REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. HEIRS OF EMILIANO CORTEZ, REPRESENTED BY ANTONIA GAFFUD VDA. DE CORTEZ AND THE REGIST…
PERALTA, JR., E. B., J.:
“Reversion is an action where the ultimate relief sought is to revert the land back to the government under the Regalian doctrine. Considering that the land subject of the action originated from a grant by the government, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee. In Estate of the Late Jesus S. Yujuico v. Republic (Yujuico case), reversion was defined as an action which seeks to restore public land fraudulently awarded and disposed of to private individuals or corporations to the mass of public domain. It bears to point out, though, that the Court also allowed the resort by the Government to actions for reversion to cancel titles that were void for reasons other than fraud, i.e., violation by the grantee of a patent of the conditions imposed by law; and lack of jurisdiction of the Director of Lands to grant a patent covering inalienable forest land or portion of a river, even when such grant was made through mere oversight. In Republic v. Guerrero, the Court gave a more general statement that the remedy of reversion can be availed of “only in cases of fraudulent or unlawful inclusion of the land in patents or certificates of title.” (Emphasis ours, citations omitted.)”
With the trial court’s rejection of the Republic’s quest to revert certain lands in Echague, Isabela, through the Decision on June 16, 2011,[2] can We decree reversion from a different perspective unlike what was perceived below, or in line with Republic vs. Roxas, et al.?
Before the focal point on appeal is addressed, We unravel pertinent backdrop.
What the Republic wanted to nullify was Free Patent No. V-24082 and Original Certificate No. P-9148 in the name of Emiliano Cortez, inclusive of the derivative title, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-42959, in the name of Antonia Gaffud Vda. De Cortez, for Lots No. 4602 and 4603, at Isabela.[3]
It appeared from the Republic’s Complaint that Emiliano Cortez filed a free patent application for Lots 4602 and 4603 in 1953. On the basis of such application, an entry was issued in 1955 and Original Certificate of Title No. P-9148 was issued for the applicant but it was later cancelled in 1969 by Certificate of Title No. T-42959 of Antonia Gaffud Vda. De Cortez.
Averred as well on the initiatory pleading was the opposition in 1956 from Domingo Samut, represented by Antonia Samut, to Cortez’s application on the strength of Samut’s claim of actual possession since the last global war and fraud. An investigation in 1974 supposedly disclosed that Cortez was not the actual occupant and neither did he cultivate the lots in 1946.
Per their Answer and Third-Party Complaint against the heirs of Domingo and Antonia Samut and Chito Singson,[4] the heirs of Emiliano Cortez denied fraud.[5] They capitalized on ownership borne of the title,[6] and alleged that Joaquin Samut, Domingo Samut or Antonia Samut, their heirs and successors-in-interest, were permitted to occupy the subject lots per a lease contract executed on June 21, 1961.[7]
Defendants and third-party plaintiffs also asserted that the heirs of Joaquin and Domingo Samut violated the terms of the Contract of Lease due to inability to deliver the share of the landowner upon the death of the registered owner-lessor, Emiliano Cortez and Antonia Vda de Cortez. Moreover, the heirs of Joaquin Samut and Domingo Samut acted in bad faith when they sold a portion of the subject property to third-party defendant Chito Singson.[8] With respect to the investigation and the findings of the Bureau of Lands, it was assailed as illegal due to the lapse of 18 years subsequent to the issuance of OCT No. P-9148 in 1956. Prescription was also invoked against the State’s intent to revert the property after more than 40 years following the grant of patent to Emiliano Cortez.[9]
In his Answer, third-party defendant Chito Singson (Chito) admitted that he purchased a portion of the subject lots, which he occupied and cultivated, from the heirs of Domingo Samut.[10] He argued that his occupation and cultivation of the lot, including that of his predecessors-in-interests, for more than thirty years, vested title over the lot to him and the heirs of Domingo Samut.[11] Chito rejected the existence of a lease contract between Joaquin Samut and Emiliano Cortez and contended that Joaquin could not have bound his father, Domingo, to the contract of lease as Joaquin had no authority to represent his father.[12] Moreover, Chito pointed out that Joaquin denied his signature on the lease contract and claimed forgery thereon.[13]
For their part, as third-party defendants, the heirs of Domingo and Antonia Samut, represented by Leticia Gonzales, filed their Answer which reiterated material averments in the protest of Domingo Samut dated November 4, 1956 and the findings and conclusions of the DENR, Region 2, Tuguegarao, Cagayan in 1997.[14] They further argued that the Contract of Lease, relied upon by the heirs of Emiliano Cortez to prove that third-party defendants were merely lessees, was found to be a forgery and executed without authority.[15] They also interposed among other defenses, that third-party plaintiffs acquired title to the property by fraudulent manipulation as to their fact of possession over the subject lots.[16]
Aggrieved by the trial court’s Order dated July 10, 2001 which denied their plea for injunctive relief, defendants-appellees/third-party plaintiffs filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals.[17]
In the meantime, Pre-Trial of the main case was conducted on October 12, 2001.[18] On the other hand, Pre-Trial Conference for the Third-Party Complaint was conducted on November 6, 2001.[19]
On April 12, 2002, the Court of Appeals denied defendants’-appellees/third-party plaintiffs’ Petition for Certiorari on the aspect of injunctive relief.[20] Defendants-appellees/third-party plaintiffs sought further recourse before the Supreme Court which rendered its Decision which enjoined third-party defendants Heirs of Domingo Samut/Antonia Samut, represented by Leticia Samut-Gonzales, and Chito Singson from selling or disposing the subject lots.[21]
Subsequently, trial on the merits ensued. At the trial, plaintiff-appellant presented three witnesses namely: Nicanor Guiab, Atty. Nicanor Garcia and Leticia Samut- Gonzales.
Nicanor Guiab (Nicanor) testified that he was a 73 years old and a farmer from Maligaya, Echague Isabela;[22] that he personally knew Domingo Samut, as he was the husband of his aunt Fulciana;[23] that during his childhood days he stayed on the subject lots with Domingo;[24] that Domingo commenced possession and occupation of the subject lot in 1927;[25] that no one disturbed Domingo’s possession;[26] that he was not aware of any person who laid any claim over the subject lots.[27] Nicanor recounted that Domingo planted fruit-bearing trees and constructed a house thereon;[28] that when Domingo passed away in 1983, his children and grandchildren continued possession and cultivation of the lots;[29] that Leticia Gonzales, one of the Domingo’s grandchildren, planted fruit bearing trees and corn on a portion of the subject lots;[30] that he was aware of the improvements on the property because he would visit the place often.[31]
When cross-examined, Nicanor testified that he did not know the father or mother of Domingo;[32] that he was not aware of any title or document on the subject lots;[33] that he did not know Isidro Rosario, Gregorio Eloria, Dominador Agustin and Manuel Gorospe;[34] that he moved out from the disputed properties in 1953 when he got married.[35] Nicanor only assumed that it was the Samuts who planted trees on the subject lots as they were the only ones staying in the premises.[36] Nicanor declared that corn was planted thereon by a certain Mr. Singson.[37] In his re-direct examination, Nicanor confirmed that he did not know the date of Domingo’s death as he was in Babaran at that time.[38]
Atty. Nicanor Garcia (Atty. Garcia) testified, among other matters, that he was a former employee of the Legal Division of the DENR;[39] that he received a directive from the DENR Regional Director to conduct investigatory inspection on the report and findings of land investigator Napoleon Dulay relative to the Protest filed by Domingo Samut against the free patent and title of Emiliano Cortez over the subject lots (Lots No. 4602 and 4603, Cad 210 of Echague Cadastre);[40] that he conducted an inspection of the subject lot; that based on his inspection of the subject lots, the Samuts were the occupants of the property, and confirmed the ocular inspection of land investigator Dulay;[41] that he drafted an Order recommending the filing of reversion proceedings against Emiliano Cortez.[42] While reviewing the records of the report of land investigator Dulay, Atty. Garcia chanced upon the free patent applications of Dominador Agustin and Victoriano Agustin over the subject lots.[43] He testified that Domingo Samut and his heirs did not apply for Free Patent over the disputed lots.[44]
Plaintiff’s-appellant’s proposed last witness was Leticia Samut-Gonzales but her testimony was dispensed with after the defendants’ counsel admitted the substance of her would-be testimony.[45]
In furtherance of its Petition, plaintiff-appellant submitted its formal offer of documentary exhibits:[46]
– – – – – – – <td
– –
Defendants-appellees/third-party plaintiffs presented three witness namely: Mr. Christina Cortez-Estrada, Ms. Minerva Ruma and Lolita P. Ramos.
Before presentation of Ma. Christina Cortez-Estrada (Christina), defendants’-appellees’ counsel manifested to the Court that her testimony would be utilized as her testimony in their third-party Complaint against the Heirs of Domingo Samut and Chito Singson.[47] In her Judicial Affidavit, Christina declared that her deceased parents, Emiliano Cortez and Antonia Gaffud owned two (2) parcels of lot identified as Lots No. 4602 and 4603 at Barangay Libertad, Echague, Isabela.[48] Christina also declared that Emiliano Cortez acquired the subject pieces of property in 1953 from the original Free Patent Applicant Gregorio Eloria; that when her late father bought the property, he pursued its cultivation through paid laborers and planted it with rice, corn and cassava; that her father allowed Joaquin Samut to enter and cultivate the two (2) lots after execution of a lease contract; that when she visited the subject lots, she learned that the Director of Land filed a reversion proceeding against her father and that the heirs of Samut were claiming ownership of the subject lots; that she sought the services of a lawyer to protect the rights and interests of her family for the disputed property.[49]
During her cross-examination, Christina testified that she was born on November 30, 1939 in Manila and grew up in Quezon City;[50] that she was not aware of any Complaint filed against her father before the Bureau of Lands;[51] that she was not aware of any letter or telegram sent to one Mangubat and one Demetrio Vehemente on April 6, 1975;[52] that she came to know the existence of the lease contract when she looked into the files of her deceased father;[53] that she does not know and has not personally met Gregoria Eloria. Christina admitted that she did not see Gregorio clear the land and construct pilapil thereon; and that her statement on her affidavit, that Gregorio was the original applicant of the land and that he cleared the land, constructed the pilapils and converted a portion thereof into ricefield, was merely based on the documentary evidence she obtained.[54] Further, Christina recalled that it was her mother who often collected the landowner’s share during her lifetime. Christina also pointed out that real estate taxes of the subject property was religiously paid by her.[55]
The second witness for defendants-appellees/third-party plaintiffs was Ms. Minerva Ruma. Minerva testified that she was from the Municipal Assessor’s Office of the Municipality of Echague;[56] that Lot 4602 Cad 210 was declared for taxation purposes in the name of Antonia G. Vda. Cortez;[57] that there were two declarants for Lot 4603 namely, Antonia G. Vda de Cortez[58] and Domingo Samut;[59] and that she does not know the basis of the issuance of Tax Declaration for Domingo Samut.[60]
The last witness for defendants-appellees/third-party plaintiffs was Lolita P. Ramos. She testified that she was an employee of the Provincial Assessor’s Office of Isabela[61] and identified the Declaration of Real Property in the name of Emiliano P Cortez with Tax Declaration No. 10187[62] and Tax Declaration No. 16617.[63]
In support of their position, defendants-appellees/third-party plaintiffs formally offered their documentary evidence consisting of Exhibits 1 to 22 and sub-markings.[64]
After calibrating the parties’ evidence, the court’s Decision was pronounced on June 16, 2011:[65]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the plaintiff’s Complaint is, as it is, hereby DISMISSED.
Likewise, the third-party Complaint against third-party defendant Samut, is, as it is, hereby DISMISSED.
Third-Party defendant CHITO SINGSON is hereby ordered to vacate and surrender possession thereof to the defendant and third-party plaintiffs.
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis Supplied)
Dismayed by the verdict, third-party defendant Chito Singson and appellant filed their respective Notices of Appeal.[66] On January 14, 2013, a Resolution was issued by the Former Ninth Division of this Court, thusly:[67]
WHEREFORE, for failure to file the required appellant’s brief within the reglementary period which expired on July 18, 2012, despite the extension given, the appeal of third-party defendant-appellant Chito Singson is DISMISSED pursuant to Section 1 (e) Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
The Brief for the Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs- Appellees dated November 15, 2012 (Rollo, pp. 148-186) and the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellant dated August 15, 2012 filed on December 27, 2012 (Rollo, pp. 188-212) are noted.
SO ORDERED.
Consequently, a Partial Entry of Judgment was issued against third-party defendant-appellant Chito Singson on May 21, 2013.[68]
In the present recourse before Us, appellant raised the sole argument that:[69]
EMILIANO CORTEZ COMMITTED FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION IN HIS FREE PATENT APPLICATION OVER LOT NOS. 4602 AND 4603. THUS, REVERSION OF LOT NOS. 4602 AND 4603 TO THE MASS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN IS WARRANTED.
We deny the instant appeal.
Appellant anchored the Complaint for cancellation of Free Patent No. V-24082, OCT No. P-9148 and TCT No.T-42959[70] on Section 91 of Commonwealth Act 141 which, in part, reads:[71]
Section 91 xxx. The statements made in the application shall be considered as essential conditions and parts of any concession, title or permit issued on the basis of such application, and any false statements therein or omission of facts altering, changing or modifying the consideration of the facts set forth in such statements, and any subsequent modification, alteration, or change of the material facts set forth in the application shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of the concession, title or permit granted.
xxx
For its right of reversion, appellant invoked Section 101 of the Public Land Act:[72]
Sec. 101 – All actions for the reversion of the Government of lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be instituted by the Solicitor-General or the officer acting in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
To impugn defendants’-appellees’/third-party plaintiffs’ free patent application, appellant alleged that Emiliano Cortez committed fraudulent representations in his free patent application over Lots No. 4602 and 4603 since another person claimed ownership and possession over the subject parcels of land.[73]
In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence[74] thus, appellant carried the onus to prove accusations of fraud against Emiliano Cortez. Appellant failed to discharge this burden on account of these matters:
First, appellant’s documentary evidence failed to conclusively prove that the heirs of Domingo Samut were in possession of ‘the disputed lots long before the last world war or at the time the late Emiliano Cortez filed his free patent application. While the Report of Investigation of Investigator Napoleon Dulay dated March 18, 1985 discovered, per its ocular inspection on the subject parcels on October 12, 1984, that the occupants thereof were the children, grandchildren, relatives and in-laws of the late Domingo Samut[75] and that the improvements thereon were introduced by the heirs of Domingo Samut,[76] the Report did not indicate who were the actual occupants of the land in question when Emiliano Cortez filed his free patent application in 1953.
The determination of who were the actual occupants in 1953, as opposed to those who were already in possession of the land at time of the ocular inspection of Investigator Napoleon Dulay in October 12, 1984 and the subsequent confirmatory ocular inspection by Atty. Nicanor Garcia in November, 1996,[77] was crucial inasmuch as it could have corroborated appellant’s accusation that Emiliano fraudulently represented himself in his free patent application as the actual possessor and occupant of the subject lots.
Consequently, We agree with the RTC that while the Report dated March 18, 1985 carried the presumption of regularity of investigation, it can no longer prove that fraud was committed by Emiliano when he applied for a free patent application over the subject lots in 1953.[78]
Second, the testimony of appellant’s witness Nicanor Guiab, concerning the length of Domingo Samut’s possession and occupation of the lots was unreliable. Appellant presented Nicanor to prove that Domingo was already in possession and occupation of the disputed properties long before the last global war or at the time Emiliano filed his free patent application. However, glaring inconsistencies in his testimony cast doubt on his integrity and credibility as a witness. As observed by the trial court:[79]
The plaintiff Republic, to prove that the late Domingo Samut was already in possession and cultivation of the land in question since 1927, presented Nicanor Guiab who knew personally Domingo Samut, he being the husband of his Aunt Feliciana. Thus, he testified as follows:
However, on cross-examination said witness Mr. Nicanor Guiab testified, thus:
Said witness Mr. Nicanor Guiab, if he was born in the year 1933, must be 71 years old when he testified on February 5, 2004. In fact, when he testified in open Court on said date February 5, 2004, he gave his age as 73 years old, so much that he was not yet born in the year 1927 when he claim (sic) that Domingo Samut was already occupying the land in question.
Consequently, the Court is already in doubt as to the truthfulness of the testimony of Nicanor Guiab who claimed that since 1927, Domingo Samut was already in possession of the land in question to the exclusion of other persons. Besides, his testimony was uncorroborated by other evidence to show that at the time the late Emiliano Cortez filed his Free Patent Application, Domingo Samut was already in possession of the land in question.
Moreover, a review of the testimony of appellant’s second witness, particularly Atty, Nicanor Garcia, an employee of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Legal Division of Tuguegarao City, revealed these observations:
a) Atty. Garcia had no personal knowledge of the qualifications of Emiliano Cortez at the time Emiliano filed his Free Patent Application and the witness cannot thus conclude that Emiliano committed fraud in his application, thusly:[80]
b) the investigatory inspection of Atty. Nicanor Garcia on the subject lots, which confirmed the findings of Investigator Napoelon Dulay that the Samuts were the actual occupants of the disputed properties, was conducted,[81] per Atty. Nicanor Garcia’s recollection, only sometime in November, 1996.[82]
c) after a review and examination of the report and findings of land inspector Napoleon Dulay, pursuant to a directive from the DENR Regional Director Leonardo Paat to conduct investigatory inspection thereon, Atty. Nicanor Garcia discovered Free Patent Applications of Emiliano Cortez, Dominador Agustin and Victoriano Agustin over the subject lots.[83] But found no Free Patent Application in the name of Domingo Samut and his heirs over the same property.[84]
In stark contrast to appellant’s evidence, defendants’-appellees’/third-party plaintiffs’ ownership and possession of the subject pieces of property were sufficiently established by their submission of among, other proofs, the following documentary evidence:
(1) Free Patent Application of Emiliano P. Cortez;[85] (2) OCT No. P-9148 in the name of Emiliano Cortez;[86] (3) TCT No. T-42959 in the name of Antonia Vda de Cortez;[87] (4) Contract of Lease executed between Emiliano Cortez and Joaquin Samut;[88] (5) Tax Declaration on Lot 4602 and 4603 with OCT No. P-9148;[89] (6) Receipt of Payment of Realty Taxes on Lots 4602 and 4603;[90] (7) Letter from the Office of the President dated May 12, 1953;[91] (8) Report of Final Investigation dated May 12, 1953 submitted by Junior Land Inspector Marcelino Hernaez;[92] (9) Report dated June 29, 1955 submitted by Isidro Rosario;[93] (10) Sketch Location Plan of the two (2) lots 4602 and 4603;[94] (11) Notice of Application for Notarized Free Patent of Emiliano Cortez dated June 29, 1955;[95] (12) Approval of Application Succession and Issuance of Patent dated December 5, 1955;[96] (13) Letter dated December 5, 1955 from the Director of Land to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources;[97] (14) Transmittal Letter dated January14, 1956 from the Director of Lands through the chief record division addressed to the Registered of Land, Ilagan, Isabela;[98] (15) Adverse Claim on Lot 4602 registered per Order dated May 14, 1957 from the Bureau of Lands Manila;[99] (16) Tax Declaration of Antonia Vda de Cortez on Lot 4602 and OCT No. P-91408 by Assessor of Echague;[100] (17) Tax Declarations of Antonio Vda. De Cortez on Lot 4603 with OCT No. P-91498 by Assessor of Echague;[101] (18) Tax Declaration of Domingo Samut without any title of ownership indicated therein;[102] (19) Declaration of Real Property issued in 1958 by the Provincial Assessor of Ilagan, Isabela to Emiliana Cortez;[103] and (20) Declaration of Real Property issued to Antonia Vda. De Cortez approved by the provincial assessor and transferred by virtue of Extra-Judicial Settlement.[104]
Absent any cogent evidence from appellant to denigrate the disputable inference of regularity in the performance of official duty,[105] We therefore reinforce the validity of defendants-appellees/third-party plaintiffs’ free patent and the corresponding original certificate of title. As the trial court aptly concluded:[106]
In the evidence of the defendant Heirs of Emiliano Cortez, is the Report of Final Investigation dated May 23, 1953 (Exhibit “5”), which reads as follows:
“At the ocular inspection of the land applied for by Gregorio Eloria under his Fpa (sic)-V-9820 and which is the object of the attached deed of sale, the following have been ascertained:
The late Emiliano Cortez having bought the rights or interest of Mr. Gregorio Eloria, he became qualified to apply for Free Patent the land in question as shown in Report dated June 29, 1995 (Exhibit “9”) which reads as follows:
The Report of Final Investigation dated May 23, 1953 (Exhibit “8”) carries the presumption of regularity in the performance of official function by Public Land Inspector Marcelino Hernaez of the then Bureau of Land when he conducted an ocular inspection sometime in 1953. Likewise, the Investigation Report dated June 29, 1955 (Exhibit “9”) of Public Land Inspector Isidro Rosario carries the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty. The investigation conducted by said Public Land Inspectors Hernaez and Isidro Rosario were conducted in the year 1953 and 1955 when the late Emiliano Cortez filed his Free Patent Application and was under investigation regarding his claim that a certain Gregorio Eloria was the original possessor since 1940 until he bought his rights and interest and continued his occupation over the land in question.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
Hence, there was also an ocular inspection on the land in question in the year 1953 and 1955 to determine the truth about the allegations of the Free Patent Application of Emiliano Cortez (Exhibit “1”) and there was nothing stated in the Report of Final Investigation dated May 23, 1953 (Exhibit “8”) submitted by Land Inspector Marcelino Hernaez and the Report (Exhibit “9”) dated June 29, 1955 submitted by Land Inspector Isidro Rosario showing that the Samut were already in actual possession of the land in question. Neither did the plaintiff Republic present clear and convincing evidence to prove that the late Emiliano Cortez committed fraud and misrepresentation in his Free Patent Application (Exhibit “1”). The evidence presented by the plaintiff, through the testimony of Nicanor Guiab and Atty. Nicanor Garcia do not show, to the satisfaction of the Court, that Domingo Samut was already in possession of the land in question long before the last global war or at the time when Emiliano Cortez filed his application for Free Patent in 1953 or thereabout.
xxx”[107]
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. “Preponderance of evidence” is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered synonymous with the term “greater weight of the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence.” “Preponderance of evidence” is a phrase that, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[108]
In fine, We also disallow reversion and neither can the Republic’s intention to recover be premised on other factors, apart from fraud, as emphasized anew in Republic vs. Roxas, et al.[109]
On Defendants’-Appellees’/
[74] Santos v. National Statistics Office, G.R. No. 171129, April 6, 2011.
[75] Vol. II Record, See Report of Investigation, page 553.
[76] Id., See Report of Investigation, page 552.
[77] TSN, October 27, 2006, page 13; TSN, August 24, 2007, pp. 8-9.
[78] See Decision dated June 16, 2011, Rollo, page 121.
[79] Rollo, pp. 118-119.
[80] TSN, November 20, 2006, pp. 11-14.
[81] TSN, October 27, 2006, pp. 13-14.
[82] TSN, August 24, 2007, pp. 8-9.
[83] TSN, November 20, 2006, pp. 18-19.
[84] Id., page 19.
[85] Vol. II Folder, Exhibit “1”, Record, page 648.
[86] Id., Exhibit “2”, Record, page 811.
[87] Id., Exhibit “3”, Record, page 649.
[88] Id., Exhibit “4”, Record, page 651.
[89] Id., Exhibits “5” and “6”, Record, pp. 652-653.
[90] Id., Exhibit “6”, Record, pp. 654-655.
[91] Id., Exhbit “7”, Record, page 656.
[92] Id., Exhibit “8”, Record, page 657.
[93] Vol. II Folder, Exhibits “9” and “9-A”, Record, pp. 658-659
[94] Id., Exhibit “9-B”, Record, page 659-B.
[95] Id., Exhibit “10”, Record, page 660.
[96] Vol. II Folder, Exhibit “11” Record, page 661.
[97] Id., Exhibit “12”, Record, page 662.
[98] Id., Exhibit “13”, Record, page 663.
[99] Id., Exhibit “14”, Record, page 664.
[100] Id., Exhibit “18”, Record, page 670.
[101] Id., Exhibit “19”, Record, page 671.
[102] Id., Exhibit “20”, Record, page 672.
[103] Id., Exhibit “21”, Record, page 673.
[104] Id., Exhibit “22”, Record, page 674.
[105] Section 3 (m), Rule 131, Revised Rules on Evidence.
[106] Rollo, pp. 119-121.
[107] Rollo, page 122.
[108] Heirs of Jose Lim v. Julieta Lim, G.R. No. 172690, March 3, 2010, citing Perfecta Cavile, Jose de la Cruz and Rural Bank of Bayawan, Inc. v. Justina Litania-Hong, et al., G.R. No. 179540, March 13, 2009, citing Go v. Court of Appeals, 403 Phil. 883, 890-891 (2001).
[109] G.R. No. 157988 and companion case, December 11, 2013
[110] See Brief for the Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees, Rollo, page 183, “WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the judgment rendered by the Trial Court be AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION by ordering third-party defendant-appellants heirs of Domingo/Antonia Samut and Chito Singson to pay actual damages of P10,000.00 per year from 1964, exemplary damages of P10,000.00 and attorney’s fees of P200,000.00.” (Emphasis Supplied)
[111] Leticia Tan et al. v. OMC Carriers, Inc. et al. G.R. No. 190521, January 12, 2011 citing Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 138296, November 22, 2000, 345 SCRA 509, 519, citing Marina Properties Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125447, August 14, 1998, 294 SCRA 273.
[112] Rollo page 183.
[113] See Decision dated June 16, 2011, “Likewise moral damages may be recovered when there is satisfactory evidence of the psychological and mental trauma actually suffered by a party (del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 158). Moral damages not being recoverable in this case, exemplary damages cannot also be recovered (PNB vs. CA, 266 SCRA 136); Espino v. Spouses Bulut, G.R. No. 183811, May 30, 2011.
[114] Gonzales et al. v. Camarines Sur Electric Cooperative Inc., et al. G.R. No. 181096, March 6, 2013, “As regards attorney’s fees, the Civil Code provides that the award shall be given to the claimant if exemplary damages are awarded; or if the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the former’s plainly valid, just and demandable claim.”