ASG Law

Tag: Evidence

  • Upholding Notarized Deeds: The Supreme Court on Authenticity and Forgery in Property Sales

    The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of a Deed of Absolute Sale, emphasizing the presumption of authenticity for notarized documents. This means that unless there’s clear and convincing evidence of forgery, a notarized sale of property stands. This ruling reinforces the importance of proper notarization and the high burden of proof required to challenge such documents in property disputes. The case serves as a reminder that mere allegations of forgery are insufficient; concrete evidence is necessary to overcome the legal presumption favoring notarized deeds.

    Land Dispute: When a Signature’s Validity Decides Ownership

    This case revolves around a parcel of land in Casibarag Sur, Cabagan, Isabela, originally owned by Bernardino Gatan and his wife, Rogelia. After Bernardino’s death, Rogelia and her sons, Rizalino and Ferdinand Gatan, filed a complaint seeking to nullify a Deed of Absolute Sale, which purportedly transferred a portion of the property to Jesusa Vinarao and her spouses, Mildred and Nomar Cabauatan. The petitioners alleged that Bernardino’s signature on the deed was forged and that Rogelia’s marital consent was absent, thereby rendering the sale invalid. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Deed of Absolute Sale, despite the allegations of forgery and lack of consent, should be upheld.

    The petitioners argued that Bernardino, being illiterate, could not have signed the Deed without Rogelia’s assistance. They further claimed that Rogelia never gave her marital consent. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the sale was legitimate, supported by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale and tax declarations in their name. They insisted that Bernardino was capable of signing his name and that Rogelia did, in fact, give her consent. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) sided with the respondents, a decision that was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court then took up the matter to resolve the conflicting claims and interpretations.

    The Supreme Court anchored its decision on the established principle that a notarized document carries a presumption of authenticity and due execution. This presumption can only be overturned by clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence. As the Court emphasized,

    a duly notarized contract enjoys the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution, as well as the full faith and credence attached to a public instrument. To overturn this legal presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant to establish that there was forgery that gave rise to a spurious contract.

    The Court found that the petitioners failed to meet this high burden of proof. Rogelia’s testimony, which was uncorroborated, could not outweigh the testimony of Carlos Vinarao, who witnessed Bernardino and Rogelia signing the Deed before a notary public. The Court also noted that the petitioners did not present any expert witness to definitively prove that the signatures were forged. Thus, the allegation of forgery remained unsubstantiated.

    The Court highlighted the importance of proving forgery with clear and convincing evidence, stating that:

    forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. One who alleges forgery has the burden to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized the limitations of its jurisdiction in cases brought under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and that its review is generally confined to errors of law committed by the Court of Appeals. In this case, the factual findings of the RTC, which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were deemed binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court. Thus, whether or not the signatures were forged was a question of fact that had already been resolved by the lower courts.

    The Court also addressed the issue of marital consent. While Rogelia claimed that she did not give her consent to the sale, the respondents presented evidence that she signed the Deed under the name Aurelia Ramos Gatan. The Court noted the similarity between Rogelia’s signature and the signature of Aurelia Ramos Gatan, as well as testimony from witnesses who knew Rogelia by both names. This further undermined the petitioners’ claim that the sale lacked marital consent. The court emphasized that:

    Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, jurisdiction is generally limited to the review of errors of law committed by the appellate court. The Supreme Court is not obliged to review all over again the evidence which the parties adduced in the court a quo.

    The Supreme Court underscored the significance of adhering to procedural rules and respecting the factual findings of lower courts. The case serves as a reminder that allegations of forgery and lack of consent must be supported by substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of validity afforded to notarized documents. This ruling reinforces the stability and reliability of notarized transactions in property law.

    FAQs

    What was the central legal issue in this case? The key issue was whether a Deed of Absolute Sale should be invalidated due to alleged forgery of the seller’s signature and lack of marital consent.
    What is the legal presumption regarding notarized documents? Notarized documents enjoy a presumption of authenticity and due execution, meaning they are presumed valid unless proven otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.
    What is the burden of proof for alleging forgery? The party alleging forgery bears the burden of proving it with clear, positive, and convincing evidence, which is a high standard.
    What type of evidence is needed to prove forgery? More than a mere denial is required. Corroborating witnesses, expert testimony, or a clear comparison of signatures are generally needed to prove forgery.
    What role did the witness testimony play in this case? The testimony of the witness who saw the parties sign the Deed of Absolute Sale was given significant weight, supporting the authenticity of the document.
    Why didn’t the court consider the husband’s alleged illiteracy? The respondents presented a witness who testified that he saw the husband sign the deed. Since they did not present any conclusive proof, the court decided that this bare denial could not supersede what was on record.
    What was the significance of the wife signing under a different name? Witness testimony presented during the trial indicated that the wife was known as both Rogelia and Aurelia. Thus the signature under the other name was not deemed to be a forgery.
    What is the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision? The Supreme Court’s decision upheld the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale, confirming the transfer of property to the respondents.
    How does this case affect future property disputes? This case reinforces the importance of notarized documents and the high burden of proof required to challenge their validity in property disputes.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Gatan v. Vinarao reaffirms the importance of notarized documents and the rigorous standard required to challenge their validity. The decision underscores the need for clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of authenticity, ensuring stability and reliability in property transactions.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Rogelia R. Gatan and the Heirs of Bernardino Gatan v. Jesusa Vinarao, G.R. No. 205912, October 18, 2017

  • Baptismal Certificates and Filiation: Proving Parentage in Inheritance Disputes

    The Supreme Court clarified in this case that baptismal certificates alone are insufficient to conclusively establish filiation (parentage) for inheritance purposes. While such certificates can be considered alongside other evidence, they cannot be the sole basis for determining hereditary rights. The Court emphasized the need for more substantial proof, especially when legitimacy is contested, to ensure fair distribution of inherited properties and prevent unwarranted claims based on incomplete documentation. This ruling underscores the importance of comprehensive evidence in establishing legal parentage.

    Family Secrets and Inheritance Rights: Who Can Claim a Share of Natalia’s Land?

    The case of Heirs of Gilberto Roldan v. Heirs of Silvela Roldan revolves around a dispute over Lot No. 4696, originally owned by Natalia Magtulis. Natalia had two children from her first marriage, Gilberto and Silvela Roldan, and allegedly, Leopoldo Magtulis, her child with another man. After Natalia’s death, her descendants disputed the rightful heirs to her land.

    The heirs of Gilberto Roldan argued that Leopoldo was not Natalia’s child and that Silvela had already sold her share to Gilberto. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled that the heirs of Gilberto, Silvela, and Leopoldo were all co-owners, each entitled to a one-third share of the property. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, relying on Leopoldo’s Certificate of Baptism and Marriage Contract as proof of his filiation with Natalia. Dissatisfied, the heirs of Gilberto Roldan elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

    At the heart of the legal matter was the evidentiary value of baptismal certificates and marriage contracts in proving filiation. The Supreme Court emphasized that while these documents can be considered as evidence, they are not conclusive proof of parentage, especially when other substantial evidence is lacking. The Court referred to Articles 172 and 175 of the Family Code to highlight the requirements for establishing filiation:

    Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:

    (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
    (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.

    In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:

    (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or
    (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

    Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.

    The Court noted that there was no record of Leopoldo’s birth. This absence prompted the lower courts to rely on his Certificate of Baptism and Marriage Contract, which both indicated Natalia as his mother. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this approach, citing jurisprudence that diminishes the probative value of baptismal certificates when used in isolation.

    The Supreme Court referenced Fernandez v. Court of Appeals, stating that because the putative parent has no hand in preparing a baptismal certificate, that document has scant evidentiary value. The canonical certificate is simply a proof of the act to which the priest may certify, i.e., the administration of the sacrament. In other words, a baptismal certificate is “no proof of the declarations in the record with respect to the parentage of the child baptized, or of prior and distinct facts which require separate and concrete evidence.”

    Building on this principle, the Court clarified that a baptismal certificate could have evidentiary value if considered alongside other evidence of filiation, such as testimonial evidence, family pictures, or family books. Without such corroborating evidence, the baptismal certificate alone is insufficient to establish legal parentage.

    In analyzing the evidence, the Court found that the Marriage Contract of Leopoldo, like his baptismal certificate, lacked probative value because it was prepared without Natalia’s participation. The Court emphasized that such documents cannot be taken as evidence of filiation unless signed or acknowledged by the alleged parent. This aligns with the principle established in Reyes v. Court of Appeals, where a marriage contract stating the alleged father of the bride was not accepted as evidence of filiation because it was not signed by him.

    Regarding the alleged sale of Silvela’s share to Gilberto, the Court upheld the factual finding of the lower courts that no evidence supported this claim. The petitioners failed to provide any document or witness to prove the sale, leading the Court to conclude that Silvela remained a co-owner of Lot No. 4696.

    Finally, the petitioners argued that prescription and laches barred the respondents from claiming co-ownership due to their prolonged occupation of the property. The Court rejected this argument, stating that prescription cannot be appreciated against co-owners absent a conclusive act of repudiation made clearly known to the other co-owners. Moreover, the petitioners raised this argument for the first time on appeal, depriving the respondents of the opportunity to contest it.

    In summary, the Supreme Court modified the lower courts’ decision, declaring that only the heirs of Gilberto Roldan and Silvela Roldan were co-owners of the land. The Court emphasized the importance of substantial evidence in proving filiation and clarified the limited evidentiary value of baptismal certificates and marriage contracts when not supported by other corroborating evidence. The court underscored that there was failure on the part of petitioners to substantiate their allegation of laches by proving that respondents slept on their rights.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether baptismal certificates and marriage contracts alone are sufficient to prove filiation (parentage) for inheritance purposes, specifically whether Leopoldo Magtulis was the son of Natalia Magtulis.
    Why did the Supreme Court reject the baptismal certificate as sole proof of filiation? The Supreme Court has consistently held that baptismal certificates have scant evidentiary value when used alone because the putative parent has no direct involvement in their preparation, making them insufficient to prove parentage.
    What other types of evidence can be used to prove filiation? Besides a birth certificate or a parent’s admission, filiation can be proven through testimonial evidence, family pictures, family books or charts, and other relevant documents that, when considered together, establish a clear lineage.
    What was the outcome regarding the alleged sale of Silvela’s share? The Court upheld the factual finding that there was no evidence to support the claim that Silvela Roldan sold her share of the property to Gilberto Roldan, thus, she remained a co-owner.
    What is the significance of repudiation in co-ownership disputes? Repudiation is a clear and unequivocal act by one co-owner that demonstrates their intention to exclude other co-owners from the property, which is a prerequisite for prescription to apply and for a co-owner to claim sole ownership.
    Why did the Court reject the arguments of prescription and laches? The Court rejected these arguments because the petitioners failed to provide evidence of repudiation and raised the issues for the first time on appeal, depriving the respondents of the opportunity to contest them.
    What does this case mean for proving parentage in inheritance cases? This case reinforces the need for comprehensive and reliable evidence when establishing filiation in inheritance cases, highlighting that single documents like baptismal certificates are not sufficient on their own.
    What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court ruled that only the heirs of Gilberto Roldan and Silvela Roldan are the rightful co-owners of the land, each entitled to one-half share, excluding the heirs of Leopoldo Magtulis.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of presenting solid evidence to establish filiation in inheritance disputes. While baptismal certificates and marriage contracts may offer some clues, they are not definitive proof of parentage. This case serves as a reminder to gather comprehensive documentation to support claims of inheritance rights.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Heirs of Gilberto Roldan, G.R. No. 202578, September 27, 2017

  • Baptismal Certificates and Filiation: Establishing Legal Parentage in Inheritance Disputes

    The Supreme Court, in Heirs of Gilberto Roldan v. Heirs of Silvela Roldan, clarified the evidentiary value of baptismal certificates in proving filiation for inheritance purposes. The Court ruled that a baptismal certificate, by itself, is insufficient to establish legal parentage. Additional evidence is required to substantiate the claim of filiation, especially when contesting inheritance rights. This decision underscores the importance of presenting comprehensive documentation and evidence when asserting familial relationships in legal proceedings.

    Inheritance Battle: Can Baptismal Records Alone Determine Heirship?

    This case revolves around a dispute over Lot No. 4696, an agricultural land originally owned by Natalia Magtulis. After Natalia’s death in 1961, her estate became the subject of contention among her alleged heirs: the children from her first marriage, Gilberto and Silvela Roldan, and Leopoldo Magtulis, purportedly her child from another relationship. The heirs of Gilberto Roldan possessed the property and excluded the other claimants, leading the heirs of Silvela and Leopoldo to file a complaint for partition and damages.

    The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts correctly recognized Leopoldo Magtulis as Natalia’s son based solely on his baptismal and marriage certificates. This issue directly impacted the determination of rightful heirs to Natalia’s property. The petitioners, heirs of Gilberto, argued that these documents were insufficient to prove filiation, challenging the CA’s decision to include Leopoldo’s heirs in the property distribution.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of all three sets of heirs, granting each a one-third share of the property. The RTC based its decision regarding Leopoldo’s filiation on his Certificate of Baptism and Marriage Contract, which both indicated Natalia as his mother. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this ruling, leading the heirs of Gilberto Roldan to appeal to the Supreme Court, questioning the validity of the evidence used to establish Leopoldo’s parentage.

    The Supreme Court carefully examined the issue of filiation, referencing Articles 172 and 175 of the Family Code, which outline the acceptable means of establishing legitimate and illegitimate filiation. The court noted that Leopoldo’s birth was not registered in the National Statistics Office or the local civil registry. Therefore, the lower courts relied on the baptismal and marriage certificates to prove his status as Natalia’s son. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this approach.

    Building on this principle, the Court cited established jurisprudence, including Fernandez v. Court of Appeals, which clarified the limited evidentiary value of baptismal certificates. The Court emphasized that baptismal certificates primarily serve as proof of the administration of the sacrament and not as conclusive evidence of parentage. The rationale behind this is that the putative parent typically does not participate in the preparation of the certificate, making it unreliable as a declaration of filiation.

    In essence, the Supreme Court reiterated that a baptismal certificate should not be considered sufficient proof of filiation unless supported by other corroborating evidence. Documents like testimonial evidence, family photos, and family books can provide additional context and support the claims made in a baptismal certificate. The Court found that the lower courts had not considered any such additional evidence in this case, relying solely on the baptismal and marriage certificates.

    The Marriage Contract of Leopoldo Magtulis was also deemed insufficient to prove filiation, as it was prepared without Natalia’s participation. The Court referenced Reyes v. Court of Appeals, which held that a marriage contract stating the bride’s alleged father’s name could not be taken as evidence of filiation if the alleged father did not sign it. This further reinforces the principle that documents prepared without the involvement of the alleged parent lack the necessary probative value to establish filiation.

    Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the RTC and CA erred in determining that Leopoldo Magtulis was Natalia’s son based solely on the baptismal and marriage certificates. The Court emphasized that without additional supporting evidence, these documents were inadequate to prove his filiation and grant his heirs a one-third share of Natalia’s property. As the court stated in Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa, a baptismal certificate is not proof of legitimacy or illegitimacy.

    The petitioners also raised the issues of prescription and laches, arguing that the respondents had lost their rights to the property due to the extended period of occupation by the heirs of Gilberto Roldan. The Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, citing the absence of any conclusive act of repudiation made known to the other co-owners. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners had raised these issues for the first time on appeal, depriving the respondents of the opportunity to contest these claims.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that prescription cannot be appreciated against co-owners without clear evidence of repudiation. Additionally, the Court reiterated that issues like estoppel, laches, and fraud require the presentation of evidence and the determination of facts. Since the petition before the Court primarily entertained questions of law, the claims of prescription and laches could not be sustained.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether baptismal and marriage certificates alone are sufficient to prove filiation for inheritance purposes, especially when contesting the rights of other potential heirs.
    What did the Supreme Court rule regarding baptismal certificates? The Supreme Court ruled that a baptismal certificate, by itself, is insufficient to establish legal parentage. It serves primarily as proof of the administration of the sacrament, not as conclusive evidence of filiation.
    What other evidence can be used to prove filiation? Besides a birth certificate, other evidence that can be used includes testimonial evidence, family photos, family books, and other documents that corroborate the claim of parentage.
    Why were the marriage certificates deemed insufficient? The marriage certificates were deemed insufficient because they were prepared without the participation or consent of the alleged parent, Natalia Magtulis, making them unreliable as evidence of filiation.
    What is the significance of Article 172 of the Family Code? Article 172 of the Family Code outlines the means by which the filiation of legitimate children can be established, including birth records, public documents, and open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child.
    What is the relevance of the Fernandez v. Court of Appeals case? The Fernandez v. Court of Appeals case established the principle that baptismal certificates have limited evidentiary value in proving filiation, as they primarily serve as proof of the administration of the sacrament.
    What does it mean to “repudiate” co-ownership in the context of prescription? To repudiate co-ownership means to openly and clearly deny the co-owner’s rights to the property, making it known to all other co-owners that you are claiming sole ownership.
    Why were the arguments of prescription and laches rejected in this case? The arguments of prescription and laches were rejected because there was no evidence of a clear act of repudiation, and the issues were raised for the first time on appeal, depriving the respondents of the opportunity to contest them.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Heirs of Gilberto Roldan v. Heirs of Silvela Roldan serves as a critical reminder of the importance of substantiating claims of filiation with comprehensive evidence, especially in inheritance disputes. While baptismal and marriage certificates can be informative, they cannot serve as the sole basis for establishing legal parentage. This ruling emphasizes the need for thorough documentation and corroborating evidence when asserting familial relationships in legal proceedings, ensuring that inheritance rights are justly determined.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Heirs of Gilberto Roldan, G.R. No. 202578, September 27, 2017

  • Corporate Liability in Mergers: Establishing Assumed Obligations

    The Supreme Court has ruled that when a corporation alleges it only acquired selected assets and liabilities from another entity through a purchase agreement, the burden of proof lies on the party claiming the corporation assumed all liabilities. Absent the formal offering and admission of the purchase agreement as evidence, courts cannot assume the acquiring corporation’s solidary liability for the negligence of the acquired entity. This decision underscores the importance of presenting concrete evidence to establish the terms of a corporate merger or acquisition and its impact on liabilities to third parties, ensuring that liabilities are not automatically transferred without proper documentation and legal basis.

    Merger Mystery: Who Pays for Past Negligence?

    The case revolves around a dispute initiated by Rodolfo Dela Cruz against Panasia Banking, Inc. (Panasia) for unauthorized withdrawals from his account. Dela Cruz later amended his complaint to include Bank of Commerce, alleging it had acquired Panasia and thus assumed its liabilities. The central legal question is whether Bank of Commerce is solidarily liable for Panasia’s negligence, given its claim that it only purchased selected assets and liabilities.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of Dela Cruz, holding both Panasia and Bank of Commerce jointly and severally liable. The RTC reasoned that Bank of Commerce, by taking over Panasia, absorbed all its assets and liabilities. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, emphasizing Bank of Commerce’s failure to formally offer the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Deed of Assignment as evidence, which purportedly defined the scope of the acquired liabilities. The Supreme Court (SC), however, disagreed with the lower courts regarding Bank of Commerce’s liability.

    The SC underscored the importance of formally offering evidence in court proceedings. Citing Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the Court stated that “the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered,” and that “the purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.” This rule ensures that the trial judge bases the findings of facts and the judgment strictly on the evidence presented by the parties. The formal offer allows the judge to understand the purpose of the evidence and enables the opposing parties to examine and object to its admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates appellate review by limiting it to the documents scrutinized by the trial court.

    Despite this procedural requirement, the SC recognized exceptions where a court may consider evidence not formally offered, provided it was duly identified by recorded testimony and incorporated into the case records. However, because the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Deed of Assignment were not properly marked, identified, or presented, the general rule of formal offer should have been applied. Consequently, the exclusion of these documents created a critical evidentiary gap.

    Building on this principle, the SC emphasized that the terms of a merger or acquisition cannot be presumed; they must be proven. In this case, Dela Cruz alleged that Bank of Commerce had assumed Panasia’s liabilities. However, Bank of Commerce specifically denied this, claiming it only acquired selected assets and liabilities. Thus, the burden of proof shifted to Dela Cruz to establish that Bank of Commerce had indeed assumed all of Panasia’s obligations. This principle is crucial, as it prevents the automatic transfer of liabilities without clear evidence of assumption.

    The SC noted the RTC’s error in assuming that Bank of Commerce had taken over all of Panasia’s assets and liabilities. The RTC stated, “Common sense dictates that when Bank of Commerce took over Panasia, it likewise took over its assets but also its liabilities. It cannot say that only selected assets and liabilities were the subject matter of the purchase agreement.” The Supreme Court found this assumption to be without factual or legal basis, and it should have required Dela Cruz to present evidence of the merger, including its specific terms. Merger details, as outlined in the Corporation Code, must be shown, including the plan of merger, its approval by the boards of directors and stockholders, and the issuance of a certificate by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In the absence of such evidence, the courts cannot take judicial notice of the merger’s terms and consequences.

    The Supreme Court cited Latip v. Chua, which provided instances for proper judicial notice:

    Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court declare when the taking of judicial notice is mandatory or discretionary on the courts… A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states… A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.

    Judicial notice requires that the matter be of common and general knowledge, well-settled, and known within the court’s jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the merger of Bank of Commerce and Panasia was not a matter of common knowledge, and thus, the RTC’s assumption was overly presumptuous. The SC reiterated the need for an express provision of law authorizing the merger and the approval of the articles of merger by the SEC. Furthermore, it emphasized that several specific facts must be shown before a merger can be declared as established. These facts include the plan of merger, approval by the boards of directors and stockholders, and the SEC’s issuance of a certificate of merger.

    In this case, the failure to provide evidence of the merger’s terms and conditions, combined with Bank of Commerce’s denial of having assumed all liabilities, meant that the RTC and CA lacked a factual and legal basis to hold Bank of Commerce solidarily liable with Panasia. Consequently, the SC dismissed the amended complaint against Bank of Commerce.

    The implications of this decision are significant for corporate law and litigation. It reinforces the principle that assumptions about corporate mergers and acquisitions are insufficient to establish liability. Parties must provide concrete evidence, such as purchase agreements and merger documents, to demonstrate the extent of liabilities assumed by an acquiring corporation. This ruling serves as a reminder for parties to properly present and offer crucial documents as evidence to substantiate their claims.

    In essence, this case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules regarding the formal offering of evidence. It clarifies that liability cannot be transferred based on assumptions or generalities but must be grounded in concrete evidence of the terms and conditions of a merger or acquisition. Without such evidence, the acquiring corporation cannot be held liable for the prior negligence of the acquired entity.

    The SC ruling is also a reminder of the basic principles of evidence. In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff to establish their claim by a preponderance of evidence. Here, Dela Cruz had the burden of proving that Bank of Commerce assumed Panasia’s liabilities. Since Dela Cruz failed to present sufficient evidence to support this claim, the claim against Bank of Commerce necessarily failed. The legal compensation or set-off, as argued by Dela Cruz, also could not be applied since the liabilities assumed by Bank of Commerce were not proven.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether Bank of Commerce could be held solidarily liable for the negligence of Panasia Banking, Inc., based on an alleged acquisition and assumption of liabilities. The Supreme Court ruled it could not, due to a lack of evidence proving Bank of Commerce assumed all of Panasia’s liabilities.
    Why did the Court focus on the Purchase and Sale Agreement? The Purchase and Sale Agreement was crucial because it would define the extent to which Bank of Commerce assumed Panasia’s assets and liabilities. Without this document being formally offered and admitted as evidence, the Court could not determine the scope of the acquisition.
    What does “solidary liability” mean? Solidary liability means that each debtor is responsible for the entire obligation. In this context, if Bank of Commerce was solidarily liable with Panasia, Dela Cruz could recover the entire amount owed from either bank.
    What is the significance of formally offering evidence? Formally offering evidence is a procedural requirement that ensures the court considers only evidence presented by the parties. This allows the court to base its findings on concrete proof rather than assumptions or unverified claims.
    Can a court take “judicial notice” of a corporate merger? A court can only take judicial notice of facts that are commonly known and beyond reasonable dispute. The Supreme Court held that the merger of Bank of Commerce and Panasia was not a matter of common knowledge, so judicial notice was inappropriate.
    What is the burden of proof in this type of case? The burden of proof lies with the party claiming that a corporation has assumed the liabilities of another. In this case, Dela Cruz had to prove that Bank of Commerce had assumed all of Panasia’s liabilities.
    What happens to Panasia’s liability after this decision? Panasia remains liable for its negligence, as the decision only concerns the liability of Bank of Commerce. Dela Cruz can still pursue a claim against Panasia, though practical recovery may be challenging if Panasia has limited assets.
    What are the implications for future corporate acquisitions? This case highlights the importance of clearly defining the scope of assumed liabilities in corporate acquisition agreements. Parties must ensure that these agreements are formally offered as evidence in any related litigation.

    This case underscores the importance of meticulous legal practice in corporate disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes that assumptions regarding corporate mergers and acquisitions are insufficient to establish liability. Concrete evidence, such as purchase agreements and merger documents, is essential to demonstrate the extent of liabilities assumed by an acquiring corporation.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: BANK OF COMMERCE VS. HEIRS OF RODOLFO DELA CRUZ, G.R. No. 211519, August 14, 2017

  • Dying Declarations and the Limits of Superior Strength: Understanding Homicide Convictions in the Philippines

    In Philippine law, a dying declaration can be crucial evidence in murder or homicide cases, admitted despite being hearsay if the victim made the statement believing death was imminent. This case clarifies how such declarations, alongside the concept of ‘abuse of superior strength,’ are weighed in court. The Supreme Court affirmed the admissibility of the victim’s statement identifying his attackers as a dying declaration and part of the res gestae. However, the Court reduced the conviction from murder to homicide because the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove that the accused purposely used their superior strength to ensure the victim’s death. This ruling highlights the importance of proving intent to exploit superior strength to qualify a killing as murder, impacting how similar cases are prosecuted and defended.

    Stabbed in the Night: Did the Attackers Exploit Superior Strength, or Was It Simply Homicide?

    The case of People v. Geraldo Santillan and Eugene Borromeo (G.R. No. 227878) revolves around the tragic death of Ernesto Garcia, who was attacked and stabbed. Geraldo Santillan and Eugene Borromeo were charged with murder, with the prosecution arguing that they, along with others, conspired to kill Garcia with treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Geraldo and Eugene guilty of murder, a decision that hinged significantly on Ernesto’s dying declaration, where he identified his assailants, and the presence of abuse of superior strength. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court faced two key issues: whether the guilt of Geraldo and Eugene was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was sufficiently established. The prosecution presented Julie Ann Garcia, the victim’s daughter, who testified about her father’s dying declaration. Michael Garcia, Ernesto’s son, recounted seeing his father being chased by Ramil and Geraldo. The defense, on the other hand, presented alibis, with Geraldo claiming he was asleep at the time of the incident and Eugene asserting he was elsewhere. These conflicting accounts framed the central legal debate over the events of that fateful night.

    In analyzing the admissibility of Ernesto’s statement, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles governing dying declarations. A statement is admissible as a dying declaration if it concerns the cause and circumstances of the declarant’s death, if the declarant was conscious of impending death when making the statement, if the declarant would have been competent to testify had they lived, and if the statement is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide where the declarant is the victim. Citing People v. Salafranca, the Court underscored the importance of these requisites. Here, the Court found all the requirements met, as Ernesto identified his attackers while suffering from fatal wounds and knowing that he was about to die.

    Moreover, the Court considered Ernesto’s statement as part of the res gestae. For a statement to be considered part of the res gestae, the principal act must be a startling occurrence, the statements must be made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise, and the statements must concern the occurrence and its immediately attending circumstances. The Court determined that Ernesto’s identification of his attackers met these criteria, as it was made spontaneously in reaction to the startling occurrence of being stabbed.

    However, the Supreme Court diverged from the lower courts’ assessment of abuse of superior strength. The RTC and CA concluded that the assailants’ numerical advantage and possession of weapons demonstrated abuse of superior strength. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the mere presence of multiple attackers does not automatically equate to abuse of superior strength. In People v. Beduya, the Court clarified that abuse of superior strength requires a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and aggressor, where the aggressor deliberately seeks or takes advantage of this superiority. The evidence must show that the assailants purposely sought the advantage or had the deliberate intent to use it.

    The Court found the prosecution’s evidence lacking in demonstrating this deliberate intent. Michael’s testimony only established that Ramil and Geraldo chased Ernesto, with attacks occurring alternately. This did not prove that the attackers purposely sought to exploit a notorious inequality of forces. Furthermore, Ernesto’s dying declaration, while identifying the assailants, did not provide details on how the attack transpired or indicate any deliberate design to utilize superior strength. The Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of such evidence necessitates a downgrading of the offense from murder to homicide.

    Because the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was not proven, the Court convicted the accused-appellants of homicide, which is punishable by reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced Geraldo and Eugene to an indeterminate term, with a minimum of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, to a maximum of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal.

    In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the Court also adjusted the awards of damages. The civil indemnity and moral damages were reduced to P50,000.00 each, reflecting current standards for such awards in homicide cases. This adjustment aligns with the principles of providing just compensation to the victim’s heirs while adhering to established legal precedents.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that the accused exploited abuse of superior strength to qualify the killing of the victim as murder, rather than homicide. The Supreme Court determined that the evidence was insufficient to establish this qualifying circumstance.
    What is a dying declaration and why is it important in this case? A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who believes their death is imminent, concerning the cause and circumstances of their impending death. It is important because, despite being hearsay, it is admissible as evidence, providing crucial testimony from the victim.
    What are the requirements for a statement to be considered a dying declaration? The requirements are: the declaration must concern the cause and circumstances of the declarant’s death; the declarant must be under a consciousness of impending death; the declarant must be competent as a witness; and the declaration must be offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide.
    What does “abuse of superior strength” mean in the context of murder? Abuse of superior strength means that the assailants purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked, exploiting a notorious inequality of forces. It must be proven that the attackers deliberately sought or took advantage of this superiority.
    Why did the Supreme Court downgrade the conviction from murder to homicide? The Supreme Court downgraded the conviction because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused purposely exploited their superior strength to ensure the victim’s death. The mere presence of multiple attackers or weapons was not sufficient to establish this.
    What is the difference between murder and homicide in the Philippines? Homicide is the unlawful killing of another person without any qualifying circumstances, while murder is homicide qualified by circumstances such as treachery, evident premeditation, or abuse of superior strength, which elevate the crime’s severity and punishment.
    What was the penalty imposed by the Supreme Court in this case? The Supreme Court sentenced the accused to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for the crime of homicide. They were also ordered to pay damages to the victim’s heirs.
    How did the Supreme Court modify the award of damages? The Supreme Court reduced the awards of civil indemnity to P50,000.00 and moral damages to P50,000.00, aligning the amounts with prevailing jurisprudence on damages in homicide cases.

    This case underscores the importance of thoroughly establishing all elements of a crime, including qualifying circumstances like abuse of superior strength, to secure a conviction for murder. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that the prosecution must present concrete evidence demonstrating a deliberate intent to exploit superior strength, rather than relying solely on the presence of multiple attackers or weapons. This ruling reinforces the need for meticulous investigation and presentation of evidence in criminal cases.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People v. Santillan, G.R. No. 227878, August 09, 2017

  • Waiving Rights in Court: Understanding Due Process and Implied Waiver in Philippine Litigation

    In the Philippine legal system, due process is a cornerstone, ensuring fairness and justice for all. A crucial aspect of this is the right to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence. However, these rights are not absolute; they can be waived, either explicitly or implicitly. The Supreme Court in Dy Teban Trading, Inc. v. Peter C. Dy, Johnny C. Dy and Ramon C. Dy clarified that failing to exercise these rights after being given ample opportunity constitutes a waiver, even if unintentional. This decision underscores the importance of diligence and responsiveness from litigants and their counsel in pursuing their cases.

    When Delays Lead to Default: Examining Waiver of Rights in Intra-Corporate Disputes

    The case of Dy Teban Trading, Inc. (DTTI) v. Peter C. Dy, Johnny C. Dy, and Ramon C. Dy revolves around a dispute among siblings who own DTTI, a closed corporation. DTTI filed an action for injunction against the respondents, alleging mismanagement and unauthorized occupation of the company’s branch. The respondents, in turn, filed for dissolution of the corporation. The central legal question was whether the respondents waived their rights to cross-examine a key witness and present their evidence due to repeated absences and requests for postponements during trial.

    The factual backdrop of the case is essential to understanding the Court’s ruling. DTTI alleged that Johnny C. Dy, an employee, misused company funds, leading DTTI to close its Montilla branch. The respondents then allegedly forcibly reopened the branch. During the trial, several postponements occurred, primarily due to the respondents’ counsel’s unavailability. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) warned the respondents that failure to proceed with cross-examination would result in a waiver of their right. Despite multiple opportunities, the respondents’ counsel repeatedly failed to appear, leading the RTC to declare that they had waived their right to cross-examine the witness and eventually, to present their own evidence.

    The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision, holding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the CA, reinstating the RTC’s orders. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of due process but also highlighted that rights could be waived through conduct. The Court examined whether the respondents had been given sufficient opportunities to exercise their rights and whether their failure to do so was attributable to their own negligence or dilatory tactics.

    The Supreme Court analyzed the nature of the right to cross-examination, referencing the case of Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino, where it was stated:

    The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process. However, the right is a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-examination.

    The Court noted that while due process is a fundamental right, it can be waived, either expressly or impliedly. An implied waiver occurs when a party is given the opportunity to exercise a right but fails to do so. The Court found that the respondents had been granted numerous opportunities to cross-examine the witness but failed to take advantage of them. The postponements were often sought due to the unavailability of their counsel, but the Court found these reasons unpersuasive, especially considering prior warnings from the RTC.

    The Court also examined the RTC’s decision to declare a waiver of the right to present evidence. Citing Reyes v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court reiterated that the postponement of trial is discretionary but must be exercised judiciously, considering the circumstances and the pursuit of substantial justice:

    [T]he postponement of the trial of a case to allow the presentation of evidence of a party is a matter which lies in the discretion of the trial court, but it is a discretion which must be exercised wisely, considering the peculiar circumstances obtaining in each case and with a view to doing substantial justice.

    The Court emphasized that while speedy disposition of cases is important, it should not override the interests of justice. However, courts must also be wary of attempts to delay trial and must not allow proceedings to be held hostage by the negligence or dilatory tactics of parties and their lawyers. In this case, the Court found that the respondents had been given ample opportunity to present their evidence but failed to do so, justifying the RTC’s declaration of waiver.

    Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of whether the action filed before the RTC was properly considered an intra-corporate case. The Court applied the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test to determine whether the dispute was indeed intra-corporate. Under the relationship test, a dispute is intra-corporate if it is between the corporation and its stockholders, partners, members, or officers. The nature of the controversy test requires that the dispute be intrinsically connected with the regulation of the corporation. The Court, referencing Strategic Alliance Development Corporation v. Star Infrastructure Development Corporation, explained that the controversy must not only be rooted in the existence of an intra-corporate relationship but must also refer to the enforcement of the parties’ correlative rights and obligations under the Corporation Code.

    In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the CA that the complaint filed by DTTI was a civil action for injunction and not an intra-corporate dispute. The complaint did not allege that the respondents were stockholders or that they acted in their capacity as stockholders. Instead, the complaint focused on the respondents’ alleged illegal possession of the branch store. The Court also clarified that although the RTC was designated as a commercial court, it retained general jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases, citing Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc. (formerly S.J. Land, Inc.), where it was held that the designation of Special Commercial Courts was merely intended to expedite the resolution of commercial cases.

    This decision highlights the importance of diligence and adherence to court procedures. Lawyers must respect court orders and take the necessary steps to ensure their availability for hearings. The Supreme Court underscored that counsel’s negligence binds the client, and repeated failure to attend hearings without justifiable reasons can lead to a waiver of important rights. Litigants must be proactive in pursuing their cases and cannot rely on the assumption that the court or opposing counsel will accommodate their requests for postponements.

    FAQs

    What was the main issue in this case? The main issue was whether the respondents waived their rights to cross-examine a witness and present evidence due to repeated absences and requests for postponements during trial.
    What is an implied waiver? An implied waiver occurs when a party is given the opportunity to exercise a right but fails to do so, leading the court to conclude that the right has been relinquished through conduct.
    What is the relationship test in intra-corporate disputes? The relationship test determines if a dispute is intra-corporate by examining the relationship between the parties, such as between the corporation and its stockholders, officers, or directors.
    What is the nature of the controversy test? The nature of the controversy test requires that the dispute be intrinsically connected with the regulation of the corporation, such as issues involving the enforcement of rights and obligations under the Corporation Code.
    What is the duty of a lawyer when faced with conflicting hearing schedules? A lawyer facing conflicting hearing schedules must inform the client and allow them to retain another attorney, or if the client still retains the lawyer, the client assumes the risk if a postponement is denied.
    Can a court deny a motion for postponement? Yes, the grant of a motion for postponement is discretionary and not a matter of right. Parties must be prepared to proceed with the hearing even if a motion for postponement has been filed.
    What happens if a party fails to cross-examine a witness after multiple opportunities? If a party fails to cross-examine a witness after multiple opportunities, the court may declare that the party has waived their right to cross-examine, and the witness’s direct testimony will remain on record.
    What are the implications of counsel’s negligence in court proceedings? Counsel’s negligence binds the client. If a lawyer’s actions or inactions lead to a waiver of rights, the client must bear the consequences.

    The Dy Teban Trading, Inc. v. Peter C. Dy, Johnny C. Dy and Ramon C. Dy case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of diligence and responsiveness in legal proceedings. It illustrates that the right to due process, while fundamental, is not absolute and can be waived through conduct. This decision reinforces the principle that parties must actively pursue their cases and adhere to court procedures to ensure their rights are protected.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Dy Teban Trading, Inc. v. Dy, G.R. No. 185647, July 26, 2017

  • Burden of Proof: When Association Doesn’t Equal Conspiracy

    In People v. Jesalva, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision, acquitting Roberto Esperanza Jesalva due to reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that mere presence at a crime scene or association with perpetrators is insufficient to prove conspiracy. This ruling reinforces the principle that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, based on concrete evidence, rather than inferences or presumptions.

    From Stare to Suspicion: Did Pointing a Finger Make Him a Murderer?

    Arnel Ortigosa was fatally stabbed, and Roberto Jesalva, present at the scene, was convicted of murder based on conspiracy. The prosecution argued Jesalva conspired with the actual stabber, Ryan Menieva, and another individual, Junie Ilaw, due to his presence, a prior staring incident, and pointing at the victim during the attack. However, the Supreme Court meticulously examined the evidence, finding it insufficient to prove Jesalva’s involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The core of the legal challenge revolved around establishing whether Jesalva’s actions constituted conspiracy. Conspiracy, in legal terms, requires more than just knowledge or presence; it demands a deliberate agreement to commit a crime. The Court referenced Quidet v. People, stating, “Conspiracy is said to exist where two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

    The prosecution’s case hinged on the sequence of events: Jesalva initially stared at Ortigosa, then disappeared only to reappear with Menieva and Ilaw. During the stabbing, while Menieva attacked Ortigosa and Ilaw brandished a weapon, Jesalva pointed at Ortigosa and his companions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that these coordinated movements established conspiracy. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, scrutinizing each action for definitive proof of a prior agreement.

    The Court found the prosecution’s argument that Jesalva’s initial disappearance suggested he sought help from Menieva and Ilaw to be speculative. There was no concrete evidence linking Jesalva to a pre-existing plan or motive. Referencing People v. Tividad, the court emphasized that conspiracy requires conclusive proof:

    As a facile device by which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold, conspiracy requires conclusive proof if we are to maintain in full strength the substance of the time-honored principle of criminal law requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt before conviction.

    This underscored the high standard of evidence needed to prove conspiracy.

    Furthermore, the Court addressed Jesalva’s act of pointing at the victim during the stabbing. It stated that mere knowledge or approval of the act, without cooperation and agreement to cooperate, is insufficient to establish conspiracy. Citing People v. Mandao, the court noted, “Even if the accused were present and agreed to cooperate with the main perpetrators of the crime, their mere presence does not make them parties to it, absent any active participation in the furtherance of the common design or purpose.” The Court’s analysis highlights the critical distinction between being present at a crime scene and actively participating in the commission of a crime.

    In essence, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Jesalva underscores the necessity of proving conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt through concrete evidence, rather than circumstantial inferences. The Court’s emphasis on individual accountability ensures that individuals are not unjustly convicted based on mere association or presence at a crime scene. The ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of upholding the principles of justice and fairness in the Philippine legal system.

    The implications of this case extend beyond the acquittal of Roberto Jesalva. It reaffirms the fundamental principles of criminal law concerning conspiracy and the burden of proof. The ruling serves as a safeguard against convictions based on speculation or association, emphasizing that the prosecution must present solid evidence to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision reinforces the judiciary’s role in protecting individual liberties and ensuring fair trials for all.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Roberto Jesalva conspired with others to commit murder. The Supreme Court found the evidence lacking, emphasizing that mere presence or association is insufficient to establish conspiracy.
    What is the legal definition of conspiracy? Conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it, requiring unity of action and purpose. The elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    What evidence did the prosecution present to prove conspiracy? The prosecution presented evidence that Jesalva stared at the victim, disappeared and reappeared with the assailants, and pointed at the victim during the stabbing. The lower courts considered these actions as coordinated movements indicating a common design.
    Why did the Supreme Court acquit Roberto Jesalva? The Supreme Court acquitted Jesalva because the prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence proving he had a prior agreement with the assailants to commit murder. The Court deemed his actions as insufficient to establish conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
    What does “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” mean? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires that the evidence presented by the prosecution is so compelling that there is no logical explanation other than the defendant committed the crime. It does not mean absolute certainty, but it necessitates moral certainty.
    Can someone be convicted of a crime based on mere presence at the scene? No, mere presence at a crime scene is not sufficient for a conviction. The prosecution must prove that the person actively participated in the crime or had a prior agreement with the perpetrators.
    What is the significance of the People v. Jesalva ruling? The ruling reinforces the principle that convictions must be based on concrete evidence rather than speculation or association. It highlights the importance of upholding individual liberties and ensuring fair trials.
    How does this case affect future conspiracy cases? This case serves as a reminder for courts to scrutinize evidence carefully in conspiracy cases and to ensure that the prosecution meets the high burden of proof. It emphasizes the need for concrete evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime.

    In conclusion, People v. Jesalva stands as a testament to the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness. This ruling underscores the importance of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and safeguards against convictions based on mere suspicion or association.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People v. Jesalva, G.R. No. 227306, June 19, 2017

  • Land Ownership Disputes: Proving Identity and Title in Reconveyance Cases

    In Heirs of Teresita Villanueva vs. Heirs of Petronila Syquia Mendoza, the Supreme Court emphasized the critical importance of proving the identity and title of land in reconveyance cases. The Court ruled that the heirs of Syquia failed to sufficiently establish their claim to the disputed property because they could not definitively prove that the land they sought to recover matched the property covered by the defendant’s title. This decision underscores the necessity for plaintiffs to present clear and convincing evidence of ownership and accurate land identification in property disputes, ensuring fairness and preventing baseless claims.

    Lost in Translation: When Tax Declarations Don’t Match Land Titles

    This case originated from a dispute over a piece of land in Tamag, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, between the heirs of Petronila Syquia Mendoza and the heirs of Teresita Villanueva. The Syquia heirs filed a complaint seeking the nullification of a free patent obtained by Villanueva, along with the reconveyance of the land and damages. They claimed co-ownership of Lot No. 5667, asserting that their title stemmed from their predecessors-in-interest through a partition in 1950, and that they had been in continuous possession for over 30 years. However, Villanueva had the property surveyed and subdivided in 1992, and in 1994, she secured a Free Patent over Lot No. 5667-B, leading to the issuance of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-38444.

    The Syquia heirs argued that Villanueva fraudulently obtained the free patent because she had no rightful claim to Lot No. 5667-B. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the complaint, citing the plaintiffs’ failure to prove their case with preponderant evidence or due to laches. This decision was initially affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA later reversed itself upon reconsideration, ruling in favor of the Syquia heirs. Consequently, the Villanueva heirs elevated the case to the Supreme Court, questioning whether the Syquia heirs were indeed entitled to recover the property.

    The Supreme Court, in its analysis, reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and that its role is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. However, the Court recognized an exception in this case because the CA’s amended judgment was based on a misapprehension of facts. Citing Article 434 of the Civil Code, the Court emphasized that to successfully recover ownership of real property, the claimant must prove both the identity of the land and their title to it.

    Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.

    The Court scrutinized the evidence presented by the Syquia heirs, pointing out significant discrepancies in the land’s description. While the complaint identified the land as Lot No. 5667, the supporting Tax Declaration No. 39-013194-A cited a different area. Lot No. 5667 was documented as 9,483 square meters, whereas the tax declaration indicated only 5,931 square meters for the riceland. Furthermore, the property covered by Villanueva’s free patent, Lot No. 5667-B, was only 4,497 square meters. This raised critical questions about what property the Syquia heirs were actually seeking to recover.

    The discrepancies extended to the boundaries of the property as well. Lot No. 5667 had specific boundaries: Lot No. 5663 to the North, Lot No. 5666 to the South, Quirino Boulevard to the East, and Lot No. 6167 to the West. Lot No. 5667-B shared the same boundaries, except on the South, which was identified as Lot No. 5667-A. In contrast, the tax declaration listed different boundaries: Maria Angco to the North, Heirs of Esperanza Florentino to the South, Provincial Road to the East, and Colun Americano to the West. The Syquia heirs failed to provide evidence linking these different descriptions.

    The CA attempted to reconcile these discrepancies by suggesting that the subdivision of Lot No. 5667 into two lots could explain the mismatch between the tax declaration and the free patent. However, the Supreme Court noted that the CA failed to establish that the boundaries and area in the tax declaration ever matched those of Lot No. 5667 or Lot No. 5667-B before the subdivision. This lack of conclusive evidence undermined the Syquia heirs’ claim.

    Moreover, the Court addressed the CA’s reliance on documents such as B.L. Form No. V-37, the Sketch Plan, and the Relocation Plan of Lot No. 5667. While the CA believed these documents adequately established the land’s metes and bounds, the Supreme Court questioned how the appellate court arrived at this conclusion, especially considering the differing boundaries and lot areas. Even the Final Project of Partition, which mentioned the boundaries in the tax declaration, did not bridge the gap in proving the land’s identity.

    The Supreme Court also addressed the argument that changes in boundary owners and metes over time could account for the discrepancies. The CA posited that between the issuance of the tax declaration in 1949 and the approval of the Cadastral Survey in 1981, changes could have occurred. While acknowledging the possibility, the Court emphasized that this remained hypothetical without concrete evidence. The Syquia heirs failed to provide actual proof that such changes had indeed occurred.

    In light of these evidentiary gaps, the Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental principle that the burden of proof lies with the party alleging a fact. Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court places the duty on a party to prove the truth of their claim with the amount of evidence required by law. In civil cases, this means establishing the case by a preponderance of evidence, which is evidence of greater weight or more convincing force than that offered in opposition.

    The Court observed that the Syquia heirs presented only tax declarations covering an unirrigated riceland and failed to provide any other evidence of ownership or possession of the disputed lot. They could not demonstrate that they had exercised dominion over the property or that they had been in actual possession since inheriting it in 1992. Furthermore, the evidence revealed that houses had been constructed on the lot and that third parties were occupying the property, despite the presence of a supposed caretaker.

    The Supreme Court highlighted that tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership when unsupported by other evidence. While they may indicate a claim of ownership, they do not, in themselves, establish a right to the land. The Court emphasized that findings of fact made by a trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect and should not be ignored unless there is a clear disregard of the evidence.

    Moreover, the Court deferred to the RTC’s evaluation of witness testimony, recognizing the trial court’s unique position to observe the demeanor of witnesses and assess their credibility. In this case, the RTC found no abuse of discretion on the part of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in issuing the free patent to Villanueva. Villanueva had submitted a Waiver of Right from the former owner, and the DENR’s investigation revealed no other claimants at the time of Villanueva’s application.

    The Court concluded by stating that even if Villanueva’s evidence supporting her title were weak, the Syquia heirs could not capitalize on it. In an action to recover, the plaintiff must rely on the strength of their own title, not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim. Because the Syquia heirs failed to adequately prove their claim with a preponderance of evidence, the Supreme Court reversed the CA’s amended decision and reinstated the RTC’s original decision, thereby upholding Villanueva’s title to the disputed property.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the heirs of Syquia presented sufficient evidence to prove their ownership and the identity of the land they sought to recover from the heirs of Villanueva. The Court focused on whether the Syquia heirs adequately demonstrated that the land described in their documents matched the property in dispute.
    What is required to successfully recover ownership of real property? Article 434 of the Civil Code states that a person claiming a better right to a real property must prove the identity of the land claimed and their title to the same. This means clearly identifying the property through accurate descriptions and providing evidence of ownership, such as titles, deeds, or other relevant documents.
    Why were the tax declarations insufficient to prove ownership in this case? Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership, and when not supported by other evidence, they are insufficient to establish a right to the land. In this case, the tax declarations contained discrepancies and were not accompanied by other corroborating evidence.
    What role does the burden of proof play in civil cases? In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, who must establish their case by a preponderance of evidence. This means providing evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition. If the plaintiff fails to meet this burden, their claim will not succeed.
    How did discrepancies in land descriptions affect the Syquia heirs’ claim? The discrepancies between the area and boundaries described in the complaint, tax declarations, and other documents created serious doubts about the identity of the land the Syquia heirs were seeking to recover. These inconsistencies weakened their claim because they could not definitively prove that the disputed property was indeed theirs.
    Why did the Supreme Court defer to the trial court’s findings of fact? The Supreme Court generally defers to the trial court’s findings of fact because the trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and assess the weight of the evidence presented. Unless there is a clear disregard of the evidence or an abuse of discretion, the appellate court will uphold the trial court’s findings.
    What is the significance of a free patent in land ownership disputes? A free patent is a government grant of public land to a qualified applicant, which, once registered, becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible. In this case, the free patent issued to Villanueva gave her a strong claim to the property, and the Syquia heirs needed to present compelling evidence to overcome this title.
    Can prior possession alone guarantee success in land reconveyance cases? No. While prior possession is relevant, it must be coupled with clear evidence of ownership and accurate land identification to succeed in a reconveyance case. The quality and nature of possession, along with its duration, must align with the claims being made regarding ownership.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of meticulous record-keeping and accurate land descriptions in property disputes. Claimants must be prepared to present clear and convincing evidence to support their claims of ownership and to definitively identify the land they seek to recover. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of their case, regardless of the perceived weaknesses in the opposing party’s claim.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: HEIRS OF TERESITA VILLANUEVA VS. HEIRS OF PETRONILA SYQUIA MENDOZA, G.R. No. 209132, June 05, 2017

  • Upholding Contractual Obligations: The Importance of Proving Forgery in Suretyship Agreements

    The Supreme Court ruled that forgery must be proven with clear and convincing evidence, reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstating the trial court’s ruling. This case underscores the importance of upholding the validity of notarized documents unless compelling evidence of forgery is presented. This decision reinforces the reliability of contractual agreements and the necessity for parties alleging forgery to substantiate their claims with substantial proof.

    When a Signature’s Authenticity is Questioned: Who Bears the Burden of Proof?

    This case revolves around a loan obtained by Shangrila Realty Corporation from Philippine Trust Company (Philtrust Bank), secured by a Continuing Suretyship Agreement signed by Redentor R. Gabinete and Elisa T. Tan. When Shangrila defaulted on the loan, Philtrust sought to recover the outstanding debt from the sureties. Gabinete, however, contested the validity of his signature on the suretyship agreement, claiming it was a forgery. The central legal question is whether Gabinete successfully proved the forgery, thereby absolving him from liability as a surety.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of Philtrust, ordering Shangrila, Tan, and Gabinete to jointly and severally pay the outstanding amount. The RTC found that Gabinete failed to present sufficient evidence to prove his signature was forged. Conversely, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, giving weight to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) document examiner’s findings and concluding that the signature was indeed forged. This divergence in findings led Philtrust to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that its role is generally limited to questions of law, and it typically defers to the factual findings of the lower courts. However, the Court recognized an exception in this case due to the conflicting findings between the RTC and the CA, necessitating a re-examination of the evidence presented. The Court referenced the principle established in Cheesman v. Intermediate Appellate Court, distinguishing between questions of law and questions of fact. A question of law arises when there is doubt about what the law is on a certain set of facts, whereas a question of fact arises when there is doubt about the truth or falsehood of alleged facts.

    Building on this principle, the Supreme Court highlighted the exceptions to the general rule of non-interference with factual findings. These exceptions, outlined in Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr., include instances where the conclusion is based on speculation, the inference is manifestly mistaken, or the findings of fact are contradictory. The Court found that the conflicting findings in this case warranted a closer examination of the evidence to determine whether fraud, in the form of forgery, was sufficiently proven.

    The Court then examined the CA’s reasoning for reversing the RTC’s decision. The CA relied heavily on the NBI document examiner’s findings and argued that the RTC should have conducted its own independent examination of the signatures. However, the Supreme Court noted that the RTC judge did exercise independent judgment, thoroughly analyzing the evidence and concluding that forgery was not proven. The Supreme Court cited Mendoza v. Fermin, emphasizing that a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimony of handwriting experts. Judges must exercise independent judgment and cannot rely solely on expert opinions.

    This approach contrasts with the CA’s reliance on dissimilarities between the questioned signature and sample signatures without adequately considering the context and circumstances. Moreover, the Supreme Court pointed out critical flaws in the NBI’s examination. The standard signatures used for comparison did not include Gabinete’s shortened signature, which he admitted to using in some transactions. Additionally, the documents submitted to the NBI did not correspond to the year the Continuing Suretyship Agreement was executed, failing to account for potential variations in handwriting over time.

    The Court then turned to the legal principle that forgery cannot be presumed; it must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. The burden of proof rests on the party alleging forgery. The Court emphasized that Gabinete failed to meet this burden, presenting insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity accorded to the notarized Continuing Suretyship Agreement. This agreement, being a public document, carries a presumption of authenticity and due execution, requiring more than a mere preponderance of evidence to overturn.

    Furthermore, the Court highlighted the testimony of the notary public, who confirmed that Gabinete signed the Continuing Suretyship Agreement in her presence. The Court cited Libres, et al. v. Spouses Delos Santos, et al., stating that a handwriting expert’s opinion cannot override the categorical declaration of notaries public regarding the signing of a document in their presence. The testimony of attesting witnesses holds significant weight and should prevail over expert opinions that are subject to inherent limitations.

    In light of these considerations, the Supreme Court concluded that the CA erred in finding forgery. Gabinete failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity of the notarized Continuing Suretyship Agreement and the testimony of the notary public. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the CA’s decision and reinstated the RTC’s ruling, holding Gabinete jointly and severally liable for the outstanding debt.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether Redentor R. Gabinete’s signature on a Continuing Suretyship Agreement was a forgery, absolving him from liability as a surety for a loan obtained by Shangrila Realty Corporation.
    What did the Court of Appeals rule? The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Gabinete, finding that his signature was forged based on the findings of an NBI document examiner.
    What did the Supreme Court rule? The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that forgery was not proven by clear and convincing evidence and reinstating the trial court’s decision against Gabinete.
    What is the burden of proof for alleging forgery? The party alleging forgery has the burden to prove it with clear, positive, and convincing evidence, demonstrating that the signature is not genuine.
    What is the significance of a notarized document? A notarized document carries a presumption of regularity and authenticity, requiring more than a mere preponderance of evidence to overturn its validity.
    Can a handwriting expert’s opinion override the testimony of a notary public? No, the testimony of a notary public who witnessed the signing of a document generally prevails over a handwriting expert’s opinion, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary.
    What is a Continuing Suretyship Agreement? A Continuing Suretyship Agreement is a contract where a surety guarantees the payment of a borrower’s debts, making the surety jointly and severally liable with the borrower.
    What was the impact of the NBI document examiner’s report on the Supreme Court’s decision? The Supreme Court found the NBI document examiner’s report to be flawed because it did not use the correct sample signatures.

    This case serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for proving forgery and the importance of upholding the integrity of notarized documents. It reinforces the principle that contractual obligations should be honored unless compelling evidence demonstrates fraud or illegality. This decision provides valuable guidance for parties involved in suretyship agreements and highlights the critical role of evidence in resolving disputes over the authenticity of signatures.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY vs. REDENTOR R. GABINETE, G.R. No. 216120, March 29, 2017

  • Upholding the Validity of a Sale: When Allegations of Forgery Fall Short

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, underscoring the importance of providing clear and convincing evidence when alleging forgery in property disputes. The ruling emphasizes that mere discrepancies in signatures or alterations in documents are insufficient to overturn the presumption of regularity afforded to public documents like a Special Power of Attorney and a Deed of Sale. This decision reinforces the principle that those challenging the authenticity of legal documents bear the burden of proof.

    Disputed Signatures and Property Rights: Can Tolerance Trump a Valid Sale?

    This case revolves around a property dispute in Quezon City, where Spouses Dennis and Melody Orsolino contested the sale of a property they occupied to Violeta Frany. The Orsolinos, who resided on the land based on rights derived from Dennis’s mother, Carolina Orsolino, claimed they were unaware of the sale, alleging forgery in the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and Deed of Sale used to transfer the property to Frany. The central legal question is whether the evidence presented by the Orsolinos sufficiently proved forgery and invalidated the sale, thereby protecting their right to possess the property.

    The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) initially sided with Spouses Frany, finding the sale valid and ordering the Orsolinos to vacate the premises. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), however, reversed this decision, citing irregularities and alterations in the SPA and Deed of Sale that cast doubt on their authenticity. The Court of Appeals (CA) then overturned the RTC ruling, reinstating the MeTC’s judgment and upholding the validity of the sale. The CA emphasized that the Orsolinos failed to provide sufficient evidence of forgery and that the documents, being notarized, carried a presumption of regularity.

    The Supreme Court, in its analysis, addressed the core issue of whether the authenticity and due execution of the SPA and Deed of Absolute Sale were sufficiently established. The Court reiterated that allegations of forgery must be proven with clear, positive, and convincing evidence. As the Court explained,

    Basic is the rule that forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence, thus, the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. One who alleges forgery has the burden to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.

    The Court found that the evidence presented by the Orsolinos, such as the Panunumpa sa Katungkulan, Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN), and Performance Appraisal Report of Carolina, was insufficient to prove forgery. These documents, intended to demonstrate discrepancies in Carolina’s signature, lacked a proper comparison and expert testimony. Moreover, the Court emphasized the importance of examining signatures before the court, as stipulated in Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court:

    Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.

    The Court also addressed the issue of alterations and erasures in the SPA and Deed of Sale. It noted that these irregularities did not invalidate the documents because they did not change the intended meaning or details agreed upon by Carolina. The Court highlighted the CA’s observation that the alterations in the date and place of execution were explained by the timing of payments for the property. The initial signing occurred before full payment, with notarization following the completion of the transaction.

    The Court then tackled the RTC’s finding that the sale was void because the property was conjugal. It clarified that Article 160 of the Civil Code, which presumes that property acquired during marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership, requires proof of acquisition during the marriage. As the Court noted,

    Article 160 of the Civil Code provides that all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. However, the presumption under said article applies only when there is proof that the property was acquired during the marriage. Proof of acquisition during the marriage is an essential condition for the operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership.

    Since the Orsolinos failed to present evidence establishing that Carolina acquired the property during her marriage, the presumption under Article 160 could not be applied. Consequently, the Court concluded that the RTC’s finding lacked factual basis. The spouses also did not present any evidence to support their claim of their right to possess the subject property.

    Furthermore, the Court dismissed the Orsolinos’ claims regarding the lack of a demand letter and prior conciliation proceedings before the barangay. The evidence showed that Spouses Frany attempted to deliver the demand letter, but the Orsolinos refused to receive it. The Court concluded that, based on the evidence, Spouses Frany complied with all procedural requirements prior to filing the complaint for ejectment.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the legal principle that public documents, such as notarized SPAs and Deeds of Sale, enjoy a presumption of regularity. This presumption can only be overturned by clear and convincing evidence of forgery or fraud. Parties alleging forgery must present concrete proof, such as expert testimony or comparative analysis of signatures, to substantiate their claims. Mere allegations or unsubstantiated claims are insufficient to invalidate these documents.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the Spouses Orsolino successfully proved that the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and Deed of Sale were forged, thereby invalidating the sale of the property to Spouses Frany. The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented by the Orsolinos was insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity afforded to public documents.
    What is the significance of a notarized document? A notarized document carries a presumption of regularity and authenticity. This means that the court assumes the document was validly executed unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
    What kind of evidence is needed to prove forgery? To prove forgery, one must present clear, positive, and convincing evidence. This can include expert testimony comparing the questioned signature with authentic signatures, or other evidence demonstrating that the signature was not genuine.
    What is the effect of alterations or erasures on a document? Alterations or erasures do not automatically invalidate a document. The party alleging invalidity must show that the alterations changed the meaning of the document or that the details differed from those originally intended.
    What is the presumption of conjugal property under the Civil Code? Article 160 of the Civil Code presumes that all property acquired during marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership. However, this presumption only applies if there is proof that the property was acquired during the marriage.
    What is the burden of proof in a case of alleged forgery? The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. They must establish their case by a preponderance of evidence, meaning they must show that it is more likely than not that the document was indeed forged.
    What happens if a party refuses to receive a demand letter? If a party refuses to receive a demand letter, the act of attempting to deliver it may be considered sufficient notice. The sender must prove that they made a reasonable attempt to deliver the letter, even if it was ultimately refused.
    Why was the case elevated to the Supreme Court? The case was elevated to the Supreme Court due to the conflicting decisions of the lower courts. The Metropolitan Trial Court and Court of Appeals had differing rulings, necessitating a final determination by the Supreme Court.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Spouses Dennis Orsolino and Melody Orsolino vs. Violeta Frany reinforces the legal standards for proving forgery and upholding the validity of notarized documents. This ruling serves as a reminder that unsubstantiated allegations and mere discrepancies are insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity afforded to public documents, and it is the responsibility of the challenger to present compelling evidence.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: SPOUSES DENNIS ORSOLINO AND MELODY ORSOLINO, VS. VIOLETA FRANY, G.R. No. 193887, March 29, 2017