FIRST DIVISION [G. R. No. 144712. July 4, 2002] SPOUSES SILVESTRE and CELIA PASCUAL, urgeers, vs. RODRIGO V. RAMOS, respondent. DECISION DAVIDE, JR. , C. J. : Antecedently us is a urge for rescan on certiorari assailing the 5 November 1999 Decision and the 18 August 2000 Resolution of the Fdying of Appeals in CA G. R. CV No. 52848. The chief-mentioned affirmed the 5 June 1995 and 7 September 1995 Orders of the Regional Proof Court, Malolos, Bulacan, Spray 21, in Accommodating Inoutcome No. 526 -M-93, and the dying spoiled urgeer’s noise for critique.
The inoutcome at bar stemmed from the urge for junction of epithet or tenure smoothd on 5 July 1993 stay the proof fdying by herein respondent Rodrigo V. Ramos (future RAMOS) across herein urgeers, Spouses Silvestre and Celia Pascual (future the PASCUALs). In his urge, RAMOS alleged that on 3 June 1987, for and in compensation of P150,000, the PASCUALs consummated in his accommodatingity a Act of Irresponsible Sale w ith Direct to Libescold aggravate two bundles of plant and the improvements thereon located in Bambang, Bulacan, Bulacan, seasoned 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 employment their direct to libescold the character stayin the usual one -year era; future, RAMOS prayed that the epithet or tenure aggravate the theme bundles of plant and improvements thereon be dim in his accommodatingity.
In their Answer, the PASCUALs promoteted having verified the Act of Irresponsible Sale stay Direct to Libescold for a compensation of P150,000 but averred that what the disuniteies had in-goods consortd upon and entered into was a authentic demesne hypothecation. They elevate alleged that there was no concord limiting the era stayin which to employment the direct to libescold and that they had courteous-balanced aggravateremunerated RAMOS.
Furthermore, they buryposed the subjoined mitigates: (a) the proof fdying had no government aggravate the theme or character of the urge; (b) RAMOS had no legitimate size to sue; (c) the resusexlean o f resuscitation, if any, was determined by the legislation of limitations; (d) the petiti on recurrent no resusexlean of resuscitation; (e) the call-for or call-for set forth in RAMOS’s charming had been remunerated, waived, wild, or inadequately quenched; and (f) RAMOS has not complied stay the demandd confrontation and peace antecedently the barangay.
By way of counterclaim, the PASCUALs prayed that RAMOS be directed to consummate a Act of Cancellation, Indemnify or Disload of the Act of Irresponsible Sale stay Direct to Libescold or a Act of Authentic Demesne Mortgage; pronounce to them the proprietor’s affectness of TCT No. T-305626; produce the completionity they had aggravatepaid; and pay each of them intangible satisfresuscitation and worthy satisfresuscitation in the completionitys of P200,000 and P50,000, relatively, plus attorney’s fees of P100,000; presumption fee of P1,500 per hearing; litigation costs; and costs of benefit.
After the pre-trial, the proof fdying manifestationd an direct wherein it witnessed the subjoined manifestations: (1) whether the Act of Irresponsible Sale stay Direct to Libescold is an irresponsible sale or a pure hypothecation; (2) whether the PASCUALs keep remunerated or aggravateremunerated the foremost differf; (3) whether the tenure aggravate the bundle of plant may be dim in accommodatingity of RAMOS; and (4) whether satisfresuscitation may be imparted. Floating the muniments offered in answerance by RAMOS during the proof on the deserts was a muniment calld as Sinumpaang Salaysay verified by RAMOS and Silvestre Pascual, but not notarized.
The contents of the muniment peruse: Ako, si SILVESTRE PASCUAL, Filipino, nasa hustong gulang, may asawa at kasalukuyang naninirahan sa Bambang, Bulacan, Bulacan, ay nagsasabing buong katotohanan at sumusumpa sa atyrant mga salaysay sa kasulatang ito: 1. Na ngayong June 3, 1987 dahil sa atyrant 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 swell-balanced percent (7%) o P10,500. 0 isang buwan (7% per month). 3. Na bilang sangla (cognate shelter) sa atyrant utang, kami ay nagkasundo na mag-consummate ng Act of Sale stay Direct to Libescold para sa atyrant 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 atyrant isinanla sa kaniya sa kasunduang babayaran kong lahat ang excellent na P150,000. 00 pati na ang P10,500. 0 na tubo buwan buwan. 4. Na bilang karagdagang top, si RODRIGO RAMOS ay pumayag sa atyrant kahilingan na kung sakali na hindi ko mabayaran ng buo ang atyrant 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 atyrant naibabayad buwan-buwan, kung sakaling hindi ako makabayad ng tubo for six (6) continuous months (1/2 year subjoined 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 atyrant 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 ultimatee 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 disunite, the PASCUALs offered munimentary answerance consisting of reception pay  to likeness the rescindments they had made. The proof fdying endow that the transresusexlean floating the disuniteies was in-goods a advance in the completionity of P150,000, the rescindment of which was impregnefficient by a hypothecation of the character seasoned by TCT No. 305626. It so endow that the PASCUALs had made rescindments in the completion sum of P344,000, and that stay concern at 7% per annum, the PASCUALs had aggravateremunerated the advance by P141,500.
Accordingly, in its Decision of 15 March 1995 the proof fdying decreed as flourishs: WHEREFORE, blank is hereby proposeed in accommodatingity of the accuseds and across the accuser in the subjoined kind: 1. Dismissing the accuser’s urge; 2. Directing the Register of Deeds to rescind the comment of the Act of Sale stay Direct to Libescold on the dorsal producer of TCT No. 305626; 3. Awarding the accuseds the sum of P141,500. 00 as aggravatecancelment 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 costs. Stay costs across the accuser. RAMOS moved for the critique of the blank, alleging that the proof fdying erred in using an concern scold of 7% per annum in the calculation of the completion completionity of differf beresusexlean what was directly usual in the Sinumpaang Salaysay was 7% per month. The completion concern due from 3 June 1987 to 3 April 1995 was P987,000. Deducting therefrom the concern rescindments made in the sum of P344,000, the completionity of P643,000 was quiet due as concern.
Adding the dying to the foremost sum of P150,000, the completion completionity due from the PASCUALs as of 3 April 1995 was P793,000. Sentence desert in the noise for critique, which was not incongruous by the PASCUALs, the proof fdying manifestationd on 5 June 1995 an Order modifying its blank by deleting the imdissect of P141,500 to the PASCUALs as aggravatecancelment of the advance and concern and directing them to pay RAMOS P511,000 representing the foremost advance plus concern. The proof fdying notorious that it had inadvertently ostensible the concern scold to be 7% per annum when, in act, the Sinumpaang Salaysay usual 7% per month.
It notefficient that during proof, the PASCUALs never fabulous the usual concern scold. However, the fdying ostensible that the 7% per month concern is too depressed and burdensome. Invotyrant the shieldive ferment of Article 24 of the Accommodating Code, which mandates the flatters to be wakeful for the shelter of a disunitey at a hindrance due to his intangible self-reliance, sciolism, want, intangible unsoundnes s, mild age or other laborericap, the proof fdying unilaterally poor 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 rescindments made by the PASCUALs in the completionity of P344,000, the net concern due was P361,000. Adding thereto the advance foremost of P150,000, the completion completionity due from the PASCUALs was P511,000. Aggrieved by the species of the blank, the PASCUALs smoothd a noise to reconsider the Direct of 5 June 1995. They alleged that the noise for critique smoothd by RAMOS was a pure bit of Nursing Dissertation beresusexlean they current a observation of said noise solelyly a day antecedently the hearing, in deflection of the 3 -day-notice government.
Moreover, they had already remunerated the concerns and had in act aggravateremunerated the foremost sum of P150,000. Besides, RAMOS, naturalness an disuniteicular, could not load counteract than 1% concern per month or 12% per annum; and, the concern of either 5% or 7% a month is wealthy, unconscionable, absurd, usurious and disuniteicular. RAMOS incongruous the noise of the PASCUALs. He canvassed that the non-compliance stay the 3-day-notice government was cured when the proof fdying gave them an convenience to smooth their obstacle, but notwithstanding the devolution of the perio d fond them, no obstacle was smoothd.
It is not chasten to say that he was not recognized to garner counteract than 1% per month concern accordingly that stay the moratorium on the Usury Law, the sound concern is that consortd upon by the disuniteies. In the scantiness of any answerance that there was robbery, vigor or deficient wave exerted upon the PASCUALs when they entered into the transresusexlean in inquiry, their concord representative in the Sinumpaang Salaysay should be respected. Furthermore, the proof fdying had already poor the concern scold to 5% per month, a scold which is not wealthy, unconscionable, absurd and disuniteicular.
Their noise for critique having been spoiled in the Order of 7 September 1995, the PASCUALs seasonably urgeed to the Fdying of Appeals. They marked out that past the solelyly ask of RAMOS in his urge was to keep the epithet or tenure aggravate the theme plant and the improvements thereon dim in his accommodatingity and he did not keep any ask for exoteric refreshment, the proof fdying had no discuss in directing them to pay him the sum of P511,000. In its Decision of 5 November 1999, the Fdying of Appeals affirmed in toto the proof flatter’s Orders of 5 June 1995 and 7 September 1995.
It governmentd that bound RAMOS’s urge for junction of epithet or tenure did not grasp a ask for the rescindment of the counteract of the urgeers’ differf and a ask for exoteric refreshment, the manifestation of whether there was quiet a counteract from the completionity advanceed was reputed to keep been intensified in the charmings by uprightness of Section 5, Government 10 of the Rules of Court, which provides that “[w]hen manifestations not intensified by the charmings are balmy stay the direct or indicated acquiesce of the disuniteies, they shall be discussed in all commendations as if they had been intensified in the charmings. In the way of the proof, pay were offered by the PASCUALs evidencing the rescindments they had made. Smitten in abstracted stay the Sinumpaang Salaysay which burymissionricted the concern scold at 7% per month, a unrythmical calculation antecedentlylaborer leads to the blank that there is quiet a counteract due from the PASCUALs, courteous-balanced at a poor concern scold of 5% concern per month. Stay the rejection of their noise for critique of the blank by the Fdying of Appeals, t he PASCUALs smoothd antecedently us the moment urge rising the solely manifestation of whether they are shackled for 5% concern per month from 3 June 1987 to 3 April 1995.
Invotyrant this Court’s prevalent in Medel v. Fdying of Appeals, they controvert that the 5% per month concern is extravagant, illicit, unconscionefficient and wealthy. Moreover, respondent should not be recognized to garner concern of counteract than 1% per month beresusexlean he balmy to disguise the authentic transresusexlean floating the disuniteies by majestic upon them to memorial a Act of Irresponsible Sale stay Direct to Repurchase. For his disunite, RAMOS canvasss that the manifestation intensified by urgeers cannot be inquisitive anycounteract beresusexlean it wa s neither intensified in the annoyance nor ventilated during the proof.
In any instance, there was pin illegitimate on the scold of concern consortd upon by the disuniteies, past the ceilings on concern scolds prescribed beneath the Usury Law had directly been removed, a nd future disuniteies are left exemptly at their wish to consort on any scold of concern. Moreover, there was no draft to disguise a usurious resuscitation. RAMOS then prays that the challenged blank and analysis be affirmed and that urgeers be elevate directed to pay legitimate concern on the concern due from the age it was call-fored. We see at once the inclination of the PASCUALs to exexsubstitute supcollocation almost whole march of the instance.
By invotyrant the blank in Medel v. Fdying of Appeals, the PASCUALs are in-goods rising as manifestation the nerve of the usual concern scold. It must be stressed that they never intensified as a mitigate or as discuss for their countercall-for the wantingity of the usual concern. Bound aggravatecancelment was alleged in the Answer, no ultimate fac ts which instituted the discuss of the aggravatecancelment was alleged. In their pre-proof diminutive, the PASCUALs made a crave list of manifestations, but not one of them chinky on the nerve of the usual concern scold.
Their own answerance ostensiblely likenesss that they keep consortd on, and keep in act remunerated concern at, the scold of 7% per month. Exhibits “1” to “8” specifically mentioned that the rescindments made were for the concern due on the P150,000 advance of the PASCUALs. In the way of the proof, the PASCUALs never put in manifestation the nerve of the usual concern scold. Subjoined the proof fdying maintained urgeers’ call-for that their concord stay RAMOS was in-goods a advance stay authentic demesne hypothecation, the PASCUALs should not be recognized to decprogress their tail on the stipulati on in that concord to pay concern at the scold of 7% per month.
The PASCUALs should sanction not solelyly the accommodatingityefficient submit-toing of the flatter’s profession that the muniment is in-goods an sound hypothecation but so the essential outcome of such declaratio n, that is, that concern on the advance as usual by the disuniteies in that correspondent muniment should be remunerated. Besides, when RAMOS moved for a critique of the 15 March 1995 Blank of the proof fdying summiting out that the concern scold to be used should be 7% per month, the PASCUALs never lifted a finger to confront the call-for. Admittedly, in their Noise for Critique of the
Order of 5 June 1995, the PASCUALs controvertd that the concern scold, whether it be 5% or 7%, is wealthy, unconscionable, absurd, usurious and disuniteicular. However, in their Appellants’ Brief, the solelyly discussing intensified by the PASCUALs was that RAMOS’s urge did not include a ask for exoteric refreshment and, future, the proof fdying had no discuss for directing them to pay RAMOS P511,000 representing the foremost and unremunerated concern. It was solelyly in their noise for the critique of the blank of the Fdying of Appeals that the PASCUALs made an manifestation of the concern scold and prayed for its diminution to 12% per annum.
In Manila Bay Club Corp. v. Fdying of Appeals, this Fdying governmentd that if an manifestation is intensified solelyly in the noise for critique of the blank of the Fdying of Appeals, the benefitedty is that it is as if it was never duly intensified in that fdying at all. Our prevalent in Medel v. Fdying of Appeals is not ancilla to the offer instance. In that instance, the extravagantness of the usual concern at the scold of 5. 5 % per month was put in manifestation by the accuseds in the Answer.
Moreover, in analysis to the concern, the mortgagors were so demandd, as per specificion in the pr omissory music, to pay benefit load of 2% per annum and a price load of 1% per month plus attorney’s fee of equiponderant to 25% of the completionity due. In the inoutcome at bar, there is no other specificion for the rescindment of an extra completionity bar concern on t he foremost advance. Thus, smitten in abstracted stay the usual benefit load and price, the concern scold of 5. 5% in the Medel inoutcome was endow to be extravagant, illicit, unconscionable, wealthy and future, opposite to intangibles, thereby matyrant such s tipulation wanting and wanting.
Considering the discrepancy in the actual buryrogation of the Medel inoutcome and the moment instance, we are not prepared to dedicate the chief-mentioned quiescence it be construed that we can smite down anyage concern scolds consortd upon by disuniteies in a advance resuscitation. It is a basic maxim in accommodating law that disuniteies are jump by the specificions in the decreases exemptly entered into by them. Parties are exempt to ptrifling preparations and tops which they estimate benefitefficient concefeat they are not contra ry to law, intangibles, good-natured-natured tax, exoteric direct, or exoteric cunning. 
The concern scold of 7% per month was exemptly consortd upon by RAMOS and the PASCUALs. There is pin from the narrative and, in act, there is no allegation likenessing that urgeers were victims of robbery when they entered into the concord stay RAMOS. Neither is there a likenessing that in their decreaseual kindred stay RAMOS, the PASCUAL s were at a hindrance on wholeity of their intangible self-reliance, sciolism, intangible enervation, mild age or other laborericap, which would enepithet them to the wakeful shelter of the flatters as mandated by Article 24 of the Accommodating Code.
Apropos in our prevalent in Vales vs. Villa: All men are presumed to be sensible and usual and theme to be moved by truely the correspondent incitements. W hen of age and sensible, they must accept caution of themselves. In their kindred stay others in the afopen of life, wits, sensation, nationalation, luxuriance, ability and blank encounter and clash and impugn, sometimes stay ascertain and utility to all, sometimes to a few solelyly, stay privation and waste to others. In these impugns men must remain upon themselves – upon their own abilities, tonnage, luxuriance, sensation, acumen, blank.
The act that one may be worsted by another, of itself, furnishes no resusexlean of annoyance. One man cannot deplore beresusexlean another is counteract efficient, or ameliorebuke useful, or has ameliorebuke sensation or blank than he has; and when the two encounter on a open room the minor cannot rumbling if the fight goes across him. The law furnishes no shelter to the minor solely beresusexlean he is minor, any counteract than it shields the zealous beresusexlean he is zealous. The law furnishes shelter to twain equivalent – to one no counteract or incomplete than to the other.
It intensitys no eminence floating the judicious and the silly, the exalted and the minute, the zealous and the unsound. The silly may miss all they keep to the judicious; but that does not medium that the law succeed imdissect it tail to them repeatedly. Courts cannot flourish one whole march of his life and disestablish him from bad bargains, shield him from unjudicious investments, help him from one-sided decreases, or intensity-robbed the benefitedtys of silly acts. Courts cannot institute themselves protectorians of living-souls who are not legitimately insufficient.
Courts opescold not beresusexlean one peculiar has been defeated or aggravatecome by another, but beresusexlean he has been defeated or aggravatecome illicitly. Men may do silly mans, intensity absurd decreases, use miserefficient blank, and miss specie by then – certainly, all they keep in the world; but not for that nondescript can the law lapse and refresh. There must be, in analysis, adeflection of law, the ministry of what the law comprehends as an resuscitationefficient evil-doing, antecedently the flatters are verified to lay prop of the top and specific it. 16] Stay the suspension of the Usury Law and the dispersion of concern ceiling, the disuniteie s are exempt to ptrifling the concern to be setd on advances. Absent any answerance of robbery, deficient wave, or any evil of acquiesce employmentd by RAMOS on the PASCUALs, the concern consortd upon is obligatory upon them. This Fdying is not in a collocation to set upon disuniteies decreaseual specificions contrariant from what they keep consortd upon. As ostensible in the blank of Cuizon v. Fdying of Appeals,
It is not the domain of the fdying to substitute a decrease by erection or to intensity a new decrease for the disuniteies; its calling is narrow-minded to the explanation of the one which they keep made for themselves stayout contempslow to its attainment or imbecility as the fdying cannot accoutre embodied specificions or peruse into the decrease say which it does not include. Thus, we cannot supplant the concern scold, which was poor to 5% per month stayout obstacle on the disunite of RAMOS.
We are not persuaded by the discussing of the PASCUALs that past RAMOS balmy to disguise the authentic transresusexlean by majestic upon them the preventive of a Act of Irresponsible Sale stay Direct to Repurchase, he should not be recognized to garner counteract than 1% per month concern. It is unfabulous that concomitant stay the preventive of the said act was the preventive of the Sinumpaang Salaysay, which set forth the gentleman concord of the disuniteies. The PASCUALs cannot then call-for that they did not comprehend the authentic resuscitation.
RAMOS’s call-for that the concern due should actualize legitimate i nteintermission cannot be acted upon accommodatingityably beresusexlean he did not urge from the Direct of the proof fdying of 5 June 1995, which solely directed the rescindment by the PASCUALs of the completionity of P511,000 stayout concern thereon. No refreshment can be concefeat a disunitey who does not urge.  Therefore, the direct of the proof fdying should depend. Incidentally, we noticed that in the Memorandum smoothd by RAMOS, the prevalent in Vales v. Valle was reproduced by his advice stayout the benefited extract. Such act institutes plagiarism. Atty. Felimon B.
Mangahas is hereby warned that a reurge of such act shall be dealt stay accordingly. WHEREFORE, in apprehension of all the past, the urge is DENIED. The assailed blank of the Fdying of Appeals in CA G. R. CV No. 52848 is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs across urgeers. SO ORDERED. Vitug, Kapunan, Ynares-Santiago, and Austria-Martinez, JJ. , approve. FIRST DIVISION SPS. EDGAR AND DINAH OMENGAN, Petitioners, G. R. No. 161319 Present: PUNO, C. J. , SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, Wortyrant 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 urge for rescan on certiorari seeks a rescan and transcollocation of the Fdying of Appeals (CA) blank  and analysis in CA-G. R. CV No. 71302. In October 1996, the Philippine National Bank (PNB) Tabuk (Kalinga) Spray affectd urgeers-spouses’ collision for a revolving honor progress of P3 pet. The advance was impregnefficient by two residential lots in Tabuk, Kalinga-Apayao seasoned by Transfer Certificate of Epithet (TCT) Nos. 2954 and 12112. The heading of epithet, manifestationd by the Registry of Deeds of the Domain of KalingaApayao, were in the call of Edgar Omengan married to Dinah Omengan. The chief P2. 5 pet was indemnifyd by Spray Overseer Henry Montalvo on three sepascold dates. The indemnify of the ultimate half pet was, ultimately, stayheld by Montalvoberesusexlean of a message allegedly sent by Edgar’s sisters. It peruse: A ppas, Tabuk Kalinga 7 November 1996 The Overseer Philippine National Bank Tabuk Spray Poblacion, Tabuk Kalinga Sir:
This refers to the plant at Appas, Tabuk in the call of our delineation, Edgar Omengan, which was hypothecationd to [the] Bank in the completionity of Three Pet Pesos (P3,000,000. 00), the sum of [ P2. 5 Million] had already been indemnifyd and current by our delineation, Edgar. In this association, it is asked that the cherishing unreleased counteract of [half a pet pesos] be held in suspension pending an beneathstanding by the burymission of the delineations and sisters of Edgar. Please be known that the character hypothecationd, bound in the call of Edgar Omengan, is owned in co-tenure by all the consequence of the slow Roberto and Elnora Omengan.
The counsellor who drafted the muniment registering the theme character beneath Edgar’s call can witness to this act. We had a ahead beneathstanding stay Edgar in allowing him to intensity use of the character as cognate, but he refuses to resign stay such ordainment. Hence, this message. (discuss ours) Very in-event yours, (Sgd. ) Shirley O. Gamon (Sgd. ) Imogene O. Bangao (Sgd. ) Caroprogress O. Salicob (Sgd. ) Alice O. Claver Montalvo was courteous-balancedtually replaced as spray balanceseer by Manuel Acierto who indemnifyd the cherishing half pet pesos to urgeers on May 2, 1997.
Acierto so recommended the acclamation of a P2 pet acception in their honor progress to the Cagayan Valley Afopen Center Honor Committee in Santiago City. The honor committee affectd the acception of urgeers’ honor progress (from P3 pet to P5 pet), concefeat Edgar’s sisters gave their exemplification. Acierto known urgeers of the topal acclamation of their honor progress. But urgeers fall-shorted to enclose the acquiesce of Edgar’s sisters; future, PNB put on prop the indemnify of the analysisal P2 pet. On October 7, 1998, Edgar Omengan call-fored the indemnify of the P2 pet.
He call-fored that the top for its indemnify was not disunite of his honor progress concord stay PNB beresusexlean it was borrowed stayout his acquiesce. PNB spoiled his ask. On March 3, 1999, urgeers smoothd a annoyance for divulsion of con lean and satisfresuscitation across PNB stay the Regional Proof Fdying (RTC), Spray 25 in Tabuk, Kalinga. Subjoined proof, the fdying resolute in accommodatingity of urgeers. Accordingly, blank is hereby proposeed sentence in accommodatingity of [petitioners. ] [PNB is directed] : 1) To indemnify stayout stay in accommodatingity of [petitioners] the completionity of P2,000,000. 00 to consummate the P5,000,000. 00 honor progress concord; ) To pay [petitioners] the completionity of P2,760,000. 00 representing the privationes and/or expected pay of the [petitioners] for three years; 3) To pay fair concern, until the completionity aforementioned on seasons 1 and 2 balancehead are easily remunerated; and 4) To pay the costs. SO ORDERED.  The CA, ultimately, on June 18, 2003, reversed and set aproducer the RTC blank dated April 21, 2001.  Petitioners now canvass that the CA erred when it did not maintain the sentence of divulsion of decrease by the RTC.  The life of divulsion of decrease is a actual stuff not usually resurveyed in a urge smoothd beneath Government 45.
But past the RTC and the CA had bury-repugnant sentences, we are consuseful to government on this manifestation. Was there a divulsion of decrease? There was none. Divulsion of decrease is defined as flourishs: [It] is the “failure stayout legitimate discuss to resign stay the preparations of a decrease. ” It is so defined as the “[f]ailure, stay out legitimate mitigate, to consequence any engagement which forms the sound or disunite of the decrease. ”  In this instance, the disuniteies consortd on a P3 pet honor progress. This sum was consummately indemnifyd to urgeers who forthcoming applied for an acception in their honor progress.
This was topally affectd by PNB’s honor committee. For all eagers and minds, urgeers sought an analysisal advance. The top immovable to the acception in honor progress requiring urgeers to actualize the exemplification of Edgar’s sisters was never notorious and sanctioned by urgeers. Thus, as to the analysisal advance, no encountering of the recollections in-goods occurred and no divulsion of decrease could be markd to PNB. There was no perfected decrease aggravate the acception in honor progress. “[T]he afopen of a bank is one fictitious stay exoteric concern, for which discuss the bank should protector across privation due to cautionlessness or bad credulity.
In laudatory the advance of an benefitor, the bank concerns itself stay benefited [information] contemplateing its mortgagors. ” Any examination priorly convoyed on the character offered by urgeers as cognate did not impede PNB from accordingly new advice on the correspondent character as shelter for a sub sequent advance. The honor and character examination for the primitive advance of P3 pet did not benefit PNB to concede and indemnify any analysisal advance. At the age the primitive P3 pet honor progress was affectd, the epithet to the character answered to perta in detestedly to urgeers.
By the age the collision for an acception was considered, ultimately, PNB already had discuss to guess urgeers’ call-for of detested tenure. A hypothecatione can lean on what answers on the certificate of epithet p resented by the borrower and an sinnear hypothecatione is not expected to convoy an debilitating examination on the narrative of the borrower’s epithet. This government is strictly applied to ban tyrant institutions. xxx Banks, certainly, should employment counteract caution and enlightenment in commerce courteous-balanced stay registered plants, than not-open disuniteiculars, as their afopen is one fictitious stay exoteric concern. xx Thus, this Fdying clarified that the government that living-souls commerce wit h registered plants can lean solelyly on the certificate of epithet does not dedicate to banks.  (discuss gifted) Here, PNB had actualized advice benefited to miss a discussably judicious peculiar to trace into the predicament of the epithet aggravate the theme character. Instead of defending their collocation, urgeers pulean canvassed that dependence on the countenance of the certificate of epithet (in their call) was benefited. This maxim, as already mentioned, was not ancilla to financial institutions affect PNB.
In courteous-balancedt, urgeers had whole hazard to decprogress the top in their accommodatingity if, as they said, they authenticly owned the theme p roperty nondescript, to the disqualification of any other proprietor(s). Unfortunately, all they offered were scant rejections of the co -tenure call-fored by Edgar’s sisters. PNB employmentd discussefficient enlightenment in requiring the balancehead-mentioned top for the indemnify of the analysisal advance. If the top likenessd unacceptefficient to urgeers, the disuniteies could keep discussed other preparations instead of matyrant an pertinacious and outdirect call-for for the indemnify of the analysisal completionity.
If the alleged co-tenure in act had no leg to depend on, urgeers could keep introduced answerance other than a lowly rejection of its life. Past PNB did not divulsion any decrease and past it employmentd the standing of care expected of it, it cannot be held shackled for complacency. WHEREFORE, the blank and analysis of the Fdying of Appeals in CA-G. R. CV No. 71302 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs across urgeers. SO ORDERED. RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice WE CONCUR: REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice Wortyrant Chairperson
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I testify that the blanks in the balancehead blank had been attain ed in consultation antecedently the inoutcome was asverified to the writer of the estimation 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, urgeers, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES ELISEO and VIRGINIA MALOLOS, respondents. DECISION PANGANIBAN, J. :
Contracts institute the law floating the disuniteies. They must be peruse simultaneously and burypreted in an kind that reconciles and imparts life to all of them. The eager of the disuniteies, as likenessn by the disentangled phraseology used, persuades aggravate prop acto explanations that ascertain no prop from the say employed by the disuniteies of from their coeval and shafterior acts likenessing their beneathstanding of such decreases, Furthermore, a shafterior concord cannot novate or exexsubstitute by contortion a prior one, unincomplete old and new decreases are, on whole summit, discordant stay each other.
Finally, cognate acts may be promoteted in answerance when a intelligent consonance pauses floating the tops giving soften to the act offered and the buryrogation outside the manifestation or act to be likenessd. The Inoutcome Antecedently us is a urge for rescan on certiorari seetyrant to wantingify the Fdying of Appeals (CA) Decision in CA- GR CV 33566, promulgated July 15, 1996, which reversed the Regional Proof Fdying (RTC) of Antipolo, Rizal; and CA Analysis  of October 1, 1996, which spoiled urgeer’s Noise for Reconsideration.
Petitioner’s Adoracion, Thelma Debbie, Gerry and Arnel (all surdetermined Cruz) smoothd an resusexlean for disuniteition across the not-open respondents, Spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos. On January 28, 1991, the proof fdying proposeed a Blank which skilful as flourishs: “WHEREFORE, blank is hereby proposeed for the accusers and across the accuseds -spouses – 1. Ordering the disuniteition of the swell-balanced bundles of plant completionling 1,912 sq. m. floating the indecent (4) accusers and the accuseds-spouses as flourishs: 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 stay an area of 276 sq. m. seasoned by TCT No. 502603 and a certaintyion of Lot No. 1-C2-B-2-B-4-L-1-B seasoned by TCT No. 502604 to the dioutcome of 106 sq. m. commensurate TCT No. 502603. 2. Ordering the disuniteies herein to consummate a guile of disuniteition in correspondence [with] this blank indicating the disuniteition of the swell-balanced (7) bundles of plant stayin fifteen (15) days upon reception of this blank. 3. Ordering accuseds-spouses to pay accusers herein P5,000. 00 as and for attorney’s fees; 4. Cost of benefit. On urge, Respondent Fdying reversed the proof fdying thus: “WHEREFORE, sentence the urge to be desertorious, we REVERSE the urgeed blank and propose blank DISMISSING the annoyance stayout predisstanding ultimately to the call-for of accuser -appellees for their distributes in the allowance of the auction sale of the swell-balanced (7) bundles of plant in inquiry across Nerissa Cruz Tamayo pursuant to the Memorandum Agreement. Cost across the accuser-appellees. ” As prior recurrent, critique was spoiled through the appelslow flatter’s challenged Resolution:  “WHEREFORE, for stagnation of desert, the Noise for Critique in DENIED. . The Antecedent Axioms The acts of this inoutcome are allowed. The assailed Blank relates them as flourishs: “Delfin I. Cruz and Adoracion Cruz were segregate-amongakers and their consequence were Thelma, Nerissa, Arnel and Gerry Cruz. Upon the mortality of Delfin I. Cruz, [his] current segregate-amongaker and consequence consummated on August 22, 1977 a notarized Act of Topical Distribution (Exhibit 2) by uprightness of which each one of them was fond a distribute of distinct bundles of registered plants all situat ed in Taytay, Rizal.
The subjoined day, August 23, 1977, the correspondent dowager and consequence consummated a Memorandum Concord (Exhibit H) which concedeed: “That the disuniteies hereto are vile co-owners pro-indiviso in correspondent distributes of the subjoined registered authentic benefitedties, all situated at Taytay, Rizal, Philippines, x x x. xxx That someage on August 22, 1977, a Act of Topical Distribution was consummated floating us antecedently Atty. Virgilio J. Tamayo, Notary Exoteric on and for the Domain of Rizal, per Doc. No. 1776; Page No. 14; of his Notarial Register No. XLIX, Series of 1977; xxx
That as a remainder of said disuniteial disuniteition, the benefitedties fictitious were in-goods disuniteitioned and the relative distributes of ea ch disunitey, adjudicated to him/her; That notwithstanding the preventive of this Act of Topical Distribution and the courteous-balancedtu al arrangement or sale of their relative distributes, the decreaseing disuniteies herein covenanted and consortd floating themselves and by these offers do hereby unite themselves to one another that they shall distribute equivalent and current correspondent distributes from the allowance of the sale of any lot or lots allotted to and adjudicated in their disuniteicular calls by uprightness of this act of disuniteial disuniteition. That this Concord shall remain to be weighty and enforceefficient floating the decreaseing disuniteies herein up to and until the conclusive lot seasoned by the Act of [P]artial [P]artition balancehead adverted to shall keep been skilful of or sold and the allowance thereof correspondently disunitedd and their relative distributes current by each of them. ” This Memorandum Concord was registered and annotated in the epithets of the plants seasoned by the Act of Topical Partition. Subsequently, the correspondent disuniteies resuscitationd the junction and branchs of the plants they relatively ancestral from the slow Delfin I.
Cruz per Act of Topical Partition. Subjoined that, they registered the Act of Topical Distribution and branch plans and epithets were manifestationd in their calls. In the inoutcome of Nerissa Cruz Tamayo, the subjoined epithets were manifestationd to her in her call: 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), hereinsubjoined guileated the plants in inquiry. Naturally, the comment pertaining to the Memorandum Concord was carried in each of said swell-balanced (7) epithets and annotated in each of them.
Meanwhile, the segregate-amongakers Eliseo and Virginia Malolos smoothd Accommodating Inoutcome No. 31231 across the segregate-amongakers Nerissa Cruz -Tamayo and Nelson Tamayo for a sum of specie. The Fdying of Chief Inoutcome of Rizal, Spray XVI (Quezon City) proposeed a blank of June 1, 1981 in accommodatingity of Eliseo and Virginia condemning the segregate-amongakers Nerissa and Nelson Tamayo to pay them P126,529. 00 stay 12% concern per annum from the filing of the annoyance plus P5,000. 00 attorney’s fee. Subjoined the ultimateity of that blank, a writ of preventive (Exhibit J) was manifestationd on November 20, 1981. Enforcing said writ, the sheriff of the fdying levied upon the plants in inquiry.
On June 29, 1983, these benefitedties were sold in an preventive sale to the foremost bidders, the segregate-amongakers Eliseo and Virginia Malolos. Accordingly, the sheriff consummated a Certificate of Sale (Exhibit K) aggravate – ‘… all the directs, call-fors, concerns, epithets, distributes, and disuniteicipations of accused segregate-amongakers Nerissa Tamayo and Ne lson Tamayo.. ’ Nerissa Cruz Tamayo fall-shorted to employment her direct of ransom stayin the statutory era and so the ultimate act of sale was consummated by the sheriff conveying the plants in inquiry to segregate-amongakers Eliseo and Virginia Malolos.
The Malolos cockney asked Nerissa Cruz Tamayo to imdissect them the proprietor’s affectness observation of the swell-balanced (7) epithets of the plants in inquiry but she refused. The cockney moved the fdying to intensity her to surpropose said epithets to the Register of Deeds of Rizal for rescindlation. This was concefeat on September 7, 1984. But Nerissa was adamant. She did not resign stay the Direct of the fdying and so the Malolos cockney asked the fdying to propose said epithets as wanting and wanting.
At this summit, Adoracion Cruz, Thelma Cruz, Gerry Cruz and Arnel Cruz entered the delineate by filing is said inferior fdying a noise for permission to lapse and confront [the] Maloloses’ noise. The Cruzes alleged that they were co-owners of Nerissa Cruz Tamayo aggravate the plants in inquiry. On January 18, 1985, said fdying manifestationd an Direct modifying the Direct of September 7, 1984 by directing the surpropose of the proprietor’s affectness copies of the epithets of the plants in inquiry to the Register of Deeds not for rescindlation but for the comment of the directs, concern actualized by the Maloloses aggravate said plants.
On February 17, 1987, Adoracion, Thelma, Gerry and Arnel Cruz smoothd Accommodating Inoutcome No. 961-A for Distribution of Authentic Demesne across segregate-amongakers Eliseo and Virginia Malolos aggravate the plants in inquiry. As already recurrent in the chief season of this Decision, the fdying a quo proposeed a blank in accommodatingity of the accusers from which the accuseds urgeed to this flatter, x x x x . ” Prevalent of the Fdying of Appeals For Respondent Court, the convenient manifestation was: “Did the Memorandum of Concord [MOA] (Exhibit H) declare-void, rescind or displace the Act of Topical Distribution [DPP] (Exhibit 2)?  If so, then urgeers and Spouses Tamayo were co-owners of the plant in manifestation, and disuniteition should accrue upon noise of the chief-mentioned; if not, then the dying are its irresponsible proprietors and to disuniteition should be made. Respondent Fdying fixed the balancehead inquiry in the privative for the subjoined discusss: First, the DPP was not embodiedly and truely discordant stay the MOA. The DPP won irresponsible tenure of the bundles of plant in manifestation on Nerissa Cruz Tamayo, bound the MOA pulean mouldd an differf on her disunite to distribute stay the urgeers the allowance of the sale of said benefitedties.
Second, the act that not-open respondent registered the DPP was silly stay the allegation that they planned to forfeit it. Indeed, had they mediumt to forfeit it, they would keep solely gathered the copies of said muniment and then torn of burned them. Third, urgeers were estopped from call-foring co-tenure aggravate the fabulous benefitedties owing, as irresponsible proprietors, they either hypothecationd or sold the other benefitedties adjudicated to them by uprightness of the DPP. Hence, this urge.  Assignment of Errors
In their Memorandum, urgeers propose the subjoined assignment of deceptions: “A. Respondent Fdying erred in prevalent that the Memorandum of Concord (Exhibit ‘H’) does not persuade aggravate the Act of Topical Distribution (Exhibit 2). B. sale. C. Respondent Fdying erred in prevalent that urgeers can solelyly call-for their direct to the allowance of [the] auction Respondent Fdying erred in prevalent that urgeers are in estoppel by act. D. Respondent Fdying erred in prevalent that the registration of the act of disuniteial disuniteition impeded the urgeers from abrogating it. E.
Respondent Fdying erred when it consummately ignored the ultimateity of the direct of the Regional Proof Fdying of Quezon City, Spray LXXXVI as representative in the blank of the Regional Proof Fdying of Antipolo, Rizal, Spray 71. ” In delicate, the analysis of this urge hinges of the subjoined manifestations: (1) whether DPP was rescindled or novated by the MOA; (2) whether the MOA recurrent, floating urgeers and the blank mortgagor, a co -tenure of the lots in inquiry; (3) whether urgeers are determined by estoppel from call-foring co-tenure of the swell-balanced bundles of plant; and (4) whether res judicata has set in.
The Court’s Prevalent The urge is robbed of desert. It fall-shorts to demonstscold any revocable deception on the disunite of the Fdying of Appeals. Chief Issue: No Novation or Cancellation In their Memorandum, urgeers canvass that the MOA unconditionally and unmistakably calld and covenanted them as co proprietors of the bundles in manifestation and novated their prior concord, the Act of Topical Disunite ition. Petitioners call-for that the MOA ostensiblely manifested their eagerion to mould a co -ownership. This is disuniteicularly conspicuous in Exhibit 1-B, which provides: That notwithstanding the preventive of this Act of Topical Distribution and courteous-balancedtual arrangement or sale of their relative distributes, the decreaseing disuniteies herein covenanted and consortd floating themselves and by these offers do hereby unite themselves to one another that they shall distribute and assent-to correspondent distributes from the allowance of the sale of any lot or lots allotted to and adjudicated in their disuniteicular calls by uprightness of this act of disuniteial disuniteition. ” The Fdying disagrees. The past preparation in the MOA does not novate, abundant incomplete rescind, the prior DPP.
Novation, one of the modes of extinguishing an differf, demands the approverence of the subjoined: (1) there is a prior weighty differf; (2) the disuniteies watchful consort to a new decrease; (3) the old decrease is quenched; and (4) there is a weighty new decrease. Novation may be direct or indicated. Article 1292 of the Code provides: “In direct that an differf may be quenched by another which substitutes the correspondent, it is peremptorily that it be so ostensible in substantial preparations [direct novation], or that the old and new differfs be on whole summit discordant stay each other [indicated novation]. Tested across the past dependards, urgeers’ outcome is shattered to buryests. The specificion that the urgeers and Spouses Tamayo were co-owners was pulean the initiatory disunite of the MOA, and it peruses: “That the disuniteies are vile co-owners pro-indiviso in correspondent distributes of the subjoined registered authentic benefitedties, all situated at Taytay, Rizal, Philippines. xxx” xxx xxx xxx That someage in August 22, 1977, a Act of Topical Distribution was consummated floating us antecedently Atty. Virgilio J.
Tamayo, Notary Exoteric in and for the Domain of Rizal, per Doc. No. 1796; Page No. 14; of his Notarial Register No. XLIX, Series of 1977;” Subjoined the balancehead-quoted specificion is a declaration that the theme bundles of plant had in act been disuniteitioned, but that the chief-mentioned co-proprietor planned to distribute stay urgeers the allowance of any sale of said plant, viz: “That [as] a remainder of said disuniteial disuniteition, the benefitedties fictitious were in-goods disuniteitioned and the respe ctive distributes of each disunitey, adjudicated to him/her;
That notwithstanding the preventive of this Act of Topical Distribution and the courteous-balancedtual arrangement or sale of their relative distributes, th e decreaseing disuniteies herein covenanted and consortd floating themselves [and] to one another that they shall do [sic] hereby unite themselves to one another that they shall distribute equivalent and assent-to correspondent distributes from the allowance of the sale of any lot or lots allotted to and adjudicated in their disuniteicular calls by uprightness of this act of p artial disuniteition; That this Concord shall remain to be weighty and enforceefficient floating the decreaseing disuniteies herein up to and until the conclusive lot seasoned by the act or disuniteial disuniteition balancehead adverted to shall keep been skilful of or sold and the procee ds thereof correspondently disunitedd and their relative distributes current by each of them. xxx xxx xxx
The MOA falls incomplete of unresisting a novation, beresusexlean it does not direct a disentangled int ent to dismember the old differf as a compensation for the emergence of the new one.  Likewise, urgeers fall-short to likeness that the DPP and the MOA are embodiedly and truely discordant stay each other. Petitioners promote that, beneath the MOA, they and the Tamayo segregate-amongakers consortd to correspondently distribute in the allowance of the sale of the lots.  Indeed, the DPP concefeat epithet to the lots in inquiry to the co-proprietor to whom they were assigned, and the MOA mouldd an differf on the disunite of such co -proprietor to distribute stay the others the allowance of the sale of such bundles. There is no disharmony floating these two decreases. Verily, the MOA cannot be construed as a rejection of the prior DPP.
Both muniments can pause simultaneously and must be so burypreted as to imdissect life to twain. Respondent Fdying aptly explained: “The Act of Distribution won upon Nerissa Cruz Tamayo irresponsible tenure aggravate the plants in inquiry. The Memorandum of Concord pulean mouldd an differf on the disunite of irresponsible proprietor Nerissa Cruz Tamayo to distribute [with] the appellees stay [sic] the allowance of the sale of said benefitedties. The differf of the proprietor of a buryest of plant to distribute [with] star stay [sic] its income or the allowance of its sale does not necessarily damage his faculty aggravate the character abundant incomplete intensity the beneficiary his co -proprietor thereof. All in all, the basic maxim beneathlying this prevalent is lowly: when t he quotation of a decrease is ostensible and permissions no vacillate as to its eagerion, the fdying may not peruse into it any eagerion that would gainsay its unsophisticated meaning.  The hornbook government on explanation of decreases imparts primacy to the eagerion of the disuniteies, which is the law floating them. Ultimately, their eagerion is to be deciphered not from the unilateral prop acto assertions of one of the disuniteies, but from the phraseology used in the decrease. And when the preparations of the concord, as directed in such phraseology, are disentangled, they are to be beneathstood literally, sound as they answer on the countenance of the decrease. Indeed, the legitimate benefitedtys of a decrease are determined by extracting the eagerion of the disuniteies from the phraseology they used and from their contemporaneous and shafterior acts. 19] This maxim ascertains counteract vigor when third disuniteies are watchful. To demand such living-souls to go past what is ostensiblely written in the muniment is unopen and trickish. They cannot perchance search into the decreaseing disuniteies’ recollections and guess that triton is wide, when the phraseology of th e record answers disentangled and substantial. Prevent Issue: No Co-tenure in the MOA Petitioners canvass that they converted their sepascold and disuniteicular tenure aggravate the plants in canvass into a co tenure by their preventive of the MOA and the comment thereof on the sepascold epithets. The Fdying is not incontrovertible. The very preparations of the MOA differ the life of a co -ownership.
First, it retains the disuniteition of the benefitedties, which urgeers supposedly placed in co -ownership; and, prevent, it vests in the registered proprietor the faculty to regulate of the plant adjudicated to him or her beneath the DPP. These are nervous to the urgeer’s rebellion. In a co-ownership, an unseparated man or direct belongs to two or counteract living-souls.  Put contrariantly, distinct living-souls prop vile faculty aggravate a immaterial (or mental) disunite of a man, which is not physically disunitedd.  In the offer instance, ultimately, the bundles of plant in the MOA keep all been disuniteitioned and epithetd beneath sepascold and disuniteicular calls. Counteract meaningant, the MOA usual that the registered proprietor could retail the plant stayout the acquiesce of the other disuniteies to the MOA.
Jus disponendi is an mark of tenure, and solelyly the proprietor can regulate of a character.  Opposite to urgeer’s call-for, the comment of the MOA in the certificate of epithet did not propagate any co -ownership. W ell permanent is the precept that registration pulean confirms, but does not compare, epithet.  It does not imdissect the proper any ameliorebuke epithet than what he in-goods has. As prior observed, the MOA did not intensity urgeers co-owners of the fabulous bundles of plant. Hence, the comment of this muniment in the sepascold heading of epithet did not concede them a exalteder direct aggravate the correspondent character. Third Issue: Estoppel by Deed
Respondent Fdying endow that distinct acts of sale and authentic demesne hypothecation, which urgeers consummated when they sold or hypothecationd some bundles adjudicated to them beneath the DPP, incluact the declaration that the vendor/borrower was the irresponsible proprietor of the bundle of residential plant and that he or she represented it as exempt from liens and encumbrances. On the discuss of these buryests of answerance, respondent Fdying held that urgeers were estopped from call-foring that there was a co-tenure aggravate the fabulous bundles of plant which were so seasoned by the DPP. Petitioners canvass that Respondent Fdying , in so prevalent violated the res bury alios acta government. Petitioners’ rebellions is indefensible.
Res bury alios acta, as a exoteric government, prohibits the avenue of answerance that tends to likeness that what a peculiar has produced at one age is probative of the rebellion that he has produced a correspondent as act at another age.  Appearance of correspondent acts or occurrences intensitys the remainant to encounter allegation s that are not mentioned in the annoyance, confuses him in his mitigate, raises a medley of adverse manifestations, and diverts the care of the fdying from th e manifestations forthafter a while antecedently it. Hence, this conspicuousiary government protectors across the skilled inconven ience of hard cognate manifestations and protracting the proof and prevents surpsoften or other annoyance injurious to litigants.  The government, ultimately, is not stayout barion.
W hile excellent in exoteric, cognate acts may be current as answerance beneath barional buryrogation, as when there is a intelligent consonance or likeness floating the tops giving soften to the act offered and the buryrogation outside the manifestation or act to be likenessd.  Appearance of correspondent acts may frequently behove appropriate, in-feature in resuscitations fixed on robbery and artifice , beresusexlean it sheds trifling on the avow of reassemblage or comprehendledge of a peculiar’s; it provides instinct into such peculiar’s incitement or eager; it uncovers a draft, dememorial or plan; or it reveals a mistake.  In this instance, urgeers controvert that resuscitations touching to the other bundles of plant they entered into, in the concept of irresponsible proprietors, are excellent as answerance to likeness that the bundles in manifestation are not co -owned.
The fdying is not persuaded. Appearance of such resuscitations falls beneath the barion to the government on the res bury alios acta. Such answerance is tolerable beresusexlean it is appropriate to an manifestation in the inoutcome and conducive of answerance already current.  The submit-toing of such resuscitations is antecedentlylaborer ostensible. The character of tenure of said character should be the correspondent as that of the lots on inquiry past they are all theme to the MOA. If the bundles of plant were held and skilful by urgeers in fee lowly, in the concept of irresponsible proprietors, then the lots in inquiry should correspondently be discussed as irresponsiblely owned in fee lowly by the Tamayo segregate-amongakers.
Unmistakably, the answerance in canvass manifests urgeers’ vile mind and dememorial to discuss all the bundles of plant seasoned by the DPP as irresponsiblely owned and not theme to co -ownership.  Beneath the maxim of estoppel, urgeers are determined from call-foring co-tenure of the plants in manifestation. In estoppel, a peculiar, who by his act or convoy has introduced another to act in a disuniteicular m anner, is determined from adopting an silly collocation, pose or way of convoy that thereby resuscitations privation or waste to another.  It elevate bars him from disclaiming the courteous-balancedt of a act which has, in the intention of law, behove permanent by the acts and chronicles of juridical or legislative officers or by the act of the disunitey himself, either by customary answerableness or by representations, direct or im plied or in pairs. 
In their transresusexlean stay others, urgeers keep ostensible that the other plants seasoned by the correspondent MOA are irresponsiblely owned, stayout indicating the life of a co-tenure aggravate such benefitedties. Thus, they are estopped from call-foring inadequately owing, by their very own acts and representations as answeranced by the acts of hypothecation and of sale, they keep spoiled such co-ownership.  FOURTH ISSUES: No Res Judicata On Co-tenure Petitioners controvert that the Direct (Exhibit J) dated January 18, 1985, manifestationd by the RTC of Quezon City, Spray 86, which had crave behove ultimate and executory, aged their co-ownership. Thus, they call-for that Respondent Court’s transcollocation of the prevalent of the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, is a deflection of the government on res judicata. This rebellion is correspondently indefensible.
The elements of res judicata are: (1) the chief-mentioned blank was ultimate; (2) the fdying which proposeed it had government aggravate the theme stuff and the disuniteies;(3) the blank was on the deserts; and (4) the disuniteies, theme stuffs and resuscitations of resusexlean in the chief and prevent resuscitations are selfsame.  The RTC of Quezon City had no government to flow on the deserts of the offer inoutcome or to recreate inquirys contemplateing the life of co-tenure aggravate the bundles in canvass, beresusexlean the benefit pending antecedently it was solelyly for the garnerion of a sum of specie. Its Nursing Dissertation on co-tenure was pulean for the raise and the preventive of the benefitedties of the Tamayo segregate-amongakers, in satisfresusexlean of their blank debit to the not-open respondents. Perhaps counteract flashy is the stagnation of convertibility floating the two resuscitations.
The chief resusexlean antecedently the RTC of Quezon City was for the garnerion of specie, bound the prevent antecedently the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, was for disuniteition. There naturalness no approverence of the elements of res judicata in this instance, the Fdying ascertains no deception in Respondent Court’s prevalent. No elevate argument is needed to likeness the flashy disbargain floating the two controversies. WHEREFORE, the urge is hereby DENIED and the assailed Blank is Affirmed. Cost across urgeers. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr. , (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug, and Quisumbing, JJ. , approve. THIRD DIVISION [G. R. No. 134559. December 9, 1999] ANTONIA TORRES, assisted by her mate, ANGELO TORRES; and EMETERIA BARING, urgeers, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and MANUEL TORRES,respondents. DECISION PANGANIBAN, J. : Courts may not disestablish disuniteies from the essential outcomes of their acts. That the preparations of a decrease decprogress out to be financially hindranceous to them succeed not help them of their differfs therein. The stagnation of an list of authentic character succeed not ipso acto indemnify the decreaseing disuniteners from their relative differfs to each other arising from acts consummated in correspondence stay their concord. The Inoutcome The Urge for Rescan on Certiorari antecedently us assails the March 5, 1998 Blank  Prevent Division of the Fdying of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 2378 and its June 25, 1998 Analysis disclaiming critique. The assailed Blank affirmed the prevalent of the Regional Proof Fdying (RTC) of Cebu City in Accommodating Inoutcome No. R -21208, which skilful as flourishs: “WHEREFORE, for all the past compensations, the Court, sentence for the accused and across the accusers, directs the rejection of the accuser’s annoyance. The counterclaims of the accused are affectjudicious directed dismissed. No emeute as to costs. ” The Axioms Sisters Antonia Torres and Emeteria Baring, herein urgeers, entered into a "flexure stake concord" stay Respondent Manuel Torres for the outgrowth of a bundle of plant into a branch.
Pursuant to the decrease, they consummated a Act of Sale crust the said bundle of plant in accommodatingity of respondent, who then had it registered in his call. By mortgaging the character, respondent obtained from Sound Bank a advance ofP40,000 which, beneath the Flexure Stake Agreement, was to be used for the outgrowth of the branch.  All three of them so consortd to distribute the allowance from the sale of the subseparated lots. The guile did not thrust through, and the plant was forthcoming foreclosed by the bank. According to urgeers, the guile fall-shorted beresusexlean of “respondent’s stagnation of funds or mediums and skills. ” They add that respondent used the advance not for the outgrowth of the branch, but in elevateance of his own corporation, Universal Umbrell a Company.
On the other laborer, respondent alleged that he used the advance to instrument the Agreement. Stay the said completionity, he was efficient to benefitedty the scan and the branch of the lots. He impregnefficient the Lapu Lapu City Council’s acclamation of the branch guile which he advertised in a topical newspaper. He so resuscitationd the erection of roads, curbs and gutters. Likewise, he entered into a decrease stay an engineering steadfast for the structure of sixty low -cost housing units and in-goods courteous-balanced set up a copy offspring on one of the branch lots. He did all of these for a completion cost of P85,000. Respondent call-fored that the branch guile fall-shorted, ultimately, beresusexlean urgeers and their kindred had heterogeneous resusexlean d the comments of dverse call-fors on the epithet to the plant, which courteous-balancedtually dazed detached prospective buyers. Notwithstanding his asks, urgeers refused to resusexlean the disentangleding of the call-fors, thereby forcing him to imdissect up on the guile.  Subsequently, urgeers smoothd a illegal inoutcome for estafa across respondent and his helpmeet, who were ultimately disengaged. Thereafter, they smoothd the offer accommodating inoutcome which, upon respondent's noise, was slowr dismissed by the proof fdying in an Direct dated September 6, 1982. On urge, ultimately, the appelslow fdying remanded the inoutcome for elevate chronicles. Thereafter, the RTC manifestationd its assailed Decision, which, as prior recurrent, was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this Petition.  Prevalent of the Fdying of Appeals
In affirming the proof flatter, the Fdying of Appeals held that urgeers and respondent had formed a disunitenership for the outgrowth of the branch. Thus, they must submit-to the privation suffered by the disunitenership in the correspondent profresuscitation as their distribute in the income usual in the decrease. Disagreeing stay the proof flatter’s emeute that privationes as courteous as income in a flexure stake should be exclusive correspondently, the CA invoked Article 1797 of the Accommodating Code which provides: “Article 1797 - The privationes and income shall be exclusive in exemplification stay the concord. If solelyly the distribute of each disunitener in the income has been consortd upon, the distribute of each in the privationes shall be in the correspondent adjustment. ” The CA elucidated elevate: In the scantiness of specificion, the distribute of each disunitener in th e income and privationes shall be in profresuscitation to what he may keep contributed, but the indusproof disunitener shall not be shackled for the privationes. As for the income, the indusproof disunitener shall assent-to such distribute as may be sound and sound beneath the buryrogation. If too his benefits he has contributed excellent, he shall so assent-to a distribute in the income in profresuscitation to his excellent. ” The Manifestation Petitioners ascribe to the Fdying of Appeals the subjoined deception: “x x x [The] Fdying of Appeals erred in conclud ing that the transresusexlean x x x floating the urgeers and respondent was that of a flexure stake/partnership, ignoring outdirect the preparation of Article 1769, and other cognate preparations of the Accommodating Code of the Philippines. ” The Court’s Ruling
The Urge is robbed of desert. Main Issue: Life of a House Petitioners contradict having formed a disunitenership stay respondent.