (EE S'R, 10(, 1/+, March (+, *++1. */ Section *, Rule 1E, Rules of 'ourt. See 'ochin"!an, =r. vs. 'loribel, 01 S'R, )1*, )/E, ,pril ((, *+00. *+ =i ene> vs. Inter ediate ,ppellate 'ourt, */9 S'R, )10, )0*-)0(, ,pril *0, *++:. (: Ibid., p. )0(. (* Orte"a vs. 'ourt of ,ppeals, *E) S'R, +1, *:(-*:), ,u"ust *9, *+/0, per Paras, -. See alsoMorales vs. '6I of 'avite, Br. V, *91 S'R, )0), )/*-)/), Dece ber (+, *+/1. (( See =ulieta V. 5s"uerra vs. 'ourt of ,ppeals and Sureste Properties, Inc. ..R. No. **+)*:, p. (*, 6ebruar! ), *++0H and Tac-an Dano vs. 'ourt of ,ppeals, *)0 S'R, /:), /*), =ul! (+, *+/E. () Decision of the Re"ional Trial 'ourt, p. *9H rollo, p. +/. (9 Paredes vs. 'ivil Service 'o ission, *+( S'R, /9, +9, Dece ber 9, *++:, per Paras, -.H citing'arson et al. vs. =ud"e Panta osos, =r., */: S'R, *E*, Dece ber *E, *+/+, Intestate 5state of 'ar en de 8una vs. Inter ediate ,ppelate 'ourt, *0: S'R, (91, 6ebruar! *), *+/+, and People vs. Manuel, ** S'R, 1*/, =ul! )*, *+19. See also 'ochin"!an, =r. vs. 'loribel, su ra, pp. )/0-)//. (E See 'ochin"!an, =r. vs. 'loribel, su ra, p. )/1. (1 Maninan" vs. 'ourt of ,ppeals, **9 S'R, 90/, 9/E, =une *+, *+/(, per Melencio-Herrera, -.Hciting 8la as vs. Moscoso, +E Phil. E++ ?*+E9C. (0 See Re"ional Trial 'ourt2s O nibus Order Den!in" Second Motion for Reconsideration and Den!in" Pra!er for Voluntar! Inhibition of 7ndersi"ned Trial

=ud"e, Declarin" Decision Dated =une (1, *++* as 6inal and 5@ecutor!, p. 1H rollo, p.*(). (/ Decision of the 'ourt of ,ppeals, p. *)H rollo, p. 1:. (+ 8eonor vs. 'ourt of ,ppeals, (E1 S'R, 1+, ,pril (, *++1, per Pan"aniban, -. ): Me orandu for the Petitioners, pp. ()-(/H rollo, pp. 9EE-91:.

)* See Do in"o vs. 'ourt of ,ppeals, (EE S'R, */+, *++, March (:, *++1, per Fapunan, -., and .o vs. Inter ediate ,ppelate 'ourt, */) S'R, /(, /1-/0, March *(, *++:, per 6ernan, C.-. )( *E9 S'R, ):+, )(:, Septe ber (/, *+/0. )) Decision of the Re"ional Trial 'ourt, p. *9H rollo, p. +/. )9 Republic vs. Sandi"anba!an, *0) S'R, 0(, /), Ma! 9, *+/+. )E 8andiol Resources 'orporation vs. Tensuan, *1/ S'R, E1+, E0+, Dece ber (:, *+//. )1 Ibid. )0 Petitioners2 Me orandu , pp. (1-(0H rollo, pp. 9E/-9E+. )/ Santia"o 5s&uivel, et al, vs. The 'ourt of ,ppeals, ,lfredo N. 6rias and Belen 8ustre-6rias, ..R. No. 8-//(E, p. E, ,pril (:, *+E1, +/ Phil. *::/, 7nrep., per Bautista ,n"elo, -. See also .o e> vs. Mariano, et al, *0 '.,.R. *(+E, *(++, Dece ber (), *+0(, per .aviola =r., -. )+ Me orandu of Petitioners in the Re"ional Trial 'ourt, p. +H record of the 'ourt of ,ppeals, p. (:). 9: See Record, pp. *+E to ((*. 9* Record, pp. )EE-)09. 9( Petitioners2 'o ent in the 'ourt of ,ppeals, pp. 1-0H Record pp. (1E-(11.

9) Motion for Reconsideration, pp. *)-*9H Record, pp. )11-)10. 99 Manila Ba! 'lub 'orporation vs. 'ourt of ,ppeals, (9E S'R, 0*E, 0(+, =ul! **, *++E, per 6rancisco, -. 9E Medida vs. 'ourt of ,ppeals, (:/ S'R, //0, /+), Ma! /, *++(, per Re"alado, -.H citing Vencilao, et al. vs. Vano, et al., */( S'R, 9+*, 6ebruar! (), *++:, and .evero, et al vs. Inter ediate ,ppellate 'ourt, et al., */+ S'R, (:*, ,u"ust ):, *++:.

91 'alte@ ?PhilippinesC, Inc. vs. 'ourt of ,ppeals, (*( S'R, 99/, 91*, ,u"ust *:, *++(, per Re"alado, -.H citing Me#orada vs. Municipal 'ouncil of Dipolo", E( S'R, 9E*, ,u"ust )*, *+0), Sec. */, Rule 91, Rules of 'ourt, .arcia, et al. vs. 'ourt of ,ppeals, et al., *:( S'R, E+0, =anuar! )*, *+/*, Matien>o vs. Servidad, *:0 S'R, (01, Septe ber *:, *+/*, ,"uinaldo Industries 'orporation, etc. vs. 'o issioner of Internal Revenue, et al., **( S'R, *)1, 6ebruar! (E, *+/(, Dulos Realt! K Develop ent 'orporation vs. 'ourt of ,ppeals, et al., *E0 S'R, 9(E, =anuar! (/, *+//. 90 Me orandu for the Petitioners, pp. (/-):H rollo, pp. 91:-91(.

9/ De Bor#a vs. Vda. de de Bor#a, 91 S'R, E00, E/1, ,u"ust */, *+0(, per Re!es, =.B.8., -. 9+ See Republic vs. Sandi"anba!an, ((1 S'R, )*9, )(*-)((, su ra, and Mc'arth! vs. Sandi"anba!an, 9E Phil. 9//, 9+/, ?*+()C. E: Me orandu for Petitioners, pp. ):-)*H rollo, pp. 91(-91).

E* Decision of the 'ourt of ,ppeals, pp. /-+H rollo, pp. EE-E1. E( ,nne@ A(A, 'o ent dated =ul! (, *++)H rollo, pp. *1/-*1+. of

E) Decision of the 'ourt of ,ppeals, p. +H rollo, p. E1. See also Me orandu Private Respondents, pp. (*-((H rollo, pp. )*+-)(:. E9 Republic vs. Sandi"anba!an, su ra.

EE Rollo, pp. *0:-*0). On said date, October (1, *+0+, the inors had all %ell passed the a"e of a#orit!. See petition before the trial court, dated =anuar! *9, *+1+, sho%in" the a"es then of 6lorida Mierl! at *+, ,lfredo at */ and M!rna at *1 ?Rollo, p. 1)C. E1 =ulieta V. 5s"uerra vs. 'ourt of ,ppeals and Sureste Properties, Inc., su ra, pp. *(- *), per Pan"aniban, -. E0 Ibid., p. *(. See also Tanda vs. ,lda!a, /+ Phil. 9+0, E:), ?*+E*C, per Tuason, -. E/ Villacorte vs. Mariano, /+ Phil. )9*, )9+, ?*+E*C, per Ben">on, -. E+ Me orandu for the Petitioners, pp. )1-)0H rollo, pp. 91/-91+.

1: Decision of the Re"ional Trial 'ourt, pp. (1-))H rollo, pp. **:-**0. 1* Me orandu for Rosalia S. 8u"od, p. 9H ,nne@ AO,A 'ourt of ,ppeals Petition, Record, p. *:1.See also Me orandu of Private Respondents, p. (*H rollo, p. )*+. 1( Decision of the 'ourt of ,ppeals, p. +H rollo, p. E1. 1) See Me orandu for the Petitioners, pp. )0-9:H rollo, pp. 91+-90(.

19 See Me orandu

for Private Respondents, pp. )(-)1H rollo, pp. )(+-))).

1E Repl! Me orandu , pp. (-)H rollo, pp. 90+-9/:. 11 Ibid., p. EH rollo, p. 9/(. 10 Ibid., pp. E-1H rollo, pp. 9/(-9/). The 'ertification and SDetch Plan .eodetic 5n"ineer Idulsa sub itted to the trial court, pointed out b! petitioners in their Me orandu dated March *0, *++9 ?p. *(H rollo, p. 999C, are not the relocation surve! re&uired of hi b! said court. 1/ See Record of the 'ourt of ,ppeals, pp. *E:-*E9. 1+ 6avor vs. 'ourt of ,ppeals, *+9 S'R, ):/, )*), 6ebruar! (*, *++*, per 'ru>, -. 0: Ma@i ino 6uentes vs. 'ourt of ,ppeals, ..R. No. *:+/9+, pp. E-1, 6ebruar! (1, *++0.