Petition For Review On Certiorari Assailing

FIRST DIVISION [G. R. No. 144712. July 4, 2002] SPOUSES SILVESTRE and CELIA PASCUAL, cravingers, vs. RODRIGO V. RAMOS, respondent. DECISION DAVIDE, JR. , C. J. : Anteriorly us is a craving for re-examination on certiorari assailing the 5 November 1999 Decision[1] and the 18 August 2000 Resolution[2] of the Affect of Appeals in CA G. R. CV No. 52848. The foremost-mentioned affirmed the 5 June 1995 and 7 September 1995 Indication of the Regional Proof Court, Malolos, Bulacan, Shoot 21, in Complaisant Pvain No. 526 -M-93, and the passing spoiled cravinger’s excitement for re-examination. The pvain at bar stemmed from the craving[3] for combination of epithet or arresting perfectd on 5 July 1993 behind a occasion the proof affect by herein respondent Rodrigo V. Ramos (future RAMOS) abutting herein cravingers, Spouses Silvestre and Celia Pascual (future the PASCUALs). In his craving, RAMOS alleged that on 3 June 1987, for and in augur of P150,000, the PASCUALs perfectd in his condescension a Feat of Despotic Sale w ith Fit to Recompense neutralize two bundles of fix and the improvements thereon located in Bambang, Bulacan, Bulacan, ripe by Transfer Certificate of Epithet (TCT) No. 05626 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan. This muniment was annotated at the tail of the epithet. The PASCUALs did not use their fit to recompense the amiables behind a occasionin the prevalent one -year era; future, RAMOS prayed that the epithet or arresting neutralize the waver bundles of fix and improvements thereon be indistinct in his condescension. In their Answer,[4] the PASCUALs preferted having signed the Feat of Despotic Sale behind a occasion Fit to Recompense for a augur of P150,000 but averred that what the divorceies had in-feat harmonized upon and entered into was a endureent domain hypothecation. They prefer alleged that there was no necessity limiting the era behind a occasionin which to use the fit to recompense and that they had resembling neutralizecompensated RAMOS. Furthermore, they middle the subjoined defences: (a) the proof affect had no administration neutralize the waver or affection of the craving; (b) RAMOS had no allowefficient compatability to sue; (c) the view o f enjoyment, if any, was secretive by the decree of limitations; (d) the petiti on recognized no view of enjoyment; (e) the vindication or upupcorrect set forth in RAMOS’s amitelling had been compensated, waived, wild, or otherjudicious quenched; and (f) RAMOS has not complied behind a occasion the insist-upond confrontation and amity anteriorly the barangay. By way of counterclaim, the PASCUALs prayed that RAMOS be classifyed to perfect a Feat of Cancellation, Liberate or Disload of the Feat of Despotic Sale behind a occasion Fit to Recompense or a Feat of Existent Domain Mortgage; entrust to them the possessor’s facsimile of TCT No. T-305626; repay the aggregateity they had neutralizepaid; and pay each of them presumptive pauseitution and honortelling pauseitution in the aggregateitys of P200,000 and P50,000, appertainingly, plus attorney’s fees of P100,000; coming fee of P1,500 per hearing; litigation outlays; and costs of assist. After the pre-trial, the proof affect outcomed an classify[5] wherein it verified the subjoined outcomes: (1) whether the Feat of Despotic Sale behind a occasion Fit to Recompense is an despotic sale or a uninfluenced hypothecation; (2) whether the PASCUALs feel compensated or neutralizecompensated the foremost necessity; (3) whether the arresting neutralize the bundle of fix may be indistinct in condescension of RAMOS; and (4) whether pauseitution may be distributeed. Unordered the muniments offered in manifestation by RAMOS during the proof on the worths was a muniment solid as Sinumpaang Salaysay[6] signed by RAMOS and Silvestre Pascual, but not notarized. The variation of the muniment learn: Ako, si SILVESTRE PASCUAL, Filipino, nasa hustong gulang, may asawa at kasalukuyang naninirahan sa Bambang, Bulacan, Bulacan, ay nagsasabing buong katotohanan at sumusumpa sa asovereign mga salaysay sa kasulatang ito: 1. Na ngayong June 3, 1987 dahil sa asovereign matinding pangangailangan ng puhunan ay lumapit ako at nakiusap kay Rodrigo Ramos ng Taal, Pulilan, Bulacan na pautangin ako ng halagang P150,000. 00. 2. Na aming napagkasunduan na ang nasabing utang ay babayaran ko ng tubo ng sresembling percent (7%) o P10,500. 0 isang buwan (7% per month). 3. Na bilang sangla (indirect deposit) sa asovereign utang, kami ay nagkasundo na mag-perfect ng Feat of Sale behind a occasion Fit to Recompense para sa asovereign bahay at lupa (TCT No. 305626) sa Bo. Taliptip, Bambang, Bulacan, Bulacan ngayong June 3, 1987 at binigyan ako ni Mr. Ramos ng isang taon hanggang June 3, 1988 upang mabiling muli ang asovereign isinanla sa kaniya sa kasunduang babayaran kong lahat ang consummate na P150,000. 00 pati na ang P10,500. 0 na tubo buwan buwan. 4. Na bilang karagdagang proviso, si RODRIGO RAMOS ay pumayag sa asovereign kahilingan na kung sakali na hindi ko mabayaran ng buo ang asovereign pagkakautang (Principal plus concern) sa loob ng isang taon mula ngayon, ang nakasanglang bahay at lupa ay hindi muna niya iilitin (foreclose) o ipalilipat sa pangalan niya at hindi muna kami paaalisin sa tinitirhan naming bahay hanggat ang tubo (interest) na P10,500. 00 ay nababayaran ko buwan buwan. 5. Na ako ay sumasang-ayon sa kundisyon ni Rodrigo Ramos na pagkatapos ng isang taon mula ngayon hanggang June 3, 1988 at puro concern lamang ang asovereign naibabayad buwan-buwan, kung sakaling hindi ako makabayad ng tubo for six (6) continuous months (1/2 year behind June 3, 1988 (6 na buwang hindi bayad ang concern ang utang ko) si Rodrigo Ramos ay binibigyan ko ng karapatan at kapangyarihan na mag-mayari ng aming bahay at lupa at kami ng asovereign pamilya ay kusang loob na aalis sa nasabing bahay at lupa na lumalabas na ibinenta ko sa kaniya dahil hindi ako nakasunod sa aming mga pinagkasunduang usapan. . At bilang developede ng aming kasunduan, ako ay nangangako na hindi maghahabol ng ano mang sukli sa pagkakailit ng aming bahay at lupa kung sakali mang dumating sa ganuong pagkakataon o sitwasyon o di kaya’y magsasampa ng reklamo kanino man. Bilang pagsang-ayon sa mga nasabing kasunduan, kami ay lumagda sa ibaba nito kalakip ng aming mga pangalan ngayong ika-3 ng Hunyo, 1987. (Sgd. )Rodrigo Ramos Sgd. ) Silvestre Pascual Nagpautang Umutang For their divorce, the PASCUALs exhibited munimentary manifestation consisting of voucher receipts [7] to condecided the reimbursements they had made. The proof affect base that the transenjoyment betwixt the divorceies was in-feat a advance in the aggregateity of P150,000, the reimbursement of which was impregntelling by a hypothecation of the amiables ripe by TCT No. 305626. It as-well-behaved base that the PASCUALs had made reimbursements in the aggregate sum of P344,000, and that behind a occasion concern at 7% per annum, the PASCUALs had neutralizecompensated the advance by P141,500. Accordingly, in its Decision[8] of 15 March 1995 the proof affect decreed as prospers: WHEREFORE, determination is hereby imparted in condescension of the accuseds and abutting the accuser in the subjoined method: 1. Dismissing the accuser’s craving; 2. Directing the Register of Deeds to countervail the criticism of the Feat of Sale behind a occasion Fit to Recompense on the dorsal plane of TCT No. 305626; 3. Awarding the accuseds the sum of P141,500. 00 as neutralizereimbursement on the advance and concerns; 4. Granting the accuseds attorney’s fee in the sum of P15,000. 0 and P3,000. 00 for litigation outlays. Behind a occasion costs abutting the accuser. RAMOS moved for the re-examination of the conversion, alleging that the proof affect erred in using an concern scold of 7% per annum in the calculation of the aggregate aggregateity of necessity beview what was directly prevalent in the Sinumpaang Salaysay was 7% per month. The aggregate concern due from 3 June 1987 to 3 April 1995 was P987,000. Deducting therefrom the concern reimbursements made in the sum of P344,000, the aggregateity of P643,000 was tranquil due as concern. Adding the passing to the foremost sum of P150,000, the aggregate aggregateity due from the PASCUALs as of 3 April 1995 was P793,000. Sagacity worth in the excitement for re-examination, which was not contrariant by the PASCUALs, the proof affect outcomed on 5 June 1995 an Order[9] modifying its conversion by deleting the distribute of P141,500 to the PASCUALs as neutralizereimbursement of the advance and concern and classifying them to pay RAMOS P511,000 representing the foremost advance plus concern. The proof affect unquestioned that it had inadvertently pretended the concern scold to be 7% per annum when, in feat, the Sinumpaang Salaysay prevalent 7% per month. It exalted that during proof, the PASCUALs never false the prevalent concern scold. However, the affect pretended that the 7% per month concern is too weighty and laborious. Invosovereign the preserveive explode of Article 24 of the Complaisant Code, which mandates the affects to be operative for the defence of a divorcey at a helplessness due to his presumptive trust, sciolism, inability, invisible waterynes s, effeminate age or other operativeicap, the proof affect unilaterally cheap the concern scold from 7% per month to 5% per month. Thus, the concern due from 3 June 1987 to April 1995 was P705,000. Deducting therefrom the reimbursements made by the PASCUALs in the aggregateity of P344,000, the net concern due was P361,000. Adding thereto the advance foremost of P150,000, the aggregate aggregateity due from the PASCUALs was P511,000. Aggrieved by the qualification of the conversion, the PASCUALs perfectd a excitement to reconsider the Classify of 5 June 1995. They alleged that the excitement for re-examination perfectd by RAMOS was a uninfluenced piece of monograph beview they sanctioned a delineation of said excitement babelieve a day anteriorly the hearing, in diversifyation of the 3 -day-notice administration. Moreover, they had already compensated the concerns and had in feat neutralizecompensated the foremost sum of P150,000. Besides, RAMOS, entity an idiosyncratical, could not load neutralize than 1% concern per month or 12% per annum; and, the concern of either 5% or 7% a month is sinewy, unconscionable, grotesque, usurious and disingenuous. RAMOS contrariant the excitement of the PASCUALs. He contested that the non-compliance behind a occasion the 3-day-notice administration was cured when the proof affect gave them an opening to perfect their hostility, but notwithstanding the flux of the perio d ardent them, no hostility was perfectd. It is not set-upcorrect to say that he was not distinguishn to congregate neutralize than 1% per month concern reverenceing that behind a occasion the moratorium on the Usury Law, the allowefficient concern is that harmonized upon by the divorceies. In the tripure of any manifestation that there was waste, soundness or unimfavoring swing exerted upon the PASCUALs when they entered into the transenjoyment in waver, their necessity representative in the Sinumpaang Salaysay should be respected. Furthermore, the proof affect had already cheap the concern scold to 5% per month, a scold which is not sinewy, unconscionable, grotesque and disingenuous. Their excitement for re-examination having been spoiled in the Order[10] of 7 September 1995, the PASCUALs seasonably apostrophizeed to the Affect of Appeals. They severe out that gone the babelieve entreaty of RAMOS in his craving was to feel the epithet or arresting neutralize the waver fix and the improvements thereon indistinct in his condescension and he did not feel any entreaty for unconcealed deliverance, the proof affect had no plea in classifying them to pay him the sum of P511,000. In its Decision[11] of 5 November 1999, the Affect of Appeals affirmed in toto the proof affect’s Indication of 5 June 1995 and 7 September 1995. It administrationd that occasion RAMOS’s craving for combination of epithet or arresting did not encrisk a entreaty for the reimbursement of the neutralize of the cravingers’ necessity and a entreaty for unconcealed deliverance, the outcome of whether there was tranquil a neutralize from the aggregateity advanceed was supposed to feel been tall in the amiables by salubrity of Section 5, Administration 10 of the Rules of Court, which provides that “[w]hen outcomes not tall by the amiables are familiar behind a occasion the direct or involved acquiesce of the divorceies, they shall be operativeleed in all compliments as if they had been tall in the amiables. In the round of the proof, receipts were exhibited by the PASCUALs evidencing the reimbursements they had made. Smitten in observation behind a occasion the Sinumpaang Salaysay which jumped the concern scold at 7% per month, a mathematical calculation early leads to the division that there is tranquil a neutralize due from the PASCUALs, resembling at a cheap concern scold of 5% concern per month. Behind a occasion the nonacceptance of their excitement for re-examination of the conversion by the Affect of Appeals, t he PASCUALs perfectd anteriorly us the flash craving preferment the solitary outcome of whether they are litelling for 5% concern per month from 3 June 1987 to 3 April 1995. Invosovereign this Court’s reigning in Medel v. Affect of Appeals,[12] they demonstscold that the 5% per month concern is disingenuous, crime, unconsciontelling and sinewy. Moreover, respondent should not be distinguishn to congregate concern of neutralize than 1% per month beview he familiar to disguise the endureent transenjoyment betwixt the divorceies by majestic upon them to prognostic a Feat of Despotic Sale behind a occasion Fit to Repurchase. For his divorce, RAMOS contests that the outcome tall by cravingers cannot be astare anyneutralize beview it wa s neither tall in the lamentation nor ventilated during the proof. In any plight, there was rush ilallowefficient on the scold of concern harmonized upon by the divorceies, gone the ceilings on concern scolds prescribed beneath the Usury Law had directly been removed, a nd future divorceies are left loosely at their preference to harmonize on any scold of concern. Moreover, there was no device to disguise a usurious proceeding. RAMOS then prays that the challenged conversion and conversion be affirmed and that cravingers be prefer classifyed to pay allowefficient concern on the concern due from the opportunity it was uprighted. We see at uniformly the proneness of the PASCUALs to substitute plea approximately full tramp of the plight. By invosovereign the conversion in Medel v. Affect of Appeals, the PASCUALs are in-feat preferment as outcome the capacity of the prevalent concern scold. It must be stressed that they never tall as a defence or as plea for their countervindication the ineffectuality of the prevalent concern. Occasion neutralizereimbursement was alleged in the Answer, no conclusive fac ts which deputed the plea of the neutralizereimbursement was alleged. In their pre-proof paltry, the PASCUALs made a crave register of outcomes, but not one of them chinky on the capacity of the prevalent concern scold. Their own manifestation palpably semblances that they feel harmonized on, and feel in feat compensated concern at, the scold of 7% per month. Exhibits “1” to “8” specifically mentioned that the reimbursements made were for the concern due on the P150,000 advance of the PASCUALs. In the round of the proof, the PASCUALs never put in outcome the capacity of the prevalent concern scold. Behind the proof affect stayed cravingers’ vindication that their necessity behind a occasion RAMOS was in-feat a advance behind a occasion endureent domain hypothecation, the PASCUALs should not be distinguishn to shape their tail on the stipulati on in that necessity to pay concern at the scold of 7% per month. The PASCUALs should sanction not babelieve the condescensiontelling complexion of the affect’s exhibition that the muniment is in-feat an adaptationate hypothecation but as-well-behaved the needful outcome of such declaratio n, that is, that concern on the advance as prevalent by the divorceies in that selfselfselfcorresponding muniment should be compensated. Besides, when RAMOS moved for a re-examination of the 15 March 1995 Conversion of the proof affect viewing out that the concern scold to be used should be 7% per month, the PASCUALs never lifted a finger to breast the vindication. Admittedly, in their Excitement for Re-examination of the Order of 5 June 1995, the PASCUALs proved that the concern scold, whether it be 5% or 7%, is sinewy, unconscionable, grotesque, usurious and disingenuous. However, in their Appellants’ Brief, the babelieve interrogation tall by the PASCUALs was that RAMOS’s craving did not incrisk a entreaty for unconcealed deliverance and, future, the proof affect had no plea for classifying them to pay RAMOS P511,000 representing the foremost and uncompensated concern. It was babelieve in their excitement for the re-examination of the conversion of the Affect of Appeals that the PASCUALs made an outcome of the concern scold and prayed for its abatement to 12% per annum. In Manila Bay Club Corp. v. Affect of Appeals,[13] this Affect administrationd that if an outcome is tall babelieve in the excitement for re-examination of the conversion of the Affect of Appeals, the amiables is that it is as if it was never duly tall in that affect at all. Our reigning in Medel v. Affect of Appeals[14] is not ry to the exhibit plight. In that plight, the disingenuousness of the prevalent concern at the scold of 5. 5 % per month was put in outcome by the accuseds in the Answer. Moreover, in pauseitution to the concern, the borrowers were as-well-behaved insist-upond, as per bound in the pr omissory voice, to pay employment load of 2% per annum and a punishment load of 1% per month plus attorney’s fee of equiponderant to 25% of the aggregateity due. In the pvain at bar, there is no other bound for the reimbursement of an extra aggregateity ate concern on t he foremost advance. Thus, smitten in observation behind a occasion the prevalent employment load and punishment, the concern scold of 5. 5% in the Medel pvain was base to be disingenuous, crime, unconscionable, sinewy and future, repugnant to presumptives, thereby masovereign such s tipulation ineffectual and vacant. Considering the hostility in the featual predicament of the Medel pvain and the flash plight, we are not facile to appiece the foremost-mentioned lest it be construed that we can collide down anyopportunity concern scolds harmonized upon by divorceies in a advance proceeding. It is a basic energy in complaisant law that divorceies are jump by the bounds in the narrows gratuitously entered into by them. Parties are loose to covenant eatabnear and provisos which they consider helpful allowed they are not contra ry to law, presumptives, amitelling tax, exoteric classify, or exoteric inferiorstanding. [15] The concern scold of 7% per month was gratuitously harmonized upon by RAMOS and the PASCUALs. There is rush from the chronicles and, in feat, there is no allegation semblanceing that cravingers were victims of waste when they entered into the necessity behind a occasion RAMOS. Neither is there a semblanceing that in their narrowual kinsmen behind a occasion RAMOS, the PASCUAL s were at a helplessness on assertion of their presumptive trust, sciolism, invisible decrepitude, effeminate age or other operativeicap, which would enepithet them to the operative defence of the affects as mandated by Article 24 of the Complaisant Code. Apropos in our reigning in Vales vs. Villa: All men are presumed to be sensible and recognized and waver to be moved by in-circumpattern the selfselfselfcorresponding impulses. W hen of age and sensible, they must captivate thrift of themselves. In their kinsmen behind a occasion others in the once of regarder, wits, signification, intellect, inoculation, ability and determination confront and clang and agentsay, rabelieve behind a occasion agent and utility to all, rabelieve to a few bluntly, behind a occasion missing and waste to others. In these agentsays men must wrangle upon themselves – upon their own abilities, competency, inoculation, signification, acumen, determination. The feat that one may be worsted by another, of itself, furnishes no view of lamentation. One man cannot lament beview another is neutralize telling, or rectify serviceable, or has rectify signification or determination than he has; and when the two confront on a imfavoring room the auxiliary cannot din if the conflict goes abutting him. The law furnishes no defence to the auxiliary solely beview he is auxiliary, any neutralize than it preserves the sinewy beview he is sinewy. The law furnishes defence to twain homogeneous – to one no neutralize or near than to the other. It agents no discord betwixt the judicious and the imbecile, the immense and the trivial, the sinewy and the watery. The imbecile may risk all they feel to the judicious; but that does not et that the law conciliate allow it tail to them anew. Courts cannot prosper one full tramp of his regarder and upset him from bad bargains, preserve him from unjudicious investments, help him from one-sided narrows, or annul the amiabnear of imbecile acts. Courts cannot depute themselves escortians of natures who are not allowablely unqualified. Courts opescold not beview one idiosyncratic has been defeated or neutralizecome by another, but beview he has been defeated or neutralizecome disingenuously. Men may do imbecile creatures, agent grotesque narrows, use misertelling determination, and risk chief by then – in-truth, all they feel in the world; but not for that peculiar can the law lapse and repay. There must be, in pauseitution, aalteration of law, the ministry of what the law distinguishs as an enjoymenttelling crime, anteriorly the affects are signed to lay arpause of the office and cure it. 16] Behind a occasion the deprivation of the Usury Law and the removal of concern ceiling, the divorceie s are loose to covenant the concern to be enjoind on advances. Absent any manifestation of waste, unimfavoring swing, or any badness of acquiesce used by RAMOS on the PASCUALs, the concern harmonized upon is pauseraining upon them. This Affect is not in a pose to enjoin upon divorceies narrowual bounds delaystandd from what they feel harmonized upon. As pretended in the conversion of Cuizon v. Affect of Appeals,[17] It is not the department of the affect to diversify a narrow by discernment or to agent a new narrow for the divorceies; its once is disingenuousnessd to the solution of the one which they feel made for themselves behind a occasionout reverence to its learning or madness as the affect cannot minister representative bounds or lgain into the narrow tone which it does not inclose. Thus, we cannot obviate the concern scold, which was cheap to 5% per month behind a occasionout hostility on the divorce of RAMOS. We are not persuaded by the interrogation of the PASCUALs that gone RAMOS familiar to disguise the endureent transenjoyment by majestic upon them the feat of a Feat of Despotic Sale behind a occasion Fit to Repurchase, he should not be distinguishn to congregate neutralize than 1% per month concern. It is unfalse that concomitant behind a occasion the feat of the said feat was the feat of the Sinumpaang Salaysay, which set forth the penny necessity of the divorceies. The PASCUALs cannot then vindication that they did not distinguish the endureent proceeding. RAMOS’s vindication that the concern due should gain allowefficient i ntepause cannot be acted upon condescensionably beview he did not apostrophize from the Classify of the proof affect of 5 June 1995, which solely classifyed the reimbursement by the PASCUALs of the aggregateity of P511,000 behind a occasionout concern thereon. No deliverance can be allowed a divorcey who does not apostrophize. [18] Therefore, the classify of the proof affect should pause. Incidentally, we noticed that in the Memorandum perfectd by RAMOS, the reigning in Vales v. Valle was reproduced by his admonition behind a occasionout the fair passage. Such act deputes plagiarism. Atty. Felimon B. Mangahas is hereby warned that a recraving of such act shall be dealt behind a occasion conformably. WHEREFORE, in sentiment of all the antecedent, the craving is DENIED. The assailed conversion of the Affect of Appeals in CA G. R. CV No. 52848 is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs abutting cravingers. SO ORDERED. Vitug, Kapunan, Ynares-Santiago, and Austria-Martinez, JJ. , acquiesce. FIRST DIVISION SPS. EDGAR AND DINAH OMENGAN, Petitioners, G. R. No. 161319 Present: PUNO, C. J. , SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, Worsovereign Chairperson, CORONA, AZCUNA and GARCIA, JJ. - versus - PHILIPPPINE NATIONAL BANK, HENRY M. MONTALVO AND MANUEL S. ACIERTO,* Respondents. Promulgated: January 23, 2007 x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DECISION CORONA, J. This craving for re-examination on certiorari[1] seeks a re-examination and alteration of the Affect of Appeals (CA) conversion [2] and conversion[3] in CA-G. R. CV No. 71302. In October 1996, the Philippine National Bank (PNB) Tabuk (Kalinga) Shoot widespdecipher cravingers-spouses’ impression for a revolving goodness thdecipher of P3 darling. The advance was impregntelling by two residential lots in Tabuk, Kalinga-Apayao ripe by Transfer Certificate of Epithet (TCT) Nos. 2954 and 12112. The testament of epithet, outcomed by the Registry of Deeds of the Department of KalingaApayao, were in the contrivanceate of Edgar[4] Omengan married to Dinah Omengan. The foremost P2. 5 darling was liberated by Shoot Director Henry Montalvo on three sepascold dates. The liberate of the developed half darling was, so-far, behind a occasionheld by Montalvobeview of a message allegedly sent by Edgar’s sisters. It learn: A ppas, Tabuk Kalinga 7 November 1996 The Director Philippine National Bank Tabuk Shoot Poblacion, Tabuk Kalinga Sir: This refers to the fix at Appas, Tabuk in the contrivanceate of our twin, Edgar Omengan, which was hypothecationd to [the] Bank in the aggregateity of Three Darling Pesos (P3,000,000. 00), the sum of [ P2. 5 Million] had already been liberated and sanctioned by our twin, Edgar. In this unarm-an, it is desireed that the cherishing unreleased neutralize of [half a darling pesos] be held in pause pending an beneathstanding by the pause of the twins and sisters of Edgar. Please be apprised that the amiables hypothecationd, occasion in the contrivanceate of Edgar Omengan, is owned in co-holding by all the end of the tardy Roberto and Elnora Omengan. The attorney who drafted the muniment registering the waver amiables beneath Edgar’s contrivanceate can prove to this feat. We had a previous beneathstanding behind a occasion Edgar in allowing him to agent use of the amiables as indirect, but he refuses to allow behind a occasion such eatables. Hence, this message. (seriousness ours) Very subelieve yours, (Sgd. ) Shirley O. Gamon (Sgd. ) Imogene O. Bangao (Sgd. ) Carothdecipher O. Salicob (Sgd. ) Alice O. Claver[5] Montalvo was resemblingtually replaced as shoot director by Manuel Acierto who liberated the cherishing half darling pesos to cravingers on May 2, 1997. Acierto as-well-behaved recommended the acstyle of a P2 darling extension in their goodness thdecipher to the Cagayan Valley Once Center Goodness Committee in Santiago City. The goodness committee widespdecipher the extension of cravingers’ goodness thdecipher (from P3 darling to P5 darling), allowed Edgar’s sisters gave their conformance. Acierto apprised cravingers of the provisoal acstyle of their goodness thread. But cravingers triped to assure the acquiesce of Edgar’s sisters; future, PNB put on arpause the liberate of the pauseitutional P2 darling. On October 7, 1998, Edgar Omengan uprighted the liberate of the P2 darling. He vindicationed that the proviso for its liberate was not divorce of his goodness thdecipher necessity behind a occasion PNB beview it was pretended behind a occasionout his acquiesce. PNB spoiled his desire. On March 3, 1999, cravingers perfectd a lamentation for quarrel of con entrust and pauseitution abutting PNB behind a occasion the Regional Proof Affect (RTC), Shoot 25 in Tabuk, Kalinga. Behind proof, the affect solid in condescension of cravingers. Accordingly, determination is hereby imparted sagacity in condescension of [petitioners. ] [PNB is classifyed] : 1) To liberate behind a occasionout stoppage in condescension of [petitioners] the aggregateity of P2,000,000. 00 to perfect the P5,000,000. 00 goodness thdecipher necessity; ) To pay [petitioners] the aggregateity of P2,760,000. 00 representing the missinges and/or expected allowance of the [petitioners] for three years; 3) To pay allowefficient concern, until the aggregateity aforementioned on sections 1 and 2 aggravate are abundantly compensated; and 4) To pay the costs. SO ORDERED. [6] The CA, so-far, on June 18, 2003, reversed and set aplane the RTC conversion dated April 21, 2001. [7] Petitioners now contest that the CA erred when it did not stay the sagacity of quarrel of narrow by the RTC. [8] The creature of quarrel of narrow is a featual material not usually re-examinationed in a craving perfectd beneath Administration 45. But gone the RTC and the CA had impossible sagacitys, we are consserviceefficient to administration on this outcome. Was there a quarrel of narrow? There was none. Quarrel of narrow is defined as prospers: [It] is the “failure behind a occasionout allowefficient debate to allow behind a occasion the eatabnear of a narrow. ” It is as-well-behaved defined as the “[f]ailure, behind a occasion out allowefficient aggravatelook, to achieve any engagement which forms the complete or divorce of the narrow. ” [9] In this plight, the divorceies harmonized on a P3 darling goodness thread. This sum was perfectly liberated to cravingers who pastrly applied[10] for an extension in their goodness thread. This was provisoally widespdecipher by PNB’s goodness committee. For all fixeds and views, cravingers sought an pauseitutional advance. The proviso strong to the extension in goodness thdecipher requiring cravingers to achieve the conformance of Edgar’s sisters was never unquestioned and sanctioned by cravingers. Thus, as to the pauseitutional advance, no confronting of the inclinations in-feat occurred and no quarrel of narrow could be manifestationd to PNB. There was no perfected narrow neutralize the extension in goodness thread. “[T]he once of a bank is one improbefficient behind a occasion exoteric concern, for which debate the bank should escort abutting missing due to regardlessness or bad credulity. In flattering the advance of an subserveor, the bank concerns itself behind a occasion fair [information] reverenceing its borrowers. ”[11] Any study previously directed on the amiables offered by cravingers as indirect did not obviate PNB from reverenceing new instruction on the selfselfselfcorresponding amiables as deposit for a sub sequent advance. The goodness and amiables study for the initiatory advance of P3 darling did not benefit PNB to allow and liberate any pauseitutional advance. At the opportunity the initiatory P3 darling goodness thdecipher was widespread, the epithet to the amiables professioned to perta in detestedly to cravingers. By the opportunity the impression for an extension was considered, so-far, PNB already had debate to augur cravingers’ vindication of detested arresting. A hypothecatione can differve on what professions on the certificate of epithet p resented by the borrower and an harmnear hypothecatione is not expected to direct an wasting study on the exactness of the borrower’s epithet. This administration is strictly applied to ban sovereign institutions. xxx Banks, in-truth, should use neutralize thrift and inferiorstanding in trade resembling behind a occasion registered fixs, than not-open idiosyncraticals, as their once is one improbefficient behind a occasion exoteric concern. xx Thus, this Affect clarified that the administration that natures trade wit h registered fixs can differve solitaryly on the certificate of epithet does not appiece to banks. [12] (seriousness replete) Here, PNB had achieved instruction qualified to agent a debateably wise idiosyncratic to search into the footremain of the epithet neutralize the waver amiables. Instead of defending their pose, cravingers uninfluencedly wrangleed that trust on the aspect of the certificate of epithet (in their contrivanceate) was qualified. This energy, as already mentioned, was not ry to financial institutions approve PNB. In exactness, cravingers had full fortuity to shape the office in their condescension if, as they said, they endureently owned the waver p roperty peculiar, to the nonparticipation of any other possessor(s). Unfortunately, all they offered were blunt nonacceptances of the co -holding vindicationed by Edgar’s sisters. PNB used debatetelling inferiorstanding in requiring the aggravate-mentioned proviso for the liberate of the pauseitutional advance. If the proviso confirmd unaccepttelling to cravingers, the divorceies could feel discussed other eatabnear instead of masovereign an refractory and outfit upupcorrect for the liberate of the pauseitutional aggregateity. If the alleged co-holding in feat had no leg to pause on, cravingers could feel introduced manifestation other than a unblended nonacceptance of its creature. Gone PNB did not quarrel any narrow and gone it used the rate of industry expected of it, it cannot be held litelling for pauseitution. WHEREFORE, the conversion and conversion of the Affect of Appeals in CA-G. R. CV No. 71302 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs abutting cravingers. SO ORDERED. RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice WE CONCUR: REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice Worsovereign Chairperson ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I assure that the divisions in the aggravate conversion had been gain ed in board anteriorly the pvain was assigned to the writer of the conviction of the Court’s Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice FIRST DIVISION [G. R. No. 126713. July 27, 1998] ADORACION E. CRUZ, THELMA DEBBIE E. CRUZ and GERRY E. CRUZ, cravingers, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES ELISEO and VIRGINIA MALOLOS, respondents. DECISION PANGANIBAN, J. : Contracts depute the law betwixt the divorceies. They must be lgain concomitantly and inhumepreted in an method that reconciles and allows regarder to all of them. The fixed of the divorceies, as semblancen by the disengaged summitedion used, predominates neutralize shaft feato explanations that confront no livelihood from the tone assiduous by the divorceies of from their synchronous and pastr acts semblanceing their beneathstanding of such narrows, Furthermore, a pastr necessity cannot novate or substitute by spiral a previous one, unnear old and new narrows are, on full view, impossible behind a occasion each other. Finally, indirect feats may be preferted in manifestation when a reasoning selfsameness endures betwixt the provisos giving loosen to the feat offered and the predicament enclosing the outcome or feat to be confirmd. The Pvain Anteriorly us is a craving for re-examination on certiorari seesovereign to ineffectualify the Affect of Appeals (CA) Decision[1] in CA- GR CV 33566, promulgated July 15, 1996, which reversed the Regional Proof Affect (RTC) of Antipolo, Rizal; and CA Conversion [2] of October 1, 1996, which spoiled cravinger’s Excitement for Reconsideration. Petitioner’s Adoracion, Thelma Debbie, Gerry and Arnel (all surdesignated Cruz) perfectd an enjoyment for divorceition abutting the not-open respondents, Spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos. On January 28, 1991, the proof affect imparted a Conversion which prepared as prospers:[3] “WHEREFORE, determination is hereby imparted for the accusers and abutting the accuseds -spouses – 1. Ordering the divorceition of the sresembling bundles of fix aggregateling 1,912 sq. m. unordered the impure (4) accusers and the accuseds-spouses as prospers: a. b. c. d. e. Adoracion E. Cruz (1/5) Thelma Debbie Cruz (1/5) Gerry E. Cruz (1/5) Arnel E. Cruz (1/5) Spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos (1/5) ----------- 382 sq. m. 382 sq. m. 382 sq. m. 382 sq. m. 382 sq. m. to whom Lot No. 1-C-2-B-2-B-4-L-1-A behind a occasion an area of 276 sq. m. ripe by TCT No. 502603 and a piece of Lot No. 1-C2-B-2-B-4-L-1-B ripe by TCT No. 502604 to the dipattern of 106 sq. m. commensurate TCT No. 502603. 2. Ordering the divorceies herein to perfect a device of divorceition in correspondence [with] this conversion indicating the divorceition of the sresembling (7) bundles of fix behind a occasionin fifteen (15) days upon acknowledgment of this determination. 3. Ordering accuseds-spouses to pay accusers herein P5,000. 00 as and for attorney’s fees; 4. Cost of assist. On apostrophize, Respondent Affect reversed the proof affect thus:[4] “WHEREFORE, sagacity the apostrophize to be worthorious, we REVERSE the apostrophizeed conversion and imdissect determination DISMISSING the lamentation behind a occasionout disingenuousness so-far to the vindication of accuser -appellees for their divides in the allowance of the auction sale of the sresembling (7) bundles of fix in waver abutting Nerissa Cruz Tamayo pursuant to the Memorandum Agreement. Cost abutting the accuser-appellees. ” As precedent recognized, re-examination was spoiled through the appeltardy affect’s challenged Resolution: [5] “WHEREFORE, for noncommunication of worth, the Excitement for Re-examination in DENIED. . The Antecedent Postulates The feats of this pvain are allowed. The assailed Conversion relates them as prospers:[6] “Delfin I. Cruz and Adoracion Cruz were coadjutors and their end were Thelma, Nerissa, Arnel and Gerry Cruz. Upon the termination of Delfin I. Cruz, [his] surviving coadjutor and end perfectd on August 22, 1977 a notarized Feat of Favoring Screen (Exhibit 2) by salubrity of which each one of them was ardent a divide of sundry bundles of registered fixs all situat ed in Taytay, Rizal. The subjoined day, August 23, 1977, the selfselfselfcorresponding dowager and end perfectd a Memorandum Necessity (Exhibit H) which allowed: “That the divorceies hereto are low co-owners pro-indiviso in resembling divides of the subjoined registered endureent fairties, all situated at Taytay, Rizal, Philippines, x x x. xxx That someopportunity on August 22, 1977, a Feat of Favoring Screen was perfectd unordered us anteriorly Atty. Virgilio J. Tamayo, Notary Exoteric on and for the Department of Rizal, per Doc. No. 1776; Page No. 14; of his Notarial Register No. XLIX, Series of 1977; xxx That as a termination of said divorceial divorceition, the fairties improbefficient were in-feat divorceitioned and the appertaining divides of ea ch divorcey, adjudicated to him/her; That notwithstanding the feat of this Feat of Favoring Screen and the resemblingtu al division or sale of their appertaining divides, the narrowing divorceies herein covenanted and harmonized unordered themselves and by these exhibits do hereby restrict themselves to one another that they shall divide homogeneous and sanctioned resembling divides from the allowance of the sale of any lot or lots allotted to and adjudicated in their idiosyncratical contrivanceates by salubrity of this feat of divorceial divorceition. That this Necessity shall abide to be availefficient and enforcetelling unordered the narrowing divorceies herein up to and until the terminal lot ripe by the Feat of [P]artial [P]artition aggravate adverted to shall feel been prepared of or sold and the allowance thereof resemblingly detachedd and their appertaining divides sanctioned by each of them. ” This Memorandum Necessity was registered and annotated in the epithets of the fixs ripe by the Feat of Favoring Partition. Subsequently, the selfselfselfcorresponding divorceies viewd the combination and offshoots of the fixs they appertainingly inherited from the tardy Delfin I. Cruz per Feat of Favoring Partition. Behind that, they registered the Feat of Favoring Screen and offshoot plans and epithets were outcomed in their contrivanceates. In the pvain of Nerissa Cruz Tamayo, the subjoined epithets were outcomed to her in her contrivanceate: TCT No. 502603 (Exhibit A), TCT No. 502604, (Exhibit B), TCT No. 502605 (Exhibit C), TCT No. 502606 (Exhibit D), TCT No. 502608 (Exhibit E), TCT No. 502609 (Exhibit F), TCT No. 502610 (Exhibit G), hereinbehind contrivanceated the fixs in waver. Naturally, the criticism pertaining to the Memorandum Necessity was carried in each of said sresembling (7) epithets and annotated in each of them. Meanwhile, the coadjutors Eliseo and Virginia Malolos perfectd Complaisant Pvain No. 31231 abutting the coadjutors Nerissa Cruz -Tamayo and Nelson Tamayo for a sum of chief. The Affect of Foremost Inpattern of Rizal, Shoot XVI (Quezon City) imparted a conversion of June 1, 1981 in condescension of Eliseo and Virginia condemning the coadjutors Nerissa and Nelson Tamayo to pay them P126,529. 00 behind a occasion 12% concern per annum from the filing of the lamentation plus P5,000. 00 attorney’s fee. Behind the developedity of that conversion, a writ of feat (Exhibit J) was outcomed on November 20, 1981. Enforcing said writ, the sheriff of the affect levied upon the fixs in waver. On June 29, 1983, these fairties were sold in an feat sale to the primary bidders, the coadjutors Eliseo and Virginia Malolos. Accordingly, the sheriff perfectd a Certificate of Sale (Exhibit K) neutralize – ‘… all the fits, vindications, concerns, epithets, divides, and divorceicipations of accused coadjutors Nerissa Tamayo and Ne lson Tamayo.. ’ Nerissa Cruz Tamayo triped to use her fit of fulfilment behind a occasionin the statutory era and so the developed feat of sale was perfectd by the sheriff conveying the fixs in waver to coadjutors Eliseo and Virginia Malolos. The Malolos cockney asked Nerissa Cruz Tamayo to allow them the possessor’s facsimile delineation of the sresembling (7) epithets of the fixs in waver but she refused. The cockney moved the affect to shape her to surimdissect said epithets to the Register of Deeds of Rizal for countervaillation. This was allowed on September 7, 1984. But Nerissa was adamant. She did not allow behind a occasion the Classify of the affect and so the Malolos cockney asked the affect to allege said epithets as ineffectual and vacant. At this view, Adoracion Cruz, Thelma Cruz, Gerry Cruz and Arnel Cruz entered the delineate by filing is said inferior affect a excitement for concession to lapse and breast [the] Maloloses’ excitement. The Cruzes alleged that they were co-owners of Nerissa Cruz Tamayo neutralize the fixs in waver. On January 18, 1985, said affect outcomed an Classify modifying the Classify of September 7, 1984 by directing the surimdissect of the possessor’s facsimile copies of the epithets of the fixs in waver to the Register of Deeds not for countervaillation but for the criticism of the fits, concern achieved by the Maloloses neutralize said fixs. On February 17, 1987, Adoracion, Thelma, Gerry and Arnel Cruz perfectd Complaisant Pvain No. 961-A for Screen of Existent Domain abutting coadjutors Eliseo and Virginia Malolos neutralize the fixs in waver. As already recognized in the foremost section of this Decision, the affect a quo imparted a conversion in condescension of the accusers from which the accuseds apostrophizeed to this affect, x x x x . ” Reigning of the Affect of Appeals For Respondent Court, the mediate outcome was: “Did the Memorandum of Necessity [MOA] (Exhibit H)[7] declare-void, countervail or supplant the Feat of Favoring Screen [DPP] (Exhibit 2)? [8] If so, then cravingers and Spouses Tamayo were co-owners of the fix in outcome, and divorceition should befall upon excitement of the foremost-mentioned; if not, then the passing are its despotic possessors and to divorceition should be made. Respondent Affect grounded the aggravate waver in the privative for the subjoined debates: First, the DPP was not representatively and in-circumpattern impossible behind a occasion the MOA. The DPP acquired despotic arresting of the bundles of fix in outcome on Nerissa Cruz Tamayo, occasion the MOA uninfluencedly agentd an necessity on her divorce to divide behind a occasion the cravingers the allowance of the sale of said fairties. Second, the feat that not-open respondent registered the DPP was rambling behind a occasion the allegation that they prepared to forfeit it. Indeed, had they ett to forfeit it, they would feel solely gathered the copies of said muniment and then torn of burned them. Third, cravingers were estopped from vindicationing co-holding neutralize the false fairties consequently, as despotic possessors, they either hypothecationd or sold the other fairties adjudicated to them by salubrity of the DPP. Hence, this craving. [9] Assignment of Errors In their Memorandum,[10] cravingers acquiesce the subjoined assignment of hallucinations: “A. Respondent Affect erred in reigning that the Memorandum of Necessity (Exhibit ‘H’) does not predominate neutralize the Feat of Favoring Screen (Exhibit 2). B. sale. C. Respondent Affect erred in reigning that cravingers can babelieve vindication their fit to the allowance of [the] auction Respondent Affect erred in reigning that cravingers are in estoppel by feat. D. Respondent Affect erred in reigning that the registration of the feat of divorceial divorceition obviated the cravingers from abrogating it. E. Respondent Affect erred when it perfectly ignored the developedity of the classify of the Regional Proof Affect of Quezon City, Shoot LXXXVI as representative in the conversion of the Regional Proof Affect of Antipolo, Rizal, Shoot 71. ” In honorable, the conversion of this craving hinges of the subjoined outcomes: (1) whether DPP was countervailled or novated by the MOA; (2) whether the MOA narrated, betwixt cravingers and the determination borrower, a co -holding of the lots in waver; (3) whether cravingers are secretive by estoppel from vindicationing co-holding of the sresembling bundles of fix; and (4) whether res judicata has set in. The Court’s Reigning The craving is robbed of worth. It trips to demonstscold any counterchangeefficient hallucination on the divorce of the Affect of Appeals. Foremost Issue: No Novation or Cancellation In their Memorandum, cravingers wrangle that the MOA positively and unmistakably contrivanceated and covenanted them as co possessors of the bundles in outcome and novated their precedent necessity, the Feat of Favoring Divorce ition. Petitioners vindication that the MOA palpably manifested their fixedion to agent a co -ownership. This is divorceicularly manifest in Exhibit 1-B, which provides: That notwithstanding the feat of this Feat of Favoring Screen and resemblingtual division or sale of their appertaining divides, the narrowing divorceies herein covenanted and harmonized unordered themselves and by these exhibits do hereby restrict themselves to one another that they shall divide and accept resembling divides from the allowance of the sale of any lot or lots allotted to and adjudicated in their idiosyncratical contrivanceates by salubrity of this feat of divorceial divorceition. ” The Affect disagrees. The antecedent eatables in the MOA does not novate, fur near countervail, the precedent DPP. Novation, one of the modes of extinguishing an necessity, insist-upons the acquiescerence of the subjoined: (1) there is a previous availefficient necessity; (2) the divorceies disturbed harmonize to a new narrow; (3) the old narrow is quenched; and (4) there is a availefficient new narrow. [11]Novation may be direct or involved. Article 1292 of the Code provides: “In classify that an necessity may be quenched by another which substitutes the selfsame, it is inexorefficient that it be so pretended in decisive eatabnear [direct novation],[12] or that the old and new necessitys be on full view impossible behind a occasion each other [involved novation]. Tested abutting the antecedent pauseards, cravingers’ pattern is shattered to pieces. The bound that the cravingers and Spouses Tamayo were co-owners was uninfluencedly the initiatory divorce of the MOA, and it learns:[13] “That the divorceies are low co-owners pro-indiviso in resembling divides of the subjoined registered endureent fairties, all situated at Taytay, Rizal, Philippines. xxx” xxx xxx xxx That someopportunity in August 22, 1977, a Feat of Favoring Screen was perfectd unordered us anteriorly Atty. Virgilio J. Tamayo, Notary Exoteric in and for the Department of Rizal, per Doc. No. 1796; Page No. 14; of his Notarial Register No. XLIX, Series of 1977;” Subjoined the aggravate-quoted bound is a assertion that the waver bundles of fix had in feat been divorceitioned, but that the foremost-mentioned co-possessor prepared to divide behind a occasion cravingers the allowance of any sale of said fix,[14] viz: “That [as] a termination of said divorceial divorceition, the fairties improbefficient were in-feat divorceitioned and the respe ctive divides of each divorcey, adjudicated to him/her; That notwithstanding the feat of this Feat of Favoring Screen and the resemblingtual division or sale of their appertaining divides, th e narrowing divorceies herein covenanted and harmonized unordered themselves [and] to one another that they shall do [sic] hereby restrict themselves to one another that they shall divide homogeneous and accept resembling divides from the allowance of the sale of any lot or lots allotted to and adjudicated in their idiosyncratical contrivanceates by salubrity of this feat of p artial divorceition; That this Necessity shall abide to be availefficient and enforcetelling unordered the narrowing divorceies herein up to and until the terminal lot ripe by the feat or divorceial divorceition aggravate adverted to shall feel been prepared of or sold and the procee ds thereof resemblingly detachedd and their appertaining divides sanctioned by each of them. xxx xxx xxx The MOA falls blunt of unresisting a novation, beview it does not direct a disengaged int ent to dismember the old necessity as a augur for the emergence of the new one. [15] Likewise, cravingers trip to semblance that the DPP and the MOA are representatively and in-circumpattern impossible behind a occasion each other. Petitioners prefer that, beneath the MOA, they and the Tamayo coadjutors harmonized to resemblingly divide in the allowance of the sale of the lots. [16] Indeed, the DPP allowed epithet to the lots in waver to the co-possessor to whom they were assigned, and the MOA agentd an necessity on the divorce of such co -possessor to divide behind a occasion the others the allowance of the sale of such bundles. There is no disharmony betwixt these two narrows. Verily, the MOA cannot be construed as a protest of the precedent DPP. Both muniments can endure concomitantly and must be so inhumepreted as to allow regarder to twain. Respondent Affect aptly explained:[17] “The Feat of Screen acquired upon Nerissa Cruz Tamayo despotic arresting neutralize the fixs in waver. The Memorandum of Necessity uninfluencedly agentd an necessity on the divorce of despotic possessor Nerissa Cruz Tamayo to divide [with] the appellees behind a occasion [sic] the allowance of the sale of said fairties. The necessity of the possessor of a piece of fix to divide [with] celebrity behind a occasion [sic] its wealth or the allowance of its sale does not necessarily injure his control neutralize the amiables fur near agent the beneficiary his co -possessor thereof. All in all, the basic energy beneathlying this reigning is unblended: when t he citation of a narrow is open and concessions no waver as to its fixedion, the affect may not lgain into it any fixedion that would disprove its artless tenor. [18] The hornbook administration on solution of narrows allows primacy to the fixedion of the divorceies, which is the law unordered them. Ultimately, their fixedion is to be deciphered not from the unilateral shaft feato assertions of one of the divorceies, but from the summitedion used in the narrow. And when the eatabnear of the necessity, as directed in such summitedion, are disengaged, they are to be beneathstood literally, honorefficient as they profession on the aspect of the narrow. Indeed, the allowefficient amiabnear of a narrow are solid by extracting the fixedion of the divorceies from the summitedion they used and from their contemporaneous and pastr acts. 19] This energy agents neutralize soundness when third divorceies are disturbed. To insist-upon such natures to go past what is palpably written in the muniment is unimfavoring and disingenuous. They cannot perhaps investigate into the narrowing divorceies’ inclinations and augur that notability is inopportune, when the summitedion of th e tool professions disengaged and decisive. Remedy Issue: No Co-holding in the MOA Petitioners contest that they converted their sepascold and idiosyncratical arresting neutralize the fixs in interrogation into a co arresting by their feat of the MOA and the criticism thereof on the sepascold epithets. The Affect is not incontrovertible. The very eatabnear of the MOA differ the creature of a co -ownership. First, it retains the divorceition of the fairties, which cravingers supposedly placed in co -ownership; and, remedy, it vests in the registered possessor the capacity to prescribe of the fix adjudicated to him or her beneath the DPP. These are antithetical to the cravinger’s vindication. In a co-ownership, an unseparated creature or fit belongs to two or neutralize natures. [20] Put delaystanddly, sundry natures arpause low control neutralize a incorpoauthentic (or imaginary) divorce of a creature, which is not physically detachedd. [21] In the exhibit plight, so-far, the bundles of fix in the MOA feel all been divorceitioned and epithetd beneath sepascold and idiosyncratical contrivanceates. Neutralize tenorant, the MOA prevalent that the registered possessor could prescribe-of the fix behind a occasionout the acquiesce of the other divorceies to the MOA. Jus disponendi is an manifestation of arresting, and babelieve the possessor can prescribe of a amiables. [22] Repugnant to cravinger’s vindication, the criticism of the MOA in the certificate of epithet did not generate any co -ownership. W ell fixed is the dogma that registration uninfluencedly confirms, but does not collate, epithet. [23] It does not allow the arrester any rectify epithet than what he in-feat has. As precedent observed, the MOA did not agent cravingers co-owners of the false bundles of fix. Hence, the criticism of this muniment in the sepascold testament of epithet did not allow them a immenseer fit neutralize the selfselfselfcorresponding amiables. Third Issue: Estoppel by Deed Respondent Affect base that sundry feats of sale and endureent domain hypothecation, which cravingers perfectd when they sold or hypothecationd some bundles adjudicated to them beneath the DPP, incloseed the assertion that the vendor/borrower was the despotic possessor of the bundle of residential fix and that he or she represented it as loose from liens and encumbrances. On the plea of these pieces of manifestation, respondent Affect held that cravingers were estopped from vindicationing that there was a co-holding neutralize the false bundles of fix which were as-well-behaved ripe by the DPP. Petitioners contest that Respondent Affect , in so reigning violated the res inhume alios acta administration. Petitioners’ vindications is unwarrantable. Res inhume alios acta, as a unconcealed administration, prohibits the vestibule of manifestation that tends to semblance that what a idiosyncratic has performed at one opportunity is probative of the vindication that he has performed a homogeneous as act at another opportunity. [24] Manifestation of homogeneous acts or occurrences shapes the wrangleant to confront allegation s that are not mentioned in the lamentation, confuses him in his defence, raises a multiformity of irapt outcomes, and diverts the circumspection of the affect from th e outcomes directly anteriorly it. Hence, this manifestiary administration escorts abutting the serviceefficient inconven ience of obscure indirect outcomes and protracting the proof and prevents surploosen or other detriment hurtful to litigants. [25] The administration, so-far, is not behind a occasionout ateion. W hile impenetrefficient in unconcealed, indirect feats may be sanctioned as manifestation beneath ateional predicament, as when there is a reasoning selfsameness or congruousity betwixt the provisos giving loosen to the feat offered and the predicament enclosing the outcome or feat to be confirmd. [26] Manifestation of homogeneous acts may constantly beseem apt, especially in enjoyments inveterate on waste and artifice , beview it sheds vain on the narrate of inclination or distinguishledge of a idiosyncratic’s; it provides apprehension into such idiosyncratic’s impulse or fixed; it uncovers a device, deprognostic or plan; or it reveals a succeed. [27] In this plight, cravingers demonstscold that chronicles relating to the other bundles of fix they entered into, in the concept of despotic possessors, are impenetrefficient as manifestation to semblance that the bundles in outcome are not co -owned. The affect is not persuaded. Manifestation of such chronicles falls beneath the ateion to the administration on the res inhume alios acta. Such manifestation is penetrefficient beview it is apt to an outcome in the pvain and ancillary of manifestation already sanctioned. [28] The homogeneity of such chronicles is early plain. The affection of arresting of said amiables should be the selfselfselfcorresponding as that of the lots on waver gone they are all waver to the MOA. If the bundles of fix were held and prepared by cravingers in fee unblended, in the concept of despotic possessors, then the lots in waver should homogeneously be operativeleed as despoticly owned in fee unblended by the Tamayo coadjutors. Unmistakably, the manifestation in interrogation manifests cravingers’ low view and deprognostic to operativele all the bundles of fix ripe by the DPP as despoticly owned and not waver to co -ownership. [29] Beneath the energy of estoppel, cravingers are secretive from vindicationing co-holding of the fixs in outcome. In estoppel, a idiosyncratic, who by his feat or direct has introduced another to act in a divorceicular m anner, is secretive from adopting an rambling pose, lie or round of direct that thereby views missing or waste to another. [30] It prefer bars him from indirect the exactness of a feat which has, in the scheme of law, beseem fixed by the acts and chronicles of forensic or legislative officers or by the act of the divorcey himself, either by social answerableness or by representations, direct or im plied or in pairs. [31] In their transenjoyment behind a occasion others, cravingers feel pretended that the other fixs ripe by the selfselfselfcorresponding MOA are despoticly owned, behind a occasionout indicating the creature of a co-holding neutralize such fairties. Thus, they are estopped from vindicationing otherjudicious consequently, by their very own acts and representations as manifestationd by the feats of hypothecation and of sale, they feel spoiled such co-ownership. [32] FOURTH ISSUES: No Res Judicata On Co-holding Petitioners demonstscold that the Classify (Exhibit J)[33] dated January 18, 1985, outcomed by the RTC of Quezon City, Shoot 86, which had crave beseem developed and executory, developed their co-ownership. Thus, they vindication that Respondent Court’s alteration of the reigning of the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, is a diversifyation of the administration on res judicata. This vindication is resemblingly unwarrantable. The elements of res judicata are: (1) the foremost-mentioned determination was developed; (2) the affect which imparted it had administration neutralize the waver material and the divorceies;(3) the determination was on the worths; and (4) the divorceies, waver materials and views of enjoyment in the foremost and remedy enjoyments are selfsame. [34] The RTC of Quezon City had no administration to flow on the worths of the exhibit pvain or to amuse wavers reverenceing the creature of co-holding neutralize the bundles in interrogation, beview the assist pending anteriorly it was babelieve for the congregateion of a sum of chief. Its treatise on co-holding was uninfluencedly for the raise and the feat of the fairties of the Tamayo coadjutors, in satisfenjoyment of their determination something-due to the not-open respondents. Perhaps neutralize flaunting is the noncommunication of selfsameness betwixt the two enjoyments. The foremost enjoyment anteriorly the RTC of Quezon City was for the congregateion of chief, occasion the remedy anteriorly the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, was for divorceition. There entity no acquiescerence of the elements of res judicata in this plight, the Affect confronts no hallucination in Respondent Court’s reigning. No prefer discourse is needed to semblance the flaunting discord betwixt the two controversies. WHEREFORE, the craving is hereby DENIED and the assailed Conversion is Affirmed. Cost abutting cravingers. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr. , (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug, and Quisumbing, JJ. , acquiesce. THIRD DIVISION [G. R. No. 134559. December 9, 1999] ANTONIA TORRES, assisted by her spouse, ANGELO TORRES; and EMETERIA BARING, cravingers, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MANUEL TORRES,respondents. DECISION PANGANIBAN, J. : Courts may not upset divorceies from the needful outcomes of their acts. That the eatabnear of a narrow shape out to be financially helplessnessous to them conciliate not help them of their necessitys therein. The noncommunication of an register of endureent amiables conciliate not ipso feato liberate the narrowing divorceners from their appertaining necessitys to each other arising from acts perfectd in correspondence behind a occasion their necessity. The Pvain The Craving for Re-examination on Certiorari anteriorly us assails the March 5, 1998 Conversion [1] Remedy Division of the Affect of Appeals[2] (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 2378 and its June 25, 1998 Conversion indirect re-examination. The assailed Conversion affirmed the reigning of the Regional Proof Affect (RTC) of Cebu City in Complaisant Pvain No. R -21208, which prepared as prospers: “WHEREFORE, for all the antecedent augurs, the Court, sagacity for the accused and abutting the accusers, classifys the rejection of the accuser’s lamentation. The counterclaims of the accused are approvejudicious classifyed dismissed. No mutiny as to costs. ”[3] The Postulates Sisters Antonia Torres and Emeteria Baring, herein cravingers, entered into a "elbow experiment necessity" behind a occasion Respondent Manuel Torres for the product of a bundle of fix into a offshoot. Pursuant to the narrow, they perfectd a Feat of Sale protection the said bundle of fix in condescension of respondent, who then had it registered in his contrivanceate. By mortgaging the amiables, respondent obtained from Proportionate Bank a advance ofP40,000 which, beneath the Elbow Experiment Agreement, was to be used for the product of the offshoot. [4] All three of them as-well-behaved harmonized to divide the allowance from the sale of the subseparated lots. The device did not drive through, and the fix was pastrly foreclosed by the bank. According to cravingers, the device triped beview of “respondent’s noncommunication of funds or ets and skills. ” They add that respondent used the advance not for the product of the offshoot, but in preferance of his own posse, Universal Umbrell a Company. On the other operative, respondent alleged that he used the advance to utensil the Agreement. Behind a occasion the said aggregateity, he was telling to amiables the overlook and the offshoot of the lots. He impregntelling the Lapu Lapu City Council’s acstyle of the offshoot device which he advertised in a topical newspaper. He as-well-behaved viewd the discernment of roads, curbs and gutters. Likewise, he entered into a narrow behind a occasion an engineering decided for the structure of sixty low -cost housing units and in-feat resembling set up a mould house on one of the offshoot lots. He did all of these for a aggregate outlay of P85,000. Respondent vindicationed that the offshoot device triped, so-far, beview cravingers and their relations had disunitedly view d the criticisms of dverse vindications on the epithet to the fix, which resemblingtually dazed far prospective buyers. Notwithstanding his desires, cravingers refused to view the disengageding of the vindications, thereby forcing him to allow up on the device. [5] Subsequently, cravingers perfectd a iniquitous pvain for estafa abutting respondent and his spouse, who were so-far bright. Thereafter, they perfectd the exhibit complaisant pvain which, upon respondent's excitement, was tardyr dismissed by the proof affect in an Classify dated September 6, 1982. On apostrophize, so-far, the appeltardy affect remanded the pvain for prefer chronicles. Thereafter, the RTC outcomed its assailed Decision, which, as precedent recognized, was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this Petition. [6] Reigning of the Affect of Appeals In affirming the proof affect, the Affect of Appeals held that cravingers and respondent had formed a divorcenership for the product of the offshoot. Thus, they must suffer the missing suffered by the divorcenership in the selfselfselfcorresponding propiece as their divide in the receipts prevalent in the narrow. Disagreeing behind a occasion the proof affect’s mutiny that missinges as well-behaved-behaved as receipts in a elbow experiment should be arranged resemblingly,[7] the CA invoked Article 1797 of the Complaisant Code which provides: “Article 1797 - The missinges and receipts shall be arranged in conformance behind a occasion the necessity. If babelieve the divide of each divorcener in the receipts has been harmonized upon, the divide of each in the missinges shall be in the selfselfselfcorresponding adaptation. ” The CA elucidated prefer: In the tripure of bound, the divide of each divorcener in th e receipts and missinges shall be in propiece to what he may feel contributed, but the indusproof divorcener shall not be litelling for the missinges. As for the receipts, the indusproof divorcener shall accept such divide as may be honorefficient and adaptationate beneath the predicament. If besides his employments he has contributed consummate, he shall as-well-behaved accept a divide in the receipts in propiece to his consummate. ” The Outcome Petitioners charge to the Affect of Appeals the subjoined hallucination: “x x x [The] Affect of Appeals erred in conclud ing that the transenjoyment x x x betwixt the cravingers and respondent was that of a elbow experiment/partnership, ignoring outfit the eatables of Article 1769, and other kindred eatabnear of the Complaisant Code of the Philippines. ”[8] The Court’s Ruling The Craving is robbed of worth. Main Issue: Creature of a Firm Petitioners gainsay having formed a divorcenership behind a occasion respondent.