1

SM PRIME HOLDINGS VS MADAYAG

FACTS:
Respondent filed an application for registration of a parcel of land.
Attached to the application was a tracing cloth of Survey Plan Psu-0-
00!"#!$ approved %y the &and 'anage(ent Services )&'S* of the +,-R.
Petitioner through counsel$ wrote the Chief$ Regional Survey +ivision$
de(anding the cancellation of the respondent.s survey plan %ecause the lot
encroached on the properties it recently purchased fro( several lot owners
and that$ despite %eing the new owner of the ad/oining lots$ it was not
notified of the survey conducted.
P,T0T01-,R:
Principally$ it alleges that the survey plan should %e cancelled %ecause it
includes portions of the seven properties that it purchased fro( several
landowners$ which properties are already covered %y e2isting certificates
of title.
Petitioner contends that$ since the respondent.s cause of action in the
land registration case depends heavily on the survey plan$ it was only
prudent for the RTC to suspend the proceedings therein pending the
resolution of the petition for cancellation of the survey plan %y the +,-R.
0t$ therefore$ insists that recourse to a petition for certiorari was not
proper considering that respondent was not ar%itrarily deprived of her
right to prosecute her application for registration.
R,SP1-+,-T:
3owever$ respondent argues that the land registration court is clothed with
ade4uate authority to resolve the conflicting clai(s of the parties$ and
that even if the +,-R cancels her survey plan$ the land registration court
is not %y duty %ound to dis(iss the application for registration %ased
solely on the cancellation of the survey plan.
R5&0-6:
The petition has no (erit.
-one of the circu(stances that would /ustify the stay of proceedings is
present. 0n fact$ to await the resolution of the petition for cancellation
would only delay the resolution of the land registration case and under(ine
the purpose of land registration.
The RTC need not wait for the decision of the +,-R in the petition to
cancel the survey plan in order to deter(ine whether the su%/ect property
is already titled or for(s part of already titled property. The court (ay
now verify this allegation %ased on the respondent.s survey plan vis-7-vis
the certificates of title of the petitioner and its predecessors-in-
interest. After all$ a survey plan precisely serves to esta%lish the true
identity of the land to ensure that it does not overlap a parcel of land or
a portion thereof already covered %y a previous land registration$ and to
forestall the possi%ility that it will %e overlapped %y a su%se4uent
registration of any ad/oining land.
83,R,F1R,$ pre(ises considered$ the petition is +,-0,+.
2
APP&0CA9&, &A8S A-+ PR0-C0P&,S:
The funda(ental purpose of the &and Registration &aw )Presidential +ecree
-o. :;<* is to finally settle title to real property in order to pree(pt
any 4uestion on the legality of the title = e2cept clai(s that were noted
on the certificate itself at the ti(e of registration or those that arose
su%se4uent thereto. Conse4uently$ once the title is registered under the
said law$ owners can rest secure on their ownership and possession.
0t is well to note at this point that$ in its %id to avoid (ultiplicity of
suits and to pro(ote the e2peditious resolution of cases$ Presidential
+ecree )P.+.* -o. :;< eli(inated the distinction %etween the general
/urisdiction vested in the RTC and the latter.s li(ited /urisdiction when
acting (erely as a land registration court. &and registration courts$ as
such$ can now hear and decide even controversial and contentious cases$ as
well as those involving su%stantial issues. 8hen the law confers
/urisdiction upon a court$ the latter is dee(ed to have all the necessary
powers to e2ercise such /urisdiction to (a>e it effective. 0t (ay$
therefore$ hear and deter(ine all 4uestions that arise fro( a petition for
registration.
0n view of the nature of a Torrens title$ a land registration court has the
duty to deter(ine whether the issuance of a new certificate of title will
alter a valid and e2isting certificate of title. An application for
registration of an already titled land constitutes a collateral attac> on
the e2isting title$ which is not allowed %y law.
Government of the Philippine Islands vs A!"ral
FACTS:
8ilhel( ?a(%rich$ an Austrian$ arrived in the Philippines after he was
assigned %y his e(ployer$ an Austrian co(pany$ to wor> at a pro/ect in
'indoro. 3e transferred to Ce%u and wor>ed at the -aga 00 Pro/ect of the
-ational Power Corporation. There$ he (et respondent Antonietta 1palla-
+escallar$ a separated (other of two %oys who was wor>ing as a waitress.
?a(%rich %efriended respondent and as>ed her to tutor hi( in ,nglish. 0n
dire need of additional inco(e to support her children$ respondent agreed.
The tutorials were held in Antonietta.s residence at a s4uatters. area in
6orordo Avenue.
?a(%rich and respondent fell in love and decided to live together in their
newly ac4uired house. A +eed of A%solute Sale was li>ewise issued in their
favor. 3owever$ when the +eed of A%solute Sale was presented for
registration %efore the Register of +eeds$ registration was refused on the
ground that ?a(%rich was an alien and could not ac4uire aliena%le lands of
the pu%lic do(ain. Conse4uently$ ?a(%rich.s na(e was erased fro( the
docu(ent. TCT* -os. ;"@<0$ ;"@< and ;"@<; over the properties were issued
in respondent.s na(e alone.
?a(%rich also for(ally adopted respondent.s two sons.
9y then$ respondent found a new %oyfriend while ?a(%rich %egan to live with
another wo(an in +anao City. ?a(%rich supported respondent.s sons for only
3
two (onths after the %rea> up.
P,T0T01-,R:
?a(%rich (et petitioner Ca(ilo F. 9orro(eo so(eti(e in <!A. Petitioner was
engaged in the real estate %usiness. 3e also %uilt and repaired speed%oats
as a ho%%y. 0n <!<$ ?a(%rich purchased an engine and so(e accessories for
his %oat fro( petitioner$ for which he %eca(e inde%ted to the latter for
a%out P:0$000.00. To pay for his de%t$ he sold his rights and interests in
the Agro-'acro properties to petitioner for P;:0$000$ as evidenced %y a
B+eed of A%solute SaleCAssign(ent.B1n ?uly ;A$ <<$ when petitioner sought
to register the deed of assign(ent$ he discovered that titles to the three
lots have %een transferred in the na(e of respondent$ and that the su%/ect
property has already %een (ortgaged.
R,SP1-+,-T:
0n her Answer$ respondent %elied the allegation that she did not pay a
single centavo of the purchase price. 1n the contrary$ she clai(ed that she
Bsolely and e2clusively used her own personal funds to defray and pay for
the purchase price of the su%/ect lots in 4uestion$B and that ?a(%rich$
%eing an alien$ was prohi%ited to ac4uire or own real property in the
Philippines.
At the trial$ respondent presented evidence showing her alleged financial
capacity to %uy the disputed property with (oney fro( a supposed copra
%usiness.
0SS5,:
The honora%le CA seriously erred in disregarding respondentDs /udicial
ad(ission and other overwhel(ing evidence esta%lishing ?a(%richDs
participation$ interest and ownership of the properties in 4uestion as
found %y the honora%le trial court.
The honora%le CA seriously erred in holding that ?A(%rich has no title to
the properties in 4uestion and (ay not therefore transfer and assign any
rights and interests in favor of petitioner.
The 3onora%le CA seriously erred in reserving the well-reasoned decision of
the trial court and in i(posing dou%le costs against herein petitioner
R5&0-6:
The evidence clearly shows$ as pointed out %y the trial court$ who %etween
respondent and ?a(%rich possesses the financial capacity to ac4uire the
properties in dispute.
0t is settled that registration is not a (ode of ac4uiring ownership. 0t is
only a (eans of confir(ing the fact of its e2istence with notice to the
world at large. Certificates of title are not a source of right. The (ere
possession of a title does not (a>e one the true owner of the property.
Thus$ the (ere fact that respondent has the titles of the disputed
properties in her na(e does not necessarily$ conclusively and a%solutely
(a>e her the owner. The rule on indefeasi%ility of title li>ewise does not
apply to respondent. A certificate of title i(plies that the title is
4uiet$ and that it is perfect$ a%solute and indefeasi%le. 3owever$ there
are well-defined e2ceptions to this rule$ as when the transferee is not a
4
holder in good faith and did not ac4uire the su%/ect properties for a
valua%le consideration. This is the situation in the instant case.
Respondent did not contri%ute a single centavo in the ac4uisition of the
properties. She had no inco(e of her own at that ti(e$ nor did she have any
savings. She and her two sons were then fully supported %y ?a(%rich.
0n 5nited Church 9oard for 8orld 'inistries v. Se%astian$#0 the Court
reiterated the consistent ruling in a nu(%er of cases# that if land is
invalidly transferred to an alien who su%se4uently %eco(es a Filipino
citiEen or transfers it to a Filipino$ the flaw in the original transaction
is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid.
Applying 5nited Church 9oard for 8orld 'inistries$ the trial court ruled in
favor of petitioner$ viE.:
F8Ghile the ac4uisition and the purchase of )sic* 8ilhel( ?a(%rich of the
properties under litigation FwereG void a% initio since Fthey wereG
contrary to the Constitution of the Philippines$ he %eing a foreigner$ yet$
the ac4uisition of these properties %y plaintiff who is a Filipino citiEen
fro( hi($ has cured the flaw in the original transaction and the title of
the transferee is valid.
The trial court upheld the sale %y ?a(%rich in favor of petitioner and
ordered the cancellation of the TCTs in the na(e of respondent. 0t declared
petitioner as owner in fee si(ple of the residential house of strong
(aterials and three parcels of land designated as &ot -os. $ # and :$ and
ordered the Register of +eeds of 'andaue City to issue new certificates of
title in his na(e. The trial court li>ewise ordered respondent to pay
petitioner P;:$000 as attorney.s fees and P0$000 as litigation e2penses$
as well as the costs of suit.
8e affir( the Regional Trial Court.
The rationale %ehind the Court.s ruling in 5nited Church 9oard for 8orld
'inistries$ as reiterated in su%se4uent cases$ is this = since the %an on
aliens is intended to preserve the nation.s land for future generations of
Filipinos$ that ai( is achieved %y (a>ing lawful the ac4uisition of real
estate %y aliens who %eca(e Filipino citiEens %y naturaliEation or those
transfers (ade %y aliens to Filipino citiEens. As the property in dispute
is already in the hands of a 4ualified person$ a Filipino citiEen$ there
would %e no (ore pu%lic policy to %e protected. The o%/ective of the
constitutional provision to >eep our lands in Filipino hands has %een
achieved
Borromeo vs. Descallar
FACTS:
Wilhelm Jambrich, an Austrian, arrived in the Philippines ater he !as assi"ned b# his
empl$#er, an Austrian c$mpan#, t$ !$r% at a pr$&ect in 'ind$r$( )e transerred t$ Cebu
and !$r%ed at the *a"a ++ Pr$&ect $ the *ati$nal P$!er C$rp$rati$n( There, he met
resp$ndent Ant$nietta ,palla-.escallar, a separated m$ther $ t!$ b$#s !h$ !as
!$r%in" as a !aitress( Jambrich beriended resp$ndent and as%ed her t$ tut$r him in
/n"lish( +n dire need $ additi$nal inc$me t$ supp$rt her children, resp$ndent a"reed(
The tut$rials !ere held in Ant$nietta0s residence at a s1uatters0 area in 2$r$rd$ Avenue(
Jambrich and resp$ndent ell in l$ve and decided t$ live t$"ether in their ne!l# ac1uired
h$use( A .eed $ Abs$lute Sale !as li%e!ise issued in their av$r( )$!ever, !hen the
3
.eed $ Abs$lute Sale !as presented $r re"istrati$n be$re the 4e"ister $ .eeds,
re"istrati$n !as reused $n the "r$und that Jambrich !as an alien and c$uld n$t ac1uire
alienable lands $ the public d$main( C$nse1uentl#, Jambrich0s name !as erased r$m
the d$cument( TCT5 *$s( 24678, 24671 and 24672 $ver the pr$perties !ere issued in
resp$ndent0s name al$ne(
Jambrich als$ $rmall# ad$pted resp$ndent0s t!$ s$ns(
9# then, resp$ndent $und a ne! b$#riend !hile Jambrich be"an t$ live !ith an$ther
!$man in .ana$ Cit#( Jambrich supp$rted resp$ndent0s s$ns $r $nl# t!$ m$nths ater
the brea% up(
P/T+T+,*/4:
Jambrich met petiti$ner Camil$ F( 9$rr$me$ s$metime in 17:;( Petiti$ner !as en"a"ed in
the real estate business( )e als$ built and repaired speedb$ats as a h$bb#( +n 17:7,
Jambrich purchased an en"ine and s$me access$ries $r his b$at r$m petiti$ner, $r
!hich he became indebted t$ the latter $r ab$ut P138,888(88( T$ pa# $r his debt, he
s$ld his ri"hts and interests in the A"r$-'acr$ pr$perties t$ petiti$ner $r P238,888, as
evidenced b# a <.eed $ Abs$lute Sale=Assi"nment(<,n Jul# 2;, 1771, !hen petiti$ner
s$u"ht t$ re"ister the deed $ assi"nment, he disc$vered that titles t$ the three l$ts have
been transerred in the name $ resp$ndent, and that the sub&ect pr$pert# has alread#
been m$rt"a"ed(
4/SP,*./*T:
+n her Ans!er, resp$ndent belied the alle"ati$n that she did n$t pa# a sin"le centav$ $
the purchase price( ,n the c$ntrar#, she claimed that she <s$lel# and e>clusivel# used
her $!n pers$nal unds t$ dera# and pa# $r the purchase price $ the sub&ect l$ts in
1uesti$n,< and that Jambrich, bein" an alien, !as pr$hibited t$ ac1uire $r $!n real
pr$pert# in the Philippines(
At the trial, resp$ndent presented evidence sh$!in" her alle"ed ?nancial capacit# t$ bu#
the disputed pr$pert# !ith m$ne# r$m a supp$sed c$pra business(
+SS@/:
The h$n$rable CA seri$usl# erred in disre"ardin" resp$ndentAs &udicial admissi$n and
$ther $ver!helmin" evidence establishin" JambrichAs participati$n, interest and
$!nership $ the pr$perties in 1uesti$n as $und b# the h$n$rable trial c$urt(
The h$n$rable CA seri$usl# erred in h$ldin" that JAmbrich has n$ title t$ the pr$perties in
1uesti$n and ma# n$t there$re transer and assi"n an# ri"hts and interests in av$r $
petiti$ner(
The )$n$rable CA seri$usl# erred in reservin" the !ell-reas$ned decisi$n $ the trial
c$urt and in imp$sin" d$uble c$sts a"ainst herein petiti$ner
4@B+*2:
The evidence clearl# sh$!s, as p$inted $ut b# the trial c$urt, !h$ bet!een resp$ndent
and Jambrich p$ssesses the ?nancial capacit# t$ ac1uire the pr$perties in dispute(
+t is settled that re"istrati$n is n$t a m$de $ ac1uirin" $!nership( +t is $nl# a means $
c$n?rmin" the act $ its e>istence !ith n$tice t$ the !$rld at lar"e( Certi?cates $ title
are n$t a s$urce $ ri"ht( The mere p$ssessi$n $ a title d$es n$t ma%e $ne the true
$!ner $ the pr$pert#( Thus, the mere act that resp$ndent has the titles $ the disputed
pr$perties in her name d$es n$t necessaril#, c$nclusivel# and abs$lutel# ma%e her the
$!ner( The rule $n indeeasibilit# $ title li%e!ise d$es n$t appl# t$ resp$ndent( A
certi?cate $ title implies that the title is 1uiet, and that it is perect, abs$lute and
indeeasible( )$!ever, there are !ell-de?ned e>cepti$ns t$ this rule, as !hen the
transeree is n$t a h$lder in "$$d aith and did n$t ac1uire the sub&ect pr$perties $r a
valuable c$nsiderati$n( This is the situati$n in the instant case( 4esp$ndent did n$t
c$ntribute a sin"le centav$ in the ac1uisiti$n $ the pr$perties( She had n$ inc$me $ her
$!n at that time, n$r did she have an# savin"s( She and her t!$ s$ns !ere then ull#
;
supp$rted b# Jambrich(
+n @nited Church 9$ard $r W$rld 'inistries v( Sebastian,38 the C$urt reiterated the
c$nsistent rulin" in a number $ cases31 that i land is invalidl# transerred t$ an alien
!h$ subse1uentl# bec$mes a Filipin$ citiCen $r transers it t$ a Filipin$, the Da! in the
$ri"inal transacti$n is c$nsidered cured and the title $ the transeree is rendered valid(
Appl#in" @nited Church 9$ard $r W$rld 'inistries, the trial c$urt ruled in av$r $
petiti$ner, viC(:
EWFhile the ac1uisiti$n and the purchase $ Gsic5 Wilhelm Jambrich $ the pr$perties under
liti"ati$n E!ereF v$id ab initi$ since Ethe# !ereF c$ntrar# t$ the C$nstituti$n $ the
Philippines, he bein" a $rei"ner, #et, the ac1uisiti$n $ these pr$perties b# plaintiH !h$
is a Filipin$ citiCen r$m him, has cured the Da! in the $ri"inal transacti$n and the title $
the transeree is valid(
The trial c$urt upheld the sale b# Jambrich in av$r $ petiti$ner and $rdered the
cancellati$n $ the TCTs in the name $ resp$ndent( +t declared petiti$ner as $!ner in ee
simple $ the residential h$use $ str$n" materials and three parcels $ land desi"nated
as B$t *$s( 1, 3 and 3, and $rdered the 4e"ister $ .eeds $ 'andaue Cit# t$ issue ne!
certi?cates $ title in his name( The trial c$urt li%e!ise $rdered resp$ndent t$ pa#
petiti$ner P23,888 as att$rne#0s ees and P18,888 as liti"ati$n e>penses, as !ell as the
c$sts $ suit(
We aIrm the 4e"i$nal Trial C$urt(
The rati$nale behind the C$urt0s rulin" in @nited Church 9$ard $r W$rld 'inistries, as
reiterated in subse1uent cases, is this J since the ban $n aliens is intended t$ preserve
the nati$n0s land $r uture "enerati$ns $ Filipin$s, that aim is achieved b# ma%in" la!ul
the ac1uisiti$n $ real estate b# aliens !h$ became Filipin$ citiCens b# naturaliCati$n $r
th$se transers made b# aliens t$ Filipin$ citiCens( As the pr$pert# in dispute is alread# in
the hands $ a 1uali?ed pers$n, a Filipin$ citiCen, there !$uld be n$ m$re public p$lic# t$
be pr$tected( The $b&ective $ the c$nstituti$nal pr$visi$n t$ %eep $ur lands in Filipin$
hands has been achieved
9aguio vs Repu%lic
T3, CAS,:
This is a petition for review of the decision of the CA affir(ing the
decision of the RTC$ nullifying Free Patent -o. @@:@ and 1riginal
Certificate of Title -o. 0-:":@ issued in the na(e of petitioner Francisco
9aguio.
The patent and certificate of title cover a parcel of land$ >nown as &ot
";A$ Case ;$ Pls. !;#$ which declared %y the govern(ent as pu%lic land.
FACTS:
The evidence shows that private respondent Ricardo 'ichael.s predecessor-
in-interest$ 8illia( 'ichael$ filed with the 9ureau of &ands an application
for foreshore lease of the land. The application was reco((ended for
approval %y the land investigator who also reco((ended that the applicant
%e granted a provisional per(it to occupy the land for one year.
9y virtue of a per(it granted to hi( %y the 9ureau of &ands$ 8illia(
'ichael (ade so(e recla(ation on the land$ %uilt a fence around the
pre(ises$ and constructed a %ridge over a portion which was under water.
5pon the e2piration of the per(it on$ the 3ighways +istrict ,ngineer
reco((ended to the +irector of &ands that the land %e leased to 'ichael. 1n
6
the other hand$ the land investigator reco((ended granting 'ichael the
authority to survey the foreshore land in view of the co(pletion of the
recla(ation (ade %y hi( on the pre(ises.
'ichael filed a (iscellaneous sales application covering the reclai(ed
foreshore land.
P,T0T01-,R:
Petitioner 9aguio applied to the 9ureau of &ands for a free patent covering
the sa(e land. 0n his application$ petitioner stated that the land was
agricultural land and not clai(ed or occupied %y any other person and that
he had %een in actual and continuous possession and cultivation of the
sa(e. 1n the %asis of these representations$ a free patent was issued to
hi( and$ 1riginal Certificate of Title -o. 0-:":@ was issued in his na(e
%y the Register of +eeds of Ce%u.
1n April A$ <@!$ petitioner de(anded pay(ent of rentals fro( 8illia(
'ichael for the use of the land occupied %y 'ichael Slipways$ 0nc.
Petitioner filed an opposition to 'ichael.s (iscellaneous sales application
covering the land on the ground that he was the registered owner thereof.
R,SP1-+,-T:
8illia( 'ichael in turn protested the issuance %y the 9ureau of &ands of a
free patent to petitioner. 3e clai(ed that he had %een in actual
possession of the land since <A# and that he had introduced su%stantial
i(prove(ents thereon.
0SS5,:
The pu%lic respondent erred in not declaring that respondent Repu%lic of
the Philippines. action was already %arred %y prescription.
6ranting arguendo that respondent.s action was not %arred %y prescription$
nonetheless$ the RTC$ erred in finding that petitioner Hacted in %ad faith
and procured the issuance of the Free Patent )I00-0*-@@:@ and the 1riginal
Certificate of Title -o. 0-:":@ through fraud and (isrepresentation.J
6ranting arguendo that respondent Repu%lic.s action should prosper$
nonetheless$ the RTC erred in H)d*eclaring intervenor )private respondent
herein* as the true and lawful possessor and occupant of the land su%/ect
of the intervention.J
R5&0-6:
8e find these contentions to %e without (erit.
Petitioner is guilty of (a>ing false state(ents in his application for a
free patent thus /ustifying the annul(ent of his title. Sec. < of C.A.
-o. " )Pu%lic &and Act* provides:
The state(ents (ade in the application shall %e considered as essential
conditions and parts of any concession$ title$ or per(it issued on the
%asis of such application$ and any false state(ent therein or o(ission of
facts altering$ changing or (odifying the consideration of the facts set
forth in such state(ents$ and any su%se4uent (odification$ alteration$ or
change of the (aterial facts set forth in the application shall ipso facto
:
produce the cancellation of the concession$ title or per(it granted.
As already stated$ the indefeasi%ility of a title does not attach to titles
secured %y fraud and (isrepresentation. The registration of a patent under
the Torrens Syste( (erely confir(s the registrant.s title. 0t does not vest
title where there is none %ecause registration under this syste( is not a
(ode of ac4uiring ownership.
Suffice it to state that it was clearly proven that 8illia( 'ichael had
already %een in possession of the land under a provisional per(it to occupy
the sa(e in <A#. Petitioner applied for a free patent only in <@A$
thirteen )#* years later. 0n addition$ 8illia( 'ichael had filed a sales
application covering the land in <A!$ i.e.$ eight )!* years %efore
petitioner filed his free patent application. The trial court and the
Court of Appeals$ therefore$ correctly held 8illia( 'ichael and private
respondent Ricardo 'ichael to %e the true and rightful possessors of the
land in 4uestion. The fact that private respondent 'ichael is (erely the
successor of the original foreshore lease and sales applicant$ 8illia(
'ichael$ does not (a>e hi( any less entitled to the possession of the
land. Sec. 0: of the Pu%lic &and Act provides that$ in case of his death$
the original applicant shall %e succeeded in his rights and o%ligations %y
his legal heirs with respect to the land applied for or leased.
83,R,F1R,$ the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFF0R',+.
PAS#$A VS #O$R% O& APPEALS
FACTS:
Petitioner was charged for violation of 9atas Pa(%ansa 9lg. ;;. The
0nfor(ations alleged that the petitioner issued P-9 chec>s to apply on
account or for value in favor of &ucita &opeE with the >nowledge that at
the ti(e of issue$ petitioner did not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee %an> for the pay(ent of the face value of the chec>s in
full. 5pon present(ent of the su%/ect chec>s$ they were dishonored %y the
drawee %an> for having %een drawn against insufficient funds and against a
closed account.
After trial$ a /udg(ent of conviction was rendered to the petitioner.
8hen the case was called$ the counsel of the petitioner infor( the court
that the petitioner would %e late. 3ence$ the case was set for second
call. After the lapse of two hours$ petitioner still had not appeared. The
trial court again as>ed the pu%lic prosecutor and the defense counsel if
they were ready for the pro(ulgation of /udg(ent. 9oth responded in the
affir(ative.
A notice of change of address was filed %y petitioner with the trial court$
sent through a private (essengerial fir(. 1n the sa(e date$ without
ter(inating the services of her counsel of record$ Atty. 'arcelino Arias$
the one who received the copy of the /udg(ent of conviction$ petitioner$
assisted %y another counsel$ Atty. Rolando 9ernardo$ filed an urgent
o(ni%us (otion to lift warrant of arrest and confiscation of %ail %ond$ as
well as to set anew the pro(ulgation of the su%/ect decision on the
following allegations: that petitioner failed to appear %efore the trial
7
court on the scheduled date of pro(ulgation %ecause she failed to get the
notices sent to her for(er addressK that she had no intention of evading
the processes of the trial courtK that she transferred residence to
1longapo City %y reason of an e/ect(ent case filed against her %y her
landlord concerning her for(er residence in LueEon CityK and that due to
the a%rupt dislocation of their fa(ily life as a result of the transfer of
their residence to 1longapo City$ there were i(portant (atters that she
overloo>ed such as the filing of a notice of change of address to infor(
the trial court of her new place of residence.
0SS5,:
8hether the pro(ulgation in a%sentia of the /udg(ent against petitioner was
not (ade in the (anner set out in the last paragraph of Section A$ Rule ;0
of the <!: Rules on Cri(inal Procedure which then provided that
pro(ulgation in a%sentia shall consist in the recording of the /udg(ent in
the cri(inal doc>et and a copy thereof shall %e served upon the accused or
counsel.
R5&0-6:
-evertheless$ as (entioned a%ove$ regardless of the gravity of the offense$
pro(ulgation of /udg(ent in a%sentia is allowed under the Rules. The only
essential ele(ents for its validity are: )a* that the /udg(ent %e recorded
in the cri(inal doc>etK and )%* that a copy thereof shall %e served upon
the accused or counsel.
0t is presu(ed that official duties are regularly perfor(ed and that the
proceedings are (ade of record. This serves as a su%stantial co(pliance
with the procedural re4uire(ent of the recording of the /udg(ent in the
cri(inal doc>et of the court. At any rate$ petitioner does not 4uestion
non-co(pliance of the re4uire(ent of the recording of the /udg(ent in the
cri(inal doc>et.
0n the first place$ her non- receipt of the notice of pro(ulgation was due
to her own failure to i((ediately file a notice of change of address with
the trial court$ which she clearly ad(itted. 9esides$ pro(ulgation could
%e properly done even in her a%sence$ su%/ect to the service of a copy of
the decision upon her or her counsel and the recording of the /udg(ent in
the cri(inal doc>et.
8e ta>e /udicial notice of said certification and hold that in view
thereof$ we cannot presu(e su%stantial co(pliance with the re4uire(ent of
recording a /udg(ent in the cri(inal doc>et. And in the a%sence of such
co(pliance$ there can %e no valid pro(ulgation. 8ithout the sa(e$ the
decision could not attain finality and %eco(e e2ecutory. This (eans that
the :-day period within which to interpose an appeal did not even
co((ence.
PetitionerDs later receipt of the copy of the decision does not in any way
cure an invalid pro(ulgation. And even if said decision %e recorded in the
cri(inal doc>et later$ such piece-(eal co(pliance with the Rules will still
not validate the pro(ulgation which was invalid at the ti(e it was
conducted. The e2press (ention in the provision of %oth re4uire(ents for a
valid pro(ulgation in a%sentia clearly (eans that they indeed (ust concur.
83,R,F1R,$ the instant petition is here%y 6RA-T,+. The decision and the
order of the Court of Appeals are here%y set aside. The instant case is
18
here%y re(anded to the trial court for proper pro(ulgation of its decision
in accordance with Section A$ Rule ;0 of the Revised Rules of Cri(inal
Procedure.
&$DO% VS #A%LEYA LANDS
FACTS:
Petitioner was charged for violation of 9atas Pa(%ansa 9lg. ;;. The
0nfor(ations alleged that the petitioner issued P-9 chec>s to apply on
account or for value in favor of &ucita &opeE with the >nowledge that at
the ti(e of issue$ petitioner did not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee %an> for the pay(ent of the face value of the chec>s in
full. 5pon present(ent of the su%/ect chec>s$ they were dishonored %y the
drawee %an> for having %een drawn against insufficient funds and against a
closed account.
After trial$ a /udg(ent of conviction was rendered to the petitioner.
8hen the case was called$ the counsel of the petitioner infor( the court
that the petitioner would %e late. 3ence$ the case was set for second
call. After the lapse of two hours$ petitioner still had not appeared. The
trial court again as>ed the pu%lic prosecutor and the defense counsel if
they were ready for the pro(ulgation of /udg(ent. 9oth responded in the
affir(ative.
A notice of change of address was filed %y petitioner with the trial court$
sent through a private (essengerial fir(. 1n the sa(e date$ without
ter(inating the services of her counsel of record$ Atty. 'arcelino Arias$
the one who received the copy of the /udg(ent of conviction$ petitioner$
assisted %y another counsel$ Atty. Rolando 9ernardo$ filed an urgent
o(ni%us (otion to lift warrant of arrest and confiscation of %ail %ond$ as
well as to set anew the pro(ulgation of the su%/ect decision on the
following allegations: that petitioner failed to appear %efore the trial
court on the scheduled date of pro(ulgation %ecause she failed to get the
notices sent to her for(er addressK that she had no intention of evading
the processes of the trial courtK that she transferred residence to
1longapo City %y reason of an e/ect(ent case filed against her %y her
landlord concerning her for(er residence in LueEon CityK and that due to
the a%rupt dislocation of their fa(ily life as a result of the transfer of
their residence to 1longapo City$ there were i(portant (atters that she
overloo>ed such as the filing of a notice of change of address to infor(
the trial court of her new place of residence.
0SS5,:
8hether the pro(ulgation in a%sentia of the /udg(ent against petitioner was
not (ade in the (anner set out in the last paragraph of Section A$ Rule ;0
of the <!: Rules on Cri(inal Procedure which then provided that
pro(ulgation in a%sentia shall consist in the recording of the /udg(ent in
the cri(inal doc>et and a copy thereof shall %e served upon the accused or
counsel.
R5&0-6:
-evertheless$ as (entioned a%ove$ regardless of the gravity of the offense$
pro(ulgation of /udg(ent in a%sentia is allowed under the Rules. The only
11
essential ele(ents for its validity are: )a* that the /udg(ent %e recorded
in the cri(inal doc>etK and )%* that a copy thereof shall %e served upon
the accused or counsel.
0t is presu(ed that official duties are regularly perfor(ed and that the
proceedings are (ade of record. This serves as a su%stantial co(pliance
with the procedural re4uire(ent of the recording of the /udg(ent in the
cri(inal doc>et of the court. At any rate$ petitioner does not 4uestion
non-co(pliance of the re4uire(ent of the recording of the /udg(ent in the
cri(inal doc>et.
0n the first place$ her non- receipt of the notice of pro(ulgation was due
to her own failure to i((ediately file a notice of change of address with
the trial court$ which she clearly ad(itted. 9esides$ pro(ulgation could
%e properly done even in her a%sence$ su%/ect to the service of a copy of
the decision upon her or her counsel and the recording of the /udg(ent in
the cri(inal doc>et.
8e ta>e /udicial notice of said certification and hold that in view
thereof$ we cannot presu(e su%stantial co(pliance with the re4uire(ent of
recording a /udg(ent in the cri(inal doc>et. And in the a%sence of such
co(pliance$ there can %e no valid pro(ulgation. 8ithout the sa(e$ the
decision could not attain finality and %eco(e e2ecutory. This (eans that
the :-day period within which to interpose an appeal did not even
co((ence.
PetitionerDs later receipt of the copy of the decision does not in any way
cure an invalid pro(ulgation. And even if said decision %e recorded in the
cri(inal doc>et later$ such piece-(eal co(pliance with the Rules will still
not validate the pro(ulgation which was invalid at the ti(e it was
conducted. The e2press (ention in the provision of %oth re4uire(ents for a
valid pro(ulgation in a%sentia clearly (eans that they indeed (ust concur.
83,R,F1R,$ the instant petition is here%y 6RA-T,+. The decision and the
order of the Court of Appeals are here%y set aside. The instant case is
here%y re(anded to the trial court for proper pro(ulgation of its decision
in accordance with Section A$ Rule ;0 of the Revised Rules of Cri(inal
Procedure.
S1 1R+,R,+.