Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 170563. December 20, 2006.
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac8de85796b5e9b4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME511
* FIRST DIVISION.
508
Antecedents
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac8de85796b5e9b4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME511
509
4
P100,000.00 loan the spouses Surtida had applied for. The
deed was filed in the Office of the Registry of Deeds on
August 12, 1986.
The spouses Surtida secured a loan of P149,500.00 from
the Rural Bank 5
evidenced by a Promissory Note dated
June 16, 1986. On the same day, 6
the spouses7
received
Cashiers Check Nos. 6947 and 6948 totalling
P140,862.22. The loan was to mature on December 2, 1987.
On November 4, 1987, the spouses Surtida secured
another loan in the amount of P106,800.00
8
from the Rural
Bank to mature on October 29, 1988. The spouses Surtida
also received the net proceeds9 of their loan on the same day
via Cashiers Check No. 7641 as shown by their signatures
at the dorsal portions thereof.
The spouses Surtida failed to pay their loans. On August
31, 1989, they executed a Dation in Payment over a 300 sq.
m. undivided portion of their property covered10
by T.D. No.
519, in payment of their P157,968.20 loan. On January 5,
1990, the spouses Surtida executed another Dation in
Payment in favor of the Rural Bank over a portion 11of their
property, located in Sto. Nio, Sto. Domingo, Albay.
In a letter dated January 14, 1993, the Rural Bank
informed the spouses Surtida that they were 12being given a
preferential right to repurchase the property. The spouses
Surtida rejected the offer.
_______________
4 Exhibit 6.
5 Exhibit 1.
6 Exhibit 3.
7 Exhibit 4.
8 Exhibit 2.
9 Exhibit 5.
10 Exhibit A8.
11 Exhibit B9.
12 Rollo, p. 70.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac8de85796b5e9b4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/15
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME511
510
511
Plaintiffs further pray for whatever other relief and remedy that
this Honorable Court may deem just and proper under the
13
premises.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac8de85796b5e9b4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/15
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME511
13
premises.
_______________
13 Id., at p. 20.
14 Id., at p. 39.
512
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac8de85796b5e9b4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/15
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME511
_______________
513
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac8de85796b5e9b4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/15
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME511
_______________
17 Rollo, p. 44.
18 Supra note 1.
19 Rollo, p. 73.
514
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac8de85796b5e9b4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/15
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME511
_______________
20 Id., at p. 72.
21 Id., at pp. 7579.
22 Id., at p. 7.
515
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac8de85796b5e9b4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/15
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME511
23
2005 under a Deed of Absolute Sale. The property covered
by T.D. No. 519 had also been sold to Maila Fernandez.
Thus, respondent has no right to appeal via petition for
review on certiorari.
The Issues
_______________
23 Id., at p. 96.
24 CA Rollo, p. 106.
25 Florentino v. Rivera, G.R. No. 167968, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA
522, 528 Cervantes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166755, November 18,
2005, 475 SCRA 562, 571 Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Rivera, G.R. No. 164914,
October 5, 2005, 472 SCRA 189, 197.
26 Cervantes v. Court of Appeals, supra, at p. 571.
516
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac8de85796b5e9b4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME511
_______________
27 Aclon v. Court of Appeals, 436 Phil. 219, 232 387 SCRA 415, 425
(2002) Reyes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 829, 836 374 SCRA 86, 92
(2002).
28 People v. Macasinag, G.R. No. 74075, May 12, 1989, 173 SCRA 292,
294.
517
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac8de85796b5e9b4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/15
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME511
Atty. De Lumen:
Q In this Exhibit 3 which is made payable to the order of
Pedro Surtida, will you please tell this Honorable Court
who is this Pedro Surtida appearing as the payee in this
Cashiers check?
A He is Pedro Surtida.
Q Is he Pedro Surtida, one of the plaintiffs in this case?
A Yes, Sir.
Q It appears in this Exhibit 3 that the amount that was
released for the payee was P94,222.22. What is your
proof of showing that this amount supposedly to be
released to the payee Pedro Surtida was actually
received by him?
A The proof showing that he really received this amount is
the signature at the back of this check.
Q You said that the proof of showing that the payee Pedro
Surtida received the amount reflected therein is the
signature appearing at the dorsal side of the check,
which appears to be illegible, why do you say that this is
the actual signature of the payee?
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac8de85796b5e9b4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/15
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME511
518
519
_______________
520
Petition denied.
_______________
33 Lee v. Court of Appeals, 426 Phil. 290, 304305 375 SCRA 579, 591
(2002).
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac8de85796b5e9b4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/15
8/21/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME511
521
o0o
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ac8de85796b5e9b4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15