REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

NINTH DIVISION

WILCON BUILDER'S SUPPLY, CA-G.R. SP No. 123768

INC.,
Petitioner,
Members:

- versus - DE LEON, M. M., Chairperson,

CRUZ, S. C., and
PERALTA, JR., E. B., JJ.
HON. TITA MARILYN PAYOYO-
VILLORDON, in her capacity as
Presiding Judge of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch Promulgated:
224, Special Sheriff NOEL C.
LINDO and WILFREDO S. 28 NOV 2014
TORRES,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
CRUZ, S. C., J.:

This treats of two separate actions that petitioner Wilcon

Builder's Supply, Inc. lumped together in a single appellate case,
namely: a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
seeking to nullify the Order1 of Branch 224 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City dated May 23, 2011 in Civil Case No. Q-90-
7130;2 and an action for annulment of judgment filed under Rule 47,
id. from the June 28, 2006 Decision 3 of the RTC docketed as LRC
Case No. Q-13653 (00).4

1 Rollo, p. 61
2 Id., pp. 55-60
3 Id., pp. 110-117
4 Id., pp. 86-92
CA-G.R. SP No. 123768
DECISION
Page 2 of 12

In LRC Case No. Q-13653, private respondent alleged that he

is the appointed administrator of the estate of his deceased mother,
Dominga Roxas Sumulong (“Sumulong”), who owns several parcels
of land in Quezon City duly covered by original certificates of title.
Private respondent further claimed that he and his family have been
in peaceful possession thereof until the land was fraudulently sold to
the Spouses Manuel and Rosalino Aliño (Sps. Aliño). Records show
that the sale and the titles obtained by the spouses Aliño were later
nullified by Branch 224 of the RTC of Quezon City in a case for
cancellation of transfer of titles docketed as Civil Case No. Q-90-
7130. The dispositive portion of the Decision 5 dated June 3, 1996 is
hereafter quoted as follows:

“For all the foregoing asseverations, the Court has to

render judgment in favor of the plaintiff and as against defendants
Rosalina Aliño and Ramon Navarro and to make the following
pronouncements:

1. That Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 112412, 162418,

162419, 162432, 162423, 163434, 117313, 117414, 117415,
117142, 117143, and 117147 should be cancelled by the Register
of Deeds of Quezon City and the same should be reconveyed to
plaintiff for having been acquired through fraud and deception;

2. That defendants Rosalina Aliño and Ramon Navarro

should jointly and severally pay plaintiff the amounts of
P100,000.00 and P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages
plus P30,000.00 as attorney's fees;

3. That defendants Aliño and Navarro should likewise pay

the cost of this suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.”6

The case eventually reached finality per entry of judgment 7

issued by this Court on August 21, 1997 for failure to file the
appellant's brief. Unfortunately, the corresponding writ of execution
was not completely enforced as evidenced by the Sheriff's Report 8
which, in part, states:

“x x x That after paying the corresponding fees with the

Register of Deeds, the counsel for the plaintiff took over from the

5 Id., pp. 41-46

6 Id., p. 46
7 Id., p. 53
8 Id., p. 54
CA-G.R. SP No. 123768
DECISION
Page 3 of 12

undersigned the processing for the realization of pronouncement

No. 1 of the Writ of Execution.”

Moreover, the corresponding order to cancel the fraudulent titles

of Manuel Aliño could not be enforced until after the original seven
titles (in Sumulong's name) that were gutted by fire in 1988 shall have
been first reconstituted.9 Hence, private respondent filed the verified
petition10 for reconstitution on December 20, 2000 (of the mentioned
original seven titles in Sumulong's name) before the RTC of Quezon
City docketed as LRC Case No. Q-13653 (00).

The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),

opposed the petition on the ground that private respondent failed to
attach the requisite affidavit of loss as well as the technical
description of the properties involved, especially the technical plan for
Lot 648 covered by TCT No. 219074 (previously TCT No. 117142).
The OSG also contended that the petition was defective in form and
substance, having failed to state the requisite information mandated
under Presidential Decree No. 1529 (The Property Registration
Decree) and Republic Act No. 26 (the law governing the
reconstitution of lost or destroyed titles).

After private respondent had filed his Answer, 11 the RTC

rendered the assailed Decision12 on June 28, 2006, granting the
reconstitution of the mentioned seven titles in Sumulong's name, the
dispositive portion thereof reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is

hereby GRANTED. The Register of Deeds of Quezon City is
hereby ordered to reconstitute the destroyed/burned original
copies of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 117142, 117143,
117147, 162418, 162419, 162423 and 162424, and to cancel the
subject Transfer Certificates of Title and issue, in lieu thereof, new
ones in the name now of the Petitioner-Administrator.

SO ORDERED.”

9 Id., p. 93
10 Id., pp. 86-92
11 Id., pp. 102-107
12 Id., pp. 110-117
CA-G.R. SP No. 123768
DECISION
Page 4 of 12

On October 26, 2010, private respondent filed an Omnibus

Motion13 (under Civil Case No. Q-90-7130) seeking the following
reliefs: (a) the withdrawal of private respondent's ex-parte motion for
the issuance of alias writ of execution and to restore his possession
of the subject properties; (b) to order the immediate revival and
execution of the Decision dated June 3, 1996; and (c) to issue an
alias writ of execution and writ of possession to enforce said Decision
and restore his possession of the subject properties.

On November 16, 2010, the court granted the motion by

ordering the issuance of the writ of execution and directing the
Register of Deeds to cancel the assailed reconstituted titles and
reconvey the same to private respondent. 14 In April 2011, the Register
of Deeds, through Elbert Quilala, formally presented seven new titles
(now in the name of private respondent) to the court, namely: TCT
Nos. 004-2011004285, 004-2011004286, 004-2011004287, 004-
2011004288, 004-2011004289, 004-2011004290 and 004-
2011004291. As a result thereof, the seven other titles issued to
private respondent (which were still in Sumulong's name) viz.: TCT
Nos. 42731, 25576, 25574, 25575, 42730, 25580 and 38137 were
correspondingly cancelled.15

Following the presentment of the new titles in April 2011, private

respondent filed another motion16 to obtain a writ of execution and/or
possession in order to take control of the properties under the new
titles now under his name. The court granted his motion and issued
the assailed Order17 on May 23, 2011, the fallo of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, and considering

that the Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 162418, 162419,
162423, 117142, 117143, 117147 and 162424 have been
cancelled and that the Register of Deeds of Quezon City had
reconveyed the same and issued the following new titles to the
plaintiff, to wit: Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 004-2011004285;
004-2011004286; 004-2011004287; 004-2011004288; 004-
2011004289; 004-2011004290 and 004-2011004291, the subject
Motion is hereby GRANTED with respect to the aforementioned
Transfer Certificates of Title. As prayed for, issue a Writ of
Possession to restore the possession of the aforementioned lots
covered by the aforementioned Transfer Certificates of Title to the

13 Id., pp. 48-52

14 Per Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution, Rollo, p. 55
15 Ibid, p. 57
16 Id., pp. 55-60
17 Id., p. 61
CA-G.R. SP No. 123768
DECISION
Page 5 of 12

plaintiff. As further prayed for, Special Sheriff Noel C. Lindo is

ordered to implement the Writ of Possession to be assisted by Mr.
Samuel N. Rodriguez, who, pursuant to the Special Power of
Attorney dated April 20, 2011, is hereby allowed to act for and in
behalf of the plaintiff Wilfredo S. Torres.

SO ORDERED.”

On September 1, 2011, private respondent sought the

assistance of the court in conducting a survey of the properties
subject of the writ.18 A slew of objections met private respondent's
request from several third parties, including herein petitioner Wilcon
Builder's Supply, Inc. In an Order 19 dated September 2, 2011, the
court gave the opposing parties fifteen days within which to file their
comments and, at the same time, allowed the appointment of a
geodetic engineer to conduct the survey.

On September 05, 2011, the court-appointed surveyor,

Geodetic Engineer Jose Querijero, submitted his Compliance
Report20 to the RTC in which he revealed that third-party Maria
Montessori School has encroached into private respondent's property
covered by TCT No. 004-2011004287; while TCT No. 67372 and TCT
No. 121140 are within the area under TCT No. 004-2011004287.
Also, petitioner's property encroached into private respondent's
property covered by TCT No. 004-2011004287; while Lots 644-C-10
and N-237468, also registered in petitioner's name, were found to be
within the lot covered by TCT No. 004-2011004287.

Petitioner immediately filed the present action to invalidate the

mentioned Decision and Order of the RTC dated June 28, 2006 and
May 23, 2011, respectively. Petitioner relied on the following grounds
to assail the Order granting the issuance of a writ of possession in
favor of private respondent, to wit:

PUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE

ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN SHE GRANTED PRIVATE
RESPONDENT'S OMNIBUS MOTION TO REVIVE THE
JUDGMENT DATED JUNE 28, 2006 EVEN IF MORE THAN TEN
YEARS HAVE ALREADY ELAPSED SINCE THE FINALITY OF
THE ORIGINAL JUNE 3, 1996 DECISION;
18 Id., pp. 70-72
19 Id., pp. 73-74
20 Id., pp. 75-76
CA-G.R. SP No. 123768
DECISION
Page 6 of 12

PUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE

OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN SHE ISSUED THE WRIT OF
POSSESSION IN LIEU OF A WRIT OF EXECUTION FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ASSAILED DECISION;

PUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE

OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN SHE ISSUED THE WRIT OF
POSSESSION THAT ALTERED THE AWARD IN THE JUNE 3,
1996 DECISION;

PUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE

OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN SHE ORDERED PUBLIC RESPONDENT
SHERIFF TO EVICT PETITIONER AND THE OTHER
REGISTERED OWNERS WHO ARE TOTAL STRANGERS TO
THE CASE BETWEEEN PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND THE
SPOUSES ALIÑO.

With respect to the Decision of the RTC in LRC Case No.

Q-13653(00), petitioner interposed the following assignment of errors,
to wit:

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED A FATAL

ERROR WHEN IT RELIED ON THE MANIFESTATION OF
PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL THAT ALL THE
ADJOINING OWNERS OF THE PARCELS OF LAND COVERED
BY THE SUBJECT TITLES FOR RECONSTITUTION WERE
ALREADY SERVED COPIES OF THE PETITION AND WHICH
ERROR IS JURISDICTIONAL;

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED A FATAL

ERROR WHEN SHE ASSUMED WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT
ALL THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE OWNERS OF
THE BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY AND ALL THE PERSONS WHO MAY HAVE ANY
INTEREST THEREIN HAVE ALREADY BEEN ACTUALLY
NOTIFIED OF THE HEARING OF THE RECONSTITUTION
CASE;

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED A FATAL

ERROR WHEN SHE ASSUMED THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL TO CHALLENGE THE
COMPLETENESS OF THE PETITION FOR RECONSTITUTION
WITHOUT REALIZING THAT IT WAS ALSO HER DUTY TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE PETITION IS SUPPORTED BY LAW
AND EVIDENCE BEFORE GRANTING THE SAME;
CA-G.R. SP No. 123768
DECISION
Page 7 of 12

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED A FATAL

ERROR TANTAMOUNT TO IGNORANCE OF THE LAW WHEN
SHE RELIED SOLELY ON PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S
CONTENTION THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSFER
CERTIFICATES OF TITLE HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED
UPON IN CIVIL CASE NO. Q-90-7130;

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED A

REVERSIBLE ERROR TANTAMOUNT TO IGNORANCE OF
THE LAW WHEN SHE ORDERED THE RECONSTITUTED
TITLE TO BE ISSUED IN PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S NAME
INSTEAD OF AWARDING THE SAME TO THE REGISTERED
OWNERS.

We find merit in the instant petition.

It must be emphasized that the judgment for Civil Case No. Q-

90-7130 reached finality sometime in September 1997 as evidenced
by the Entry of Judgment. Unfortunately, it was not until October 26,
2010 or roughly thirteen (13) years following its issuance that private
respondent sought the revival of the Decision through the filing of an
omnibus motion. As correctly pointed out by petitioner, the filing of a
mere motion at this stage of the proceeding is insufficient to
reanimate the judgment; an independent action must be instituted for
that purpose as mandated by Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court, viz.:

“Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. A

final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion
within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of
such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a
judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may
also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of
its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute
of limitations.”

Stated otherwise, if for some reason, the prevailing party fails to

implement the judgment by motion after the lapse of five years, said
judgment is reduced to a mere right of action which the winning party
must enforce through the institution of a complaint in a regular court
within ten years from the time the judgment becomes final. 21

21 Rubio vs. Alabata, G.R. No. 203947, February 26, 2014; Article 1144, Civil Code
CA-G.R. SP No. 123768
DECISION
Page 8 of 12

In this case, the original Decision was left to the wayside

unacted for thirteen years, which means that it could no longer be
revived (either by motion or complaint) by reason of prescription. 22
Nonetheless, it is Our view that the inflexible application of the rule
would unnecessarily cast injustice on the private respondent who,
without fault, encountered a stumbling block in the execution of the
Judgment within the prescribed period. Facts show that the titles
subject of Civil Case No. Q-90-7130 were lost in the fire that gutted
the office of the Registrar of Deeds in 1988, a fact which was not
discovered until private respondent sought the enforcement of the
Judgment. Also, the concomitant action for the reconstitution of said
lost titles took six (6) years to finish. Stated differently, if We are to
deduct the six (6) years spent for the reconstitution of the lost titles
from the thirteen (13) years of “inaction”, the balance of seven (7)
years is still within the prescriptive period of ten (10) years and,
therefore, still not barred by the statute of limitation.

Under these circumstances, it is but appropriate to grant

equitable considerations to private respondent in plight to enforce the
June 3, 1996 Decision.23 After all, the rules of procedure, while meant
to be followed, are often seen as pliable, in a sense that it should not
stand in the way of the attainment of justice. The Supreme Court
itself disfavors the rigid application of procedural rules, especially
where strong considerations of substantive justice far outweigh the
efficacy of procedure.24

On the other hand, the above-discussed leniency cannot be

equally extended to private respondent if he availed (as he did) of a
wrong mode of action in order to revive a final judgment. Note that
the final judgment has since been reduced to a mere right of action
not having been executed within the first five years following the
finality of the judgment. Thus, at its present state, the judgment is
subject to the defenses and counterclaims which may have arisen
subsequent to the date it became effective, as for instance,
counterclaims arising out of transactions not connected with the
former controversy,25 or in this case, the emergence of other
claimants whose properties overlapped into private respondent's lots.
Their rights and interests as title holders as well as their respective
grievances over private respondent's claims could not be amply
22 Villeza vs. German Management and Services, Inc., G.R. No. 182937, August 8, 2010
23 Rubio vs. Alabata, supra
24 CMTC International Marketing Corporation vs. Bhagis International Corporation, G.R. No. 170488,
December 10, 2012
25 Caiña vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114393, December 15, 1994
CA-G.R. SP No. 123768
DECISION
Page 9 of 12

protected if the revival is by a mere omnibus motion alone, where

they are inexorably left in the dark without visible relief. Such a
motion, while simplistic, would inevitably, if not ironically, lead to the
same injustice for which the relaxation of the procedural rules was
granted in the first place.

With the above disquisition, the RTC clearly committed grave

abuse of discretion when it granted private respondent's omnibus
motion to revive the June 3, 1996 judgment for which it capriciously
and whimsically issued the possessory writ in derogation of
applicable laws.

With respect to the reconstitution of the subject titles, petitioner

managed to prove the attendance of extrinsic fraud in the
reconstitution process of the lost titles and in the issuance of new
ones in private respondent's name.

By definition, extrinsic fraud is any deceptive act by which a

party is prevented from exhibiting fully his case practiced on him by
his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of
a compromise, or where the defendant never had knowledge of the
suit, being kept in ignorance by the act of the plaintiff; or where an
attorney fraudulently without an authority assumes to represent a
party and connives at his defeat; or where the attorney regularly
employed corruptly sells out his client's interest to the other side. 26

A careful reading of the June 28, 2006 Decision shows that the
RTC relied almost entirely on private respondent's one-sided
manifestation and conclusion that he has complied with the strict and
mandatory notice as required by law when, in truth, records will
reveal that there was no evidence of such proof of notification.
Stated differently, petitioner was kept ignorant by private respondent
as there was no proof that notices were effectively furnished to, and
duly received by the petitioner, as well as by the other owners of the
surrounding areas of the land where private respondent claims
ownership, up until September 1, 2011, when private respondent had
to seek the assistance of the court a quo in conducting a survey of
the properties subject of the writ. It was only at said point in time
(September 1, 2011) when private respondent received a slew of
objections from the adjoining owners including herein petitioner
Wilcon Builder's Supply, Inc.

26 Hi-Tone Marketing Corporation vs. Baikal Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 149992, August 20, 2004
CA-G.R. SP No. 123768
DECISION
Page 10 of 12

Corollarily, such absence of proof of notification to adjoining

owners completely violates Republic Act No. 26 which requires notice
to adjacent owners, specifically, those who may be affected by the
reconstitution of the titles in question. Lack of notice, as the law
mandates, nullifies the action for reconstitution. 27

Sections 12 and 13 of Republic Act No. 26 (An Act Providing A

Special Procedure For The Reconstitution Of Torrens Certificate Of
Title Lost Or Destroyed), provide in no unequivocal terms that:

“Sec. 12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources

enumerated in Sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e),
and/or 3(f) of this Act, shall be filed with the proper Court of First
Instance, by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person
having an interest in the property. The petition shall state or
contain, among other things, the following: (a) that the owner's
duplicate of the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b)
that no co-owner's, mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate had been
issued, or, if any had been issued, the same had been lost or
destroyed; (c) the location, area and boundaries of the property;
(d) the nature and description of the buildings or improvements, if
any, which do not belong to the owner of the land, and the names
and addresses of the owners of such buildings or improvements;
(e) the names and addresses of the occupants or persons in
possession of the property, of the owners of the adjoining
properties and of all persons who may have any interest in the
property; (f) a detailed description of the encumbrances, if any,
affecting the property; and (g) a statement that no deeds or other
instruments affecting the property have been presented for
registration, or, if there be any, the registration thereof has not
been accomplished, as yet. All the documents, or authenticated
copies thereof, to be introduced in evidence in support [of] the
petition for reconstitution shall be attached thereto and filed with
the same; Provided, That in case the reconstitution is to be made
exclusively from sources enumerated in section 2(f) or 3(f) of this
Act, the petition shall be further accompanied with a plan and
technical description of the property duly approved by the
Commissioner of Land Registration, or with a certified copy of the
description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same
property.

Sec. 13. The Court shall cause a notice of the petition,

filed under the preceding section, to be published at the expense
of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette,
and to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building
and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which
the land is situated at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing.

27 Heirs of Marcela Navarro vs. Go, G.R. No. 176441, June 17, 2008
CA-G.R. SP No. 123768
DECISION
Page 11 of 12

The court shall likewise cause a copy of the notice to be sent, by

registered mail or otherwise, at the expense of the petitioner, to
every person named therein whose address is known, at least
thirty days prior to the date of hearing. Said notice shall state,
among other things, the number of the lost or destroyed certificate
of title, if known, the name of the registered owner, the names of
the occupants or persons in possession of the property, the
owners of the adjoining properties and all other interested parties,
the location, area and boundaries of the property, and the date on
which all persons having any interest therein must appear and file
their claim or objections to the petition. The petitioner shall, at the
hearing, submit proof of the publication, posting and service of the
notice as directed by the court.” [emphasis ours]

In Cañero vs. University of the Philippines,28 the Supreme Court

explains that judicial reconstitution of title partakes of a land
registration proceeding and, thus, notice must be given in the manner
set forth by the letter of the law. Such a requirement is deemed
mandatory because it vests jurisdiction on the court, non-observance
of which invalidates the entire reconstitution proceedings. 29 Mere
statement or notice that “all interested parties are hereby cited to
appear and show cause if any they have why said petition should not
be granted” (or anything similar) is not in satisfaction of the requisite
because the law demands nothing less than rigid interpretation and
precise application thereof.30

Pursuant thereto, private respondent's petition for reconstitution

is fatally defective and ought to have been dismissed outright by the
RTC for lack of jurisdiction. The OSG itself previously warned the
RTC that private respondent's action for the reconstitution of the titles
was formally and substantively aberrant to PD No. 1529 and RA No.
26.

In its Opposition to the petition, the OSG particularly pointed out

that private respondent failed to attach a copy of the plan of Lot No.
648 under TCT No. 219074 which was derived from TCT No. 117142
(one of the titles which private respondent intends to reconstitute).
Neither did private respondent file an affidavit of loss and attach the
technical description of the parcels of land covered by the certificates
of title sought to be reconstituted. As correctly argued by the OSG,
these are indispensable elements which the private respondent must
abide by, in order to avoid the danger of using the action for

28 G.R. No. 156380, September 8, 2004

29 Opriasa vs. The City Government of Quezon City, G.R. No. 149190, December 19, 2006
30 Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45168, January 27, 1981
CA-G.R. SP No. 123768
DECISION
Page 12 of 12

reconstitution as a source of anomalous titles, or as easy alternative

to original registration of title proceedings. 31

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is

GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed Order and Decision of Branch
224 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City dated May 23, 2011
and June 28, 2006, respectively, are hereby ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE for want of legal basis.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
STEPHEN C. CRUZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED

MAGDANGAL M. DE LEON EDUARDO B. PERALTA, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MAGDANGAL M. DE LEON
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Ninth Division

31 Republic of the Philippines vs. Camacho, G.R. No. 185604, June 13, 2013