ASG Law

Tag: Public Document

  • Legally Binding Family Agreements: Understanding Extrajudicial Settlements and Inheritance in the Philippines

    The Power of Paperwork: Why Extrajudicial Settlements Hold Weight in Philippine Inheritance Law

    TLDR: This case clarifies that extrajudicial settlements, when properly executed as public documents, are presumed valid in the Philippines. Family agreements on inheritance, even if imperfect, become legally binding if unchallenged within prescribed periods, emphasizing the importance of formalizing and acting promptly on estate matters.

    G.R. No. 109963, October 13, 1999

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a family gathering turns sour, not over politics, but over property – land passed down through generations, now a source of conflict. In the Philippines, where land is deeply tied to family history and security, inheritance disputes are common. The case of Heirs of Joaquin Teves v. Court of Appeals highlights a critical aspect of Philippine inheritance law: the extrajudicial settlement. This case delves into the legal weight of agreements made outside of court to divide inherited property, and the consequences of delaying legal challenges to these family arrangements. At its heart, the dispute revolves around two parcels of land in Negros Oriental and whether agreements made decades prior by some heirs of Joaquin Teves and Marcelina Cimafranca to settle their parents’ estate were valid and binding on all their descendants. The central legal question is whether these ‘extrajudicial settlements’ could be overturned decades later, or if the passage of time and the form of these agreements solidified their legality.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENTS, PRESCRIPTION, AND LACHES

    Philippine law, under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, allows heirs to divide an estate amongst themselves without going to court if certain conditions are met. This is known as an extrajudicial settlement. Crucially, for such a settlement to be valid, the following must be true:

    1. The deceased must have left no will.
    2. There must be no outstanding debts of the estate, or if there are, they must have been paid.
    3. All heirs must be of legal age, or if minors, properly represented.
    4. The settlement must be executed via a public instrument, typically a notarized document, and filed with the Register of Deeds.

    This formal requirement of a ‘public instrument’ is vital. A public instrument, acknowledged before a notary public, carries a presumption of regularity and authenticity. As the Supreme Court has consistently held, these documents are considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated within them. Overturning a public document requires more than just claiming forgery or fraud; it demands ‘clear, strong, and convincing evidence’ to the contrary.

    Beyond the formalities of the settlement itself, the concepts of prescription and laches play pivotal roles in inheritance disputes. Prescription refers to the legal principle that rights are lost if not exercised within a specific timeframe. For actions seeking to annul a partition due to fraud, the prescriptive period is generally four years from the discovery of the fraud. For actions seeking reconveyance of property based on an implied trust (where someone holds title for another), the period is ten years from the registration of the deed or issuance of the title.

    Laches, on the other hand, is equitable estoppel by delay. It essentially means that even if a legal prescriptive period hasn’t technically expired, a court can still bar a claim if the claimant has unreasonably delayed asserting their rights, causing prejudice to the opposing party. It’s about fairness and preventing stale claims from disrupting settled situations. The Supreme Court has defined laches as “negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.”

    CASE BREAKDOWN: TEVES HEIRS AND THE DECADES-LONG DELAY

    The Teves case unfolded as a complaint for partition and reconveyance filed in 1984 by some heirs of Joaquin Teves and Marcelina Cimafranca against the heirs of their sister, Asuncion It-it. Decades prior, Joaquin and Marcelina had passed away intestate, leaving behind land. In 1956 and 1959, some of their children executed ‘extrajudicial settlements’ and ‘sales’ documents, seemingly transferring shares of two land parcels (Lots 769-A and 6409) to their sister Asuncion.

    Decades later, some of Joaquin and Marcelina’s grandchildren and other heirs challenged these settlements, claiming forgery, fraud, and lack of consideration. They argued that some signatures on the old documents were not genuine, and that Maria Teves, one of the signatories, claimed she was in Mindanao, not Dumaguete, when she supposedly signed. They also questioned the nominal consideration in one deed (One Peso, later seemingly altered to One Hundred Pesos). The Teves heirs sought to partition the land, asserting their rightful shares as descendants of Joaquin and Marcelina.

    The case journeyed through the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA). The RTC sided with Asuncion’s heirs, upholding the validity of the extrajudicial settlements. The court emphasized the public nature of the documents and found the evidence of forgery and fraud insufficient. It also ruled that prescription and laches barred the plaintiffs’ claims, especially regarding Lot 6409, where title had been transferred to Asuncion in 1972.

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision with a slight modification regarding Lot 769-A, acknowledging a share for Ricardo Teves (representing his deceased father, Cresenciano). However, it largely upheld the validity of the settlements and the application of prescription and laches. The appellate court stated that the “biased and interested testimonial evidence consisting of mere denials of their signatures in the disputed instruments is insufficient to prove the alleged forgery and to overcome the evidentiary force of the notarial documents.”

    The Supreme Court, in its final decision, firmly upheld the lower courts. It reiterated the presumption of validity of public documents and found the plaintiffs’ evidence wanting. The Court acknowledged that while not all heirs were signatories to all settlements, particularly Cresenciano Teves (represented by Ricardo), the action to challenge these settlements was time-barred. Regarding Lot 6409, the Court pointed out that title was in Asuncion’s name since 1972, and the challenge in 1984 was well beyond the ten-year prescriptive period for reconveyance based on implied trust.

    Crucially, the Supreme Court stated:

    We uphold, finding no cogent reason to reverse, the trial and appellate courts’ factual finding that the evidence presented by plaintiffs-appellants is insufficient to overcome the evidentiary value of the extrajudicial settlements. The deeds are public documents and it has been held by this Court that a public document executed with all the legal formalities is entitled to a presumption of truth as to the recitals contained therein.

    Furthermore, regarding the delay, the Court emphasized laches:

    Such tardiness indubitably constitutes laches, which is the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. Thus, even assuming that plaintiffs-appellants had a defensible cause of action, they are barred from pursuing the same by reason of their long and inexcusable inaction.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, solidifying the validity of the extrajudicial settlements, albeit with the minor modification regarding Ricardo Teves’ share in Lot 769-A.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: ACT PROMPTLY AND DOCUMENT EVERYTHING

    The Heirs of Joaquin Teves case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of formalizing family agreements regarding inheritance and acting promptly if disputes arise. Here are key takeaways:

    • Public Documents Matter: Extrajudicial settlements, when executed as public documents, carry significant legal weight. Challenges require substantial evidence to overcome their presumed validity.
    • Time is of the Essence: Prescription and laches are real limitations. Delaying legal action in inheritance matters can be fatal to a claim, even if there might have been initial grounds for challenge.
    • Involve All Heirs (or Representatives): While the Court acknowledged representation in inheritance, it’s best practice to ensure all known heirs or their legal representatives are involved and agree to any extrajudicial settlement to avoid future disputes.
    • Seek Legal Counsel Early: Navigating inheritance law can be complex. Consulting with a lawyer early in the process, whether to draft an extrajudicial settlement or to address potential issues, is crucial.

    Key Lessons:

    • Formalize inheritance agreements in writing and as public documents.
    • Act promptly if you believe your inheritance rights are being violated.
    • Gather strong evidence if challenging a public document like an extrajudicial settlement.
    • Understand the concepts of prescription and laches in inheritance disputes.
    • Consult with a lawyer specializing in estate law to protect your rights.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: What is an extrajudicial settlement of estate?

    A: It’s a legal process in the Philippines that allows heirs to divide the estate of a deceased person without going to court, provided certain conditions are met (no will, no debts, all heirs are of age or represented, agreement in a public document).

    Q: Is an extrajudicial settlement always required after someone dies?

    A: No, it’s only an option if the conditions for extrajudicial settlement are met. If there’s a will or disputes among heirs, a judicial settlement (probate) in court may be necessary.

    Q: What happens if not all heirs sign an extrajudicial settlement?

    A: Ideally, all heirs should sign. If some are excluded, the settlement might still be valid for those who signed, but the excluded heirs retain their rights and can potentially challenge the settlement, though time limits apply.

    Q: How long do I have to challenge an extrajudicial settlement if I believe it’s fraudulent?

    A: Generally, the prescriptive period to annul a partition due to fraud is four years from the discovery of the fraud.

    Q: What is ‘laches’ and how does it affect inheritance claims?

    A: Laches is unreasonable delay in asserting a legal right, causing prejudice to another party. Even if the prescriptive period hasn’t expired, laches can bar a claim if the delay is deemed excessive and unfair.

    Q: Is a verbal agreement to divide property legally binding?

    A: While the Supreme Court in some cases has recognized oral partitions among heirs, it’s highly advisable to formalize agreements in writing and as a public document for stronger legal standing and to avoid disputes.

    Q: What kind of evidence is needed to challenge a notarized extrajudicial settlement?

    A: To overturn a public document, you need ‘clear, strong, and convincing evidence’ of forgery, fraud, or other serious defects. Mere denials or weak evidence are unlikely to succeed.

    ASG Law specializes in Estate Settlement and Property Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Unlocking Inheritance: Understanding Extrajudicial Settlements in the Philippines

    n

    The Power of Public Documents in Philippine Inheritance Law: Why Challenging an Extrajudicial Settlement Requires Solid Evidence

    n

    TLDR; This case clarifies that extrajudicial settlements, being public documents, hold significant legal weight. Overturning them demands more than mere allegations; it requires clear, convincing, and substantial evidence of fraud or forgery. Learn why timely action and robust proof are crucial in inheritance disputes involving these settlements.

    n

    G.R. No. 109963, October 13, 1999

    nn

    n

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine inheriting land, only to find your claim contested decades later based on allegedly fraudulent documents. This is the reality faced by many Filipinos dealing with complex family estates. The case of Heirs of Joaquin Teves v. Court of Appeals highlights a critical aspect of Philippine inheritance law: the validity and evidentiary weight of extrajudicial settlements. This Supreme Court decision underscores the importance of understanding how these settlements work, the legal presumptions they carry, and what it takes to challenge them successfully.

    n

    At the heart of this case lies a dispute over two parcels of land in Negros Oriental, originally owned by Joaquin Teves and Marcelina Cimafranca. After their deaths, their numerous heirs attempted to settle the estate through extrajudicial settlements, a common practice in the Philippines. However, decades later, some heirs contested these settlements, claiming fraud and forgery. The Supreme Court’s ruling provides valuable insights into the legal standing of extrajudicial settlements and the level of proof needed to invalidate them.

    n

    nn

    n

    LEGAL CONTEXT: EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENTS AND RULE 74

    n

    In the Philippines, when a person dies intestate (without a will) and leaves no debts, their heirs can opt for a simpler, faster way to divide the estate compared to lengthy court proceedings. This method is known as extrajudicial settlement, governed by Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. This rule allows heirs to divide the estate among themselves through a public instrument or affidavit, avoiding the need for formal administration proceedings in court.

    n

    According to Rule 74, Section 1, If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may, without securing letters of administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds… This provision streamlines estate settlement, making it more accessible and efficient for families. However, it also necessitates that certain conditions are met, including the absence of a will and debts, and the agreement of all heirs.

    n

    Crucially, extrajudicial settlements are typically executed as public documents, often notarized. Under Philippine law, public documents carry a presumption of regularity and truthfulness. This means courts assume they are valid and accurately reflect the transactions they document unless proven otherwise. Challenging a public document, therefore, is not a simple task. It requires presenting evidence strong enough to overcome this legal presumption. This case demonstrates just how robust this presumption can be and the evidentiary hurdle for those seeking to challenge it.

    n

    nn

    n

    CASE BREAKDOWN: TEVES HEIRS IN COURT

    n

    The saga began in 1984 when some of Joaquin Teves’ heirs, the petitioners, filed a complaint for partition and reconveyance against the heirs of Asuncion It-it, one of Joaquin Teves’ daughters. The petitioners claimed that two extrajudicial settlements executed in 1956 and 1971, which transferred ownership of two land parcels (Lots 769-A and 6409) to Asuncion Teves, were fraudulent. They alleged forgery of signatures and irregularities in the documents.

    n

    The petitioners argued that the signatures of Maria Teves and other heirs on the

  • Verbal Promises and Real Property: Why Oral Land Donations Fail in the Philippines

    Verbal Promises and Real Property: Why Oral Land Donations Fail in the Philippines

    Can a handshake agreement transfer land ownership in the Philippines? This case definitively says no. It underscores the critical importance of formal documentation, specifically a public document, when donating real property. Without it, even with good intentions and family agreements, the donation is legally void, potentially leading to complex inheritance disputes down the line. This ruling serves as a stark reminder that when it comes to land, verbal promises hold no weight; only written, legally compliant documents do.

    G.R. No. 110644, October 30, 1998

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a scenario: a patriarch, wanting to ensure his children are provided for, verbally divides his land among them before he passes away. Years later, what was intended as a loving act of distribution becomes the seed of discord, as some heirs attempt to claim exclusive ownership based on these undocumented, verbal agreements. This all-too-common family drama highlights a crucial aspect of Philippine property law: the stringent requirements for validly donating real estate. The Supreme Court case of Heirs of Salud Dizon Salamat v. Natividad Dizon Tamayo perfectly illustrates this principle, unequivocally stating that oral donations of immovable property are legally ineffective. At the heart of this case lies a simple yet profound legal question: Can a verbal declaration of land donation stand against the explicit requirements of the Civil Code?

    LEGAL CONTEXT: THE FORMALITY OF DONATIONS AND PROPERTY TRANSFER

    Philippine law, particularly the Civil Code, sets clear and specific rules for the transfer of property, especially when it comes to donations. These rules are not mere formalities; they are designed to prevent fraud, ensure clarity, and provide legal certainty in property transactions. For donations of movable property (personal property), the requirements are less stringent, especially for small value donations. However, when dealing with immovable property – land and buildings – the law mandates a higher level of formality. This formality is enshrined in Article 749 of the Civil Code, which is the cornerstone of the Supreme Court’s decision in this case.

    Article 749 of the Civil Code explicitly states: “In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy. The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public document, unless it is done during the lifetime of the donor. If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both instruments.”

    The key phrase here is “public document.” A public document, in legal terms, is not just any written paper. It is a document that is notarized by a lawyer, a notary public, who is authorized by law to attest to the genuineness of signatures and the veracity of the document’s execution. This notarization process adds a layer of legal solemnity and evidentiary weight to the document, making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. The requirement for a public document in donations of immovable property serves several crucial purposes:

    • Prevention of Fraud: The public document requirement minimizes the risk of fraudulent claims of donation. Verbal agreements are easily fabricated or misinterpreted, especially after the donor has passed away. A public document, with its formal execution and notarization, provides a much higher degree of certainty and reduces the opportunity for fraudulent activities.
    • Clarity and Certainty: A written, public document clearly and unequivocally specifies the property being donated, the parties involved, and the terms and conditions of the donation. This eliminates ambiguity and potential misunderstandings that can arise from relying on memories of verbal agreements.
    • Protection of the Donor and Donee: The formality ensures that both the donor and donee are fully aware of the legal implications of the donation. It provides a cooling-off period and encourages careful consideration before making such a significant transfer of property.

    Furthermore, the concept of acquisitive prescription, often raised in property disputes, also plays a role in this case. Acquisitive prescription is a legal principle where ownership of property can be acquired through continuous and adverse possession for a certain period. However, for possession to ripen into ownership, it must be adverse, meaning it must be in opposition to the rights of the true owner and under a claim of ownership. In the context of co-ownership, such as among heirs, the requirements for adverse possession are even more stringent, as mere possession by one co-owner is generally presumed to be for the benefit of all.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: THE DIZON FAMILY LAND DISPUTE

    The case revolves around the estate of Agustin Dizon, who died intestate (without a will) in 1942, leaving five children: Eduardo, Gaudencio, Salud, Valenta, and Natividad. Among his properties was a parcel of land in Hagonoy, Bulacan, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 10384. Years after Agustin’s death, a dispute arose, primarily concerning this specific parcel of land.

    Natividad Dizon Tamayo, one of Agustin’s daughters, claimed that her father had orally donated the land to her way back in 1936, purportedly with the consent of her siblings. She resided on the property and had declared it for tax purposes in her name. To support her claim, she presented a private document, allegedly signed by her brother Eduardo in 1936, which seemed to corroborate the oral donation. However, this document was riddled with irregularities, including unexplained erasures and alterations, particularly concerning the year of execution, which appeared to have been changed from 1956 to 1936.

    In 1987, the other heirs of Agustin Dizon, excluding Natividad, initiated a court action for the compulsory judicial partition of Agustin’s estate. They sought to formally divide all of Agustin’s properties among all the heirs, including the contested land. Natividad resisted, insisting that the land was hers alone due to the oral donation from her father.

    The case went through the court system:

    1. Regional Trial Court (RTC): The RTC, while acknowledging that the alleged donation was oral and lacked the required formalities, surprisingly ruled in favor of Natividad. It ordered a partition of the estate but stipulated that the contested land should be assigned solely to Natividad, essentially upholding the invalid oral donation.
    2. Court of Appeals (CA): The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. The CA, despite noting the document’s defects, gave weight to the private document and the tax declarations in Natividad’s name, concluding that there was indeed an oral donation.
    3. Supreme Court (SC): Undeterred, the petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a decisive ruling, reversed the lower courts and sided with the petitioners.

    The Supreme Court’s reasoning was clear and grounded in the fundamental legal principle of Article 749 of the Civil Code. Justice Romero, writing for the Court, emphasized:

    “It is clear from Article 749 that a transfer of real property from one person to another cannot take effect as a donation unless embodied in a public document.”

    The Court found the alleged oral donation to Natividad legally invalid due to the absence of a public document. The private document presented by Natividad was deemed insufficient and even suspect due to the alterations. The Supreme Court also dismantled the Court of Appeals’ reliance on the private document and tax declarations. Regarding the document, the SC pointed out its suspicious alterations and that it could not be considered an ancient document due to these blemishes. Furthermore, the Court clarified that tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership.

    Moreover, the Supreme Court addressed Natividad’s claim of ownership through acquisitive prescription. The Court highlighted that as a co-heir, Natividad’s possession of the property was not automatically considered adverse to her co-heirs. For prescription to apply against co-owners, there must be clear and unequivocal acts of repudiation of the co-ownership, made known to the other co-owners, and proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Court found no such evidence of repudiation in Natividad’s case, stating:

    “Not one of the aforesaid requirements is present in the case at bar… It is obvious from the foregoing that since respondent never made unequivocal acts of repudiation, she cannot acquire ownership over said property through acquisitive prescription.”

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court declared that Lot 2557 remained part of the estate of Agustin Dizon and should be subject to partition among all his heirs, according to law.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS AND HEIRS

    The Heirs of Salud Dizon Salamat v. Natividad Dizon Tamayo case provides crucial practical lessons for anyone dealing with real property in the Philippines, especially in the context of inheritance and family arrangements. The ruling underscores the absolute necessity of formalizing any transfer of real property, particularly donations, through a public document. Reliance on verbal agreements or private documents for such significant transactions is a recipe for potential legal battles and familial strife.

    For Property Owners:

    • Formalize Donations in a Public Document: If you intend to donate land or any real property, ensure it is done through a Deed of Donation, executed and acknowledged before a notary public. This is not merely a suggestion; it is a legal requirement for the donation to be valid.
    • Seek Legal Counsel: Consult with a lawyer when making significant property transfers, especially donations and inheritance matters. A lawyer can guide you through the legal requirements, ensure proper documentation, and help avoid future disputes.
    • Don’t Rely on Verbal Promises: No matter how trustworthy family members may seem, verbal promises regarding real property are legally unenforceable. Always put agreements in writing and comply with legal formalities.

    For Heirs:

    • Understand Property Rights: Familiarize yourself with the laws of succession and property rights in the Philippines. Understand that verbal claims of donation, especially of land, are likely invalid without proper documentation.
    • Investigate Property Claims: If there are claims of property donation based on verbal agreements, investigate whether these claims are supported by legally valid documents, particularly public documents.
    • Seek Partition if Necessary: If co-ownership of inherited property leads to disputes, consider initiating a judicial partition to formally divide the property and clarify ownership rights.

    Key Lessons from the Case:

    • Oral Donations of Immovable Property are Void: Philippine law requires donations of real property to be in a public document to be valid. Verbal donations are legally ineffective.
    • Private Documents are Insufficient: A private document, even if signed by family members, does not suffice as a valid donation of real property.
    • Tax Declarations are Not Conclusive Proof of Ownership: While tax declarations can be considered as evidence, they are not definitive proof of ownership of real property.
    • Adverse Possession Among Co-heirs Requires Clear Repudiation: For a co-owner to claim exclusive ownership through prescription, they must demonstrate clear and unequivocal acts of repudiation of the co-ownership, made known to other co-owners.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: Is a verbal agreement to donate land legally binding in the Philippines?

    A: No. Under Article 749 of the Civil Code, donations of immovable property (like land) must be made in a public document to be valid. Verbal agreements are not legally binding for land donations.

    Q: What is a public document and why is it required for land donations?

    A: A public document is a document notarized by a notary public. Notarization involves verifying the signatures and identities of the parties and attesting to the execution of the document. This formality is required for land donations to prevent fraud, ensure clarity, and provide legal certainty.

    Q: My father verbally promised me a piece of land. Does that mean I own it now?

    A: Not necessarily. While your father’s intention might have been genuine, the verbal promise alone is not enough to legally transfer ownership of the land to you. To make the donation valid, it needs to be formalized in a public document. Without a public document, the donation is considered void under Philippine law.

    Q: I have been paying taxes on a piece of land for many years. Does this mean I own it, even if there’s no deed of donation?

    A: Paying taxes on land is evidence of possession and claim, but it is not conclusive proof of ownership. Tax declarations are not substitutes for a valid title or deed of donation. You would still need a legally sound basis for ownership, such as a deed of donation in a public document or proof of acquisitive prescription under the law.

    Q: What happens if a donation of land is not in a public document?

    A: If a donation of land is not executed in a public document, it is considered legally void. This means the ownership of the land does not effectively transfer to the intended recipient. The land remains part of the donor’s estate, subject to inheritance laws upon their death.

    Q: Can a private document signed by family members serve as proof of land donation?

    A: No. While private documents can be evidence of an agreement, they do not meet the legal requirement for donating immovable property in the Philippines. Article 749 specifically mandates a public document for the donation to be valid.

    Q: What is acquisitive prescription and can it help me claim ownership if I only have a verbal donation?

    A: Acquisitive prescription is acquiring ownership through long-term, continuous, and adverse possession. While it’s possible to acquire land through prescription even with a void donation as a starting point, the possession must be adverse and meet other legal requirements. In cases of co-ownership among heirs, proving adverse possession against co-heirs is particularly challenging and requires clear acts of repudiation of co-ownership.

    Q: My sibling is living on inherited land and claims our parents verbally donated it to them. What can we do?

    A: Based on Philippine law, the verbal donation is likely invalid. You and your co-heirs have the right to pursue a judicial partition of the estate, including the land in question. It’s advisable to seek legal counsel to assess your rights and options and initiate the proper legal proceedings.

    ASG Law specializes in Property and Estate Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.