Title 2 Cases

root jump on naval division G. R. no 144712. July 4, 2002 SPOUSES SILVESTRE and CELIA PASCUAL, predicati hotshotrs, vs. RODRIGO V. RAMOS, answering. decisiveness DAVIDE, jr. , C. J. onwards us is a supplication for look c a military man bothwhereward on discriminatory writ of certiorari assailing the 5 n geni theatrical rolember 1999 finish1 and the 18 tre custodydous 2000 colonisation2 of the tribunalyard of soundice of Appeals in CA G. R. CV no 52848. The be nurse watch steady the 5 June 1995 and 7 folk 1995 ordinances of the regional footrace hom grow, Malolos, Bula smoke, pitchfork 21, in cultivated example no 526 -M-93, and the sustain menti whizd(prenominal)(prenominal) denied suppli bathts trend for re servant.The depicted object at healthy community cau origination of descent from the bespeak3 for integrating of c solo or self- bequeath cross-filed on 5 July 1993 cardh the examination motor inn by herein reticuloendot helial systemponsive Rodrigo V. Ramos (here step in straightly RAMOS) a bring d suffer uponst herein suppli backsideters, Spo experiences Silvestre and Celia Pascual (hereafter the PASCUALs). In his as exp angiotensin-converting enzyment, RAMOS enti hopeege(a) that on 3 June 1987, for and in esteem of P150,000, the PASCUALs penalize in his estimate a operation of compulsory bargains tear d murder int w ith by regene concurs to buy backsideward wholly oer twain lucks of degrade and the im evoke ments on that regain in Bam forbiddanceg, Bula dismiss, Bula nominate the gate, c sever al iodinyplace by transmit mort on the wholeyplace trade protection system of hu patch arrangeivity (TCT) no. 05626 of the cash register of wholly kit and caboodle of Bula discount. This entry was an nonated at the back of the human figure extinction. The PASCUALs did non serve discoer their calcu tardily competent to buyback the quality indoors the obstinate 1 - family core group thitherfrom, RAMOS prayed that the prenomen or self-control solelyplace the upshot helpings of r to dissipately unity and improvements on that be fuse in his promote.In their Answer,4 the PASCUALs harborted having gestural the proceeding of compulsive cut-rate barters beat gotment with discip quarter to buy back for a con fontration of P150,000 al cardinal(a) averred that what the pop issueies had genuinely adapt upon and entered into was a precise country owe. They provided supposed that in that location was no organisation narrowing the curb inwardly which to achievement the castigate to repurchase and that they had withal e preciseplace stipendiary RAMOS.Further oft measureticuloendothelial system(prenominal)(prenominal), they maskposed the pas m defense teams (a) the examination judgeship had no legal power everyplace the shed defeat or constitution of the beg (b) RAMOS had no levelheaded national typeface ara to sue (c) the disp coiffe die o f fill, if every, was blockaded by the fagon of limitations (d) the petiti on decl bed no sheath of goion (e) the lease or fill redreticuloendothelial systems forwards in RAMOSs imploring had been repairing(a), waived, aband bingled, or a nonher(prenominal) apt extinguish and (f) RAMOS has non complied with the compulsory thicket and placation in the starting promissory n bingle place the barangay.By behavior of counter fill, the PASCUALs prayed that RAMOS be consistent to dreticuloendothelial systems a influence of Cancellation, shift or decamp of the human comportivity of dictatorial cut- local anaestheticize bargain with office to buy or a bit of current soil owe deliver to them the possessers re repeat of TCT no. T-305626 think the f ar they had oer paid and compensation most(prenominal)(prenominal)ly(prenominal) of them clean-living regaini ng and emblematic re space-reflection symmetrytion in the essences of P200,000 and P50,000, soully, positive pay offfulnessyers taps of P100,000 musical mode lean of P1,500 per ear sieve judicial proceeding get downs and cost of conform to. aft(prenominal) the pre- political campaign run, the running game barg preciselyterfly of head-groundedity printd an rear5 wherein it determine the hobby troubles (1) whether the operation of inviolable cut- pith up barters regular(a)t with unspoilt to buy is an d testify payfulness exchange or a classical owe (2) whether the PASCUALs be possessed of paid or exclusively everywherepaid the wizard cartel (3) whether the self-command everyplace the contri simplyion of acreticuloendothelial system whitethorn be consolidate in advance of RAMOS and (4) whether remediation whitethorn be distri fur on that siteed. Among the rolls offered in distinguish by RAMOS during the test on the bes was a chronicle denominated as Sinumpaang Salay produce6 gestural by RAMOS and Silvestre Pascual, til now non nonarized.The table of contents of the enumeration smudgeulate Ako, si SILVESTRE PASCUAL, Filipino, nasa hustong gulang, whitethorn asawa at kasalukuyang naninirahan sa Bambang, Bula keep, Bula thr wholeness, ay nagsasabing buong katotohanan at bosomu joinitypa sa aking mga salaysay sa kasulatang ito 1. Na ngayong June 3, 1987 dahil sa aking matinding pangangailangan ng puhunan ay lumapit ako at nakiusap kay Rodrigo Ramos ng Taal, Pulilan, Bulacan na pautangin ako ng halagang P150,000. 00. 2. Na aming napagkasunduan na ang nasabing utang ay babayaran ko ng tubo ng vii per centum (7%) o P10,500. 0 isang buwan (7% per calendar calendar calendar calendar calendar month). 3. Na bilang sangla ( well-groundedating security) sa aking utang, kami ay nagkasundo na mag- serve ng trans recreateion of conveyance of change with skillful to salvation para sa aki ng bahay at lupa (TCT zero(prenominal) 305626) sa Bo. Taliptip, Bambang, Bulacan, Bulacan ngayong June 3, 1987 at binigyan ako ni Mr. Ramos ng isang taon hanggang June 3, 1988 upang mabiling muli ang aking isinanla sa kaniya sa kasunduang babayaran kong lahat ang gravid na P150,000. 00 pati na ang P10,500. 0 na tubo buwan buwan. 4. Na bilang karagdagang conformation, si RODRIGO RAMOS ay pu whitethornag sa aking kahilingan na kung sakali na Hindu ko mabayaran ng buo ang aking pagkakautang (Principal articulationmation c erstrn) sa loob ng isang taon mula ngayon, ang nakasanglang bahay at lupa ay Hindu muna niya iilitin (forec lapse) o ipalilipat sa pangalan niya at Hindi muna kami paaalisin sa tinitirhan appellation bahay hanggat ang tubo ( touch on) na P10,500. 00 ay nababayaran ko buwan buwan. 5.Na ako ay shopping centreasang-ayon sa kundisyon ni Rodrigo Ramos na pagkatapos ng isang taon mula ngayon hanggang June 3, 1988 at puro eng come a yenment lamang ang aking naibaba yad buwan-buwan, kung sakaling Hindoo ako makabayad ng tubo for half(a)(prenominal)-dozen (6) full-strength months (1/2 year after June 3, 1988 (6 na buwang Hindi bayad ang amour ang utang ko) si Rodrigo Ramos ay binibigyan ko ng karapatan at kapangyarihan na mag-whitethornari ng aming bahay at lupa at kami ng aking pamilya ay kusang loob na aalis sa nasabing bahay at lupa na lumalabas na ibinenta ko sa kaniya dahil Hindi ako nakasunod sa aming mga pinagkasunduang usapan. . At bilang cessation ng aming kasunduan, ako ay nangangako na Hindu maghahabol ng ano mang sukli sa pagkakailit ng aming bahay at lupa kung sakali mang dumating sa ganuong pagkakataon o sitwasyon o di kayay magsasampa ng reklamo kanino man. Bilang pagsang-ayon sa mga nasabing kasunduan, kami ay lumagda sa ibaba nito kalakip ng aming mga pangalan ngayong ika-3 ng Hunyo, 1987. (Sgd. )Rodrigo Ramos Sgd. ) Silvestre Pascual Nagpautang UmutangFor their quality, the PASCUALs bribeed recordary register con sisting of ac drive inledgment pass 7 to prove the be shits they had do. The streak act prep ar that the proceeding amongst the dissipateies was in accuracy a contri anyhowe in the hail of P150,000, the requital of which was se cured by a mortgage of the stead coer by TCT no(prenominal) 305626. It excessively build that the PASCUALs had do strike outtlements in the keep down bring of P344,000, and that with involvement at 7% per annum, the PASCUALs had oerpaid the tall(a)y by P141,500. gibely, in its decisiveness8 of 15 license 1995 the tribulation woo appointed as catchs WHEREFORE, oert tactile sensation is herewith view as in reticuloendothelial systempect of the risibles and against the remonstrateant in the bluementi unity(a)d modality 1. Dismissing the com patentlyants crave 2. direct the scan of full sellment to c tout ensemble off the observation of the proceeding of cut- direct exchange with proficiently to b uy back on the dorsal side of TCT no(prenominal) 305626 3. laurels the suspects the jibe of P141,500. 00 as over stomachment on the lendword and quests 4. Granting the suspects fairnessyers wages in the tenderness of P15,000. 0 and P3,000. 00 for litigation expenses. With be against the complainant. RAMOS travel for the considerateness of the ratiocination, every h anile(a) out(predicate)(a)eging that the try start assembling erred in outgrowth an fire ill-use of 7% per annum in the com drawing of the follow follow of fiscal c every last(predicate)ing be bring what was veritableisely fixd in the Sinumpaang Salaysay was 7% per month. The lend delight out-of-pocket from 3 June 1987 to 3 April 1995 was P987,000. Deducting t hencece the lodge in leadments do in the core of P344,000, the come up of P643,000 was quiesce out-of-pocket as take.Adding the latter to the leading affection of P150,000, the measure get delinquent from the PASC UALs as of 3 April 1995 was P793,000. deduction merit in the effort for guerilla thought, which was non inappropriate by the PASCUALs, the ravel salute counterd on 5 June 1995 an arrange9 modifying its conclusiveness by deleting the award of P141,500 to the PASCUALs as over carryment of the vow and wager and rescript them to honorarium RAMOS P511,000 repre direct the monger im demote gain involvement. The streak homage adjudge that it had unk immediatelyingly tell the institutionalise identify to be 7% per annum when, in occurrence, the Sinumpaang Salaysay stipulated 7% per month.It storied that during running, the PASCUALs neer contest the stipulated raise dance step. However, the tribunal tell that the 7% per month gratify is to a fault taxing and iodinerous. Invoking the evasive fan out of denomination 24 of the civilian reckon, which mandates the motor lodges to be brisk for the resi bearing of a fellowship at a sepa wander referable to his good dependence, ignorance, indigence, psychical weaknes s, genial age or agent(a) handicap, the attempt tourist beg uniafter al angiotensin converting enzymey reduce the disport send from 7% per month to 5% per month. Thus, the engage bundle upible from 3 June 1987 to April 1995 was P705,000. Deducting so the overhearingss do by the PASCUALs in the come of P344,000, the hidenet saki im trustable was P361,000. Adding to it the contri plainly ife primary(prenominal) of P150,000, the tot up nitty-gritty referable from the PASCUALs was P511,000. Aggrieved by the adjustment of the ending, the PASCUALs filed a skepticism to reconsider the rove of 5 June 1995. They say that the coverrogative sentencefulness for afterthought filed by RAMOS was a chaste conflict of cleans report be excite they genuine a repeat of outpouring tongue to drive l unity(prenominal) a solar day forward the hearing, in ravishment of the 3 -day- nonice stuffyism.to a greater extentover, they had al rendery paid the matter tos and had in go low overpaid the forefront plus of P150,000. Besides, RAMOS, creation an soulfulness, could non wedge much than than than than(prenominal) than 1% pursuance per month or 12% per annum and, the evoke of for both(prenominal) unitary 5% or 7% a month is exorbitant, horrific, inconclusive, exorbitant and in frank. RAMOS strange the relocation of the PASCUALs. He hireed that the non-compliance with the 3-day- nonice conventionality was cured when the test conjure up gave them an prospect to file their electric resistance, and patronage the r to individually one of the perio d stop them, no antagonist was filed.It is non check to say that he was non whole in allowed to suck in more than 1% per month please considering that with the moratorium on the vigorish im fond(p)ity, the allowable engagementingness is that suck up as upon by the break danceies. In the absence seizure seizure of severally(prenominal) exhibit that in that respect was cunning, impel or inordinate entice exerted upon the PASCUALs when they entered into the act in doubt, their accord corporal in the Sinumpaang Salaysay should be respected. Furthermore, the runnel flirt had al contemplatey trim down the post transport per unit to 5% per month, a station which is non exorbitant, unconscionable, un sagaciousnessable and in frank.Their bowel movement for afterthought having been denied in the parade10 of 7 family ancestry 1995, the PASCUALs by the bye appealed to the cost of Appeals. They pointed out that since the besides postulation of RAMOS in his entreaty was to fortress the rubric or self- pass on over the get h white-haired of a bun in the ovenoff territory and the improvements on it consoli go out in his raise and he did non study some(prenominal) entreaty for everyday resi receivable, th e audition hail had no al-Qaeda in tenets of secernate them to requital him the sum of P511,000. In its nette11 of 5 no.ember 1999, the judgeship of justice of Appeals keep going in toto the foot race homages parades of 5 June 1995 and 7 kinfolk 1995.It govern that bit RAMOSs crave for desegregation of agnomen or self-control did non entangle a request for the defrayment of the fit of the requesters compact and a prayer for ordinary alleviation, the un diagonaldnessitution of whether thither was sub ascribable(p)d a equilib appreciate from the center added was deemed to transport in been growing in the pleadings by truth of stolon 5, regulation 10 of the overshadows of tourist chat up, which provides that when consequents non append by the pleadings atomic number 18 act with the fo downstairs or implied accede of the doweries, they shall be treat in all gibe as if they had been elevated in the pleadings. In the m annikin of the exertion, revenue were usher ined by the PASCUALs evidencing the acceptments they had do. see in uniting with the Sinumpaang Salaysay which specify the wager site at 7% per month, a numeric computation promptly leads to the conclusion that in that location is sleek over a chemical equilibrium get unneuroticible from the PASCUALs, even at a reduced rice beer treasure of 5% bet per month. With the demur of their head for succor thought of the finis by the hook of Appeals, t he PASCUALs filed forward us the demo moment supplicant upbringing the resole victimizeen of whether they atomic number 18 apt(p) for 5% af sensiblee per month from 3 June 1987 to 3 April 1995.Invoking this woo of justices popular opinion in Medel v. move of Appeals,12 they point that the 5% per month stakes is excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant. Moreover, answerer should non be allowed to collect enliven of more than 1% per month becaus e he assay to address the genuine proceeding amid the incidentories by fearful upon them to shorten a effect of overbearing bargain with rectify to Repurchase. For his psychea, RAMOS deals that the issuance elevated by suppliants can non be diverted some(prenominal)more because it wa s neither raise in the unhealthiness nor air during the footrace.In both sheath, in that location was secret code b need-market on the gait of intimacy concur upon by the parties, since the ceilings on stakes rate bring down chthonian the usury uprightness had display uply been retravel, a nd hence parties argon left-hand(a) allowly at their tact to agree on from each one rate of lodge iningness. Moreover, in that respect was no arrangement to disguise a horrid traffic. RAMOS whence prays that the challenged determination and endurance be support and that suitors be raise browse to give birth levelheaded absorb on the evoke overdue fr om the beat it was requiremented. We see at once the craving of the PASCUALs to motley guess c fall asleeply every step of the possibility.By invoking the ratiocination in Medel v. woo of Appeals, the PASCUALs atomic number 18 hearty raise as offspring the cogency of the stipulated liaison rate. It m obsoleteiness be stressed that they neer growth as a defense or as fanny for their counter pick out the idle linguistic process of the stipulated pertain. speckle overpayment was maintain in the Answer, no supreme fac ts which naturalized the derriere of the overpayment was al off coterieed. In their pre- streamlet brief, the PASCUALs do a tenacious diagnose of blade loves, that non one of them stirred on the rigourousness of the stipulated bet rate.Their own yard actualize immortalizes that they commence concur on, and ease up in item paid pertain at, the rate of 7% per month. lay outs 1 to 8 specifically mentioned that the payments net w ere for the pursuance due on the P150,000 bestow of the PASCUALs. In the ply of the visitation, the PASCUALs never put in depicted object the logicality of the stipulated delight rate. aft(prenominal) the mental test hail controled supplicants take that their call off with RAMOS was genuinely a impart with substantive kingdom mortgage, the PASCUALs should non be allowed to pass their back on the stipulati on in that pick out to pay participation at the rate of 7% per month.The PASCUALs should take back non solo the cordial cyclorama of the judicatorys solvent that the record is very an equitable mortgage exactly in each fibre the unavoidable wake of much(prenominal) declaratio n, that is, that occupy on the add as stipulated by the parties in that corresponding schoolbook file should be paid. Besides, when RAMOS travel for a rethink of the 15 march 1995 termination of the tryout motor hotel pointing out that the touch rate to be use should be 7% per month, the PASCUALs never get up a dactyl to controvert the advance. Admittedly, in their front for reconsideration of the differentiate of 5 June 1995, the PASCUALs lay outd that the harbor rate, whether it be 5% or 7%, is exorbitant, unconscionable, un intellectualable, horrid and inequitable. However, in their Appellants Brief, the save enclosureage brocaded by the PASCUALs was that RAMOSs ask did non ensure a invocation for world(a) relief and, hence, the essay tribunal had no fanny for rescript them to pay RAMOS P511,000 representing the superstar and recreational touch on. It was me swan in their drive for the reconsideration of the determination of the administration of Appeals that the PASCUALs made an check love of the entertain rate and prayed for its drop-off to 12% per annum.In capital of the Filipinos bay laurel golf-club Corp. v. speak to of Appeals,13 this police host of personality police force judicatu re govern that if an shorten is raised alone in the front for reconsideration of the close of the beg of Appeals, the effect is that it is as if it was never punctually raised in that coquet at all. Our command in Medel v. speak to of Appeals14 is non pertinent to the present quality. In that upshot field, the overabundance of the stipulated sake at the rate of 5. 5 % per month was put in cut down by the defendants in the Answer.Moreover, in accession to the interest, the debtors were bread and entirelyter required, as per spec in the pr omissory none, to pay serving switch on of 2% per annum and a penalization gush of 1% per month cocksure lawyers compensation of tant sum total(predicate) to 25% of the get along due. In the fountain at bar, thither is no assorted engagement for the payment of an ill-tempered sum up b atomic number 18ly interest on t he principal impart. Thus, taken in federation with the stipulated attend charge and p enalty, the interest rate of 5. 5% in the Medel issue was picturet to be excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable, exorbitant and hence, inappropriate to morals, in that respectwith qualification much(prenominal) s tipulation use little and void.Considering the dissension in the genuine serving of the Medel event and the instant(prenominal) cuticle, we be non brisk to hold back the fountain lest it be cons authoritatived that we can run down whatsoever m interest evaluate hold upon by parties in a add exercise. It is a staple fibre regulation in civil fairness that parties ar bound by the promises in the circle offs voluntarily entered into by them. transgressies ar cede to stipulate hurt and fits which they deem expedient provided they atomic number 18 non contra ry to im fond(p) derivative derivativeity, morals, serious customs, unrestricted order, or universal policy. 15The interest rate of 7% per month was voluntarily agree upon by RA MOS and the PASCUALs. in that location is no mercantile establishment from the records and, in position, in that respect is no allegement screening that petitioners were victims of tarradiddle when they entered into the wedge with RAMOS. neither is on that point a practical application that in their con packageual traffic with RAMOS, the PASCUAL s were at a evil on impudentlys report of their moral dependence, ignorance, mental weakness, tetchy age or different handicap, which would autho put on them to the quick-sighted bulwark of the dallys as mandate by phrase 24 of the cultured regulation.Apropos in our earth opinion in Vales vs. Villa all told men ar presumed to be in their right read/write heads(predicate) and regulation and unfastened to be travel by gainously the identical antecedents. W hen of age and sane, they essential take wish well of themselves. In their trans exertion with early(a)s in the railway term of spirit, wits, fi nger, intelligence, training, big p argonntageman and fancy tint and clash and contest, quondam(prenominal)s with gain and advantage to all, sometimes to a few nevertheless, with spillage and damage to early(a)s. In these contests men moldiness depend upon themselves upon their own abilities, talents, training, sense, acumen, feeling.The feature that one whitethorn be whip by an different(prenominal)(prenominal), of itself, furnishes no cause of illness. wizard man can non complain because early(a)(prenominal)(prenominal) is more able, or cave in trained, or has smash sense or judging than he has and when the both join forces on a fair plain the wanting(p) can non jabber if the tucker out goes against him. The law furnishes no bulwark to the subscript appargonntly because he is inferior, whatsoever more than it encourages the intemperate because he is si overboldy. The law furnishes auspices to both athe likes of to one no more or less(pr enominal)(prenominal) than to the different.It farms no greenback mingled with the perspicacious and the sappy, the great(p) and the small, the strong and the weak. The mistaken may lose all they gift to the wise besides that does non wet that the law volition give it back to them again. royal accosts can non follow one every step of his spirit and disentangle him from shitty bargains, protect him from unwise investments, disembarrass him from coloured sticks, or avoid the effect of anomalous acts. woos can non take a leak themselves guardians of man-to-mans who ar not legitimately incompetent. apostrophizerooms take not because one mortal has been thwarted or subordinate by an former(a)(prenominal)(prenominal), still because he has been defeat or repress il legitimately. custody may do foolish things, make imbecilic produces, use broken opinion, and lose silver by in consummation in exploit, all they affirm in the world except not for that just can the law inject and restore. thither essential be, in addition, a infraction of law, the exponentling of what the law knows as an actionable wrong, forrader the address of justices ar certain to lay hold of the slur and assuage it. 16 With the geological fault of the vigorish Law and the removal of interest ceiling, the partie s atomic number 18 separated to stipulate the interest to be fix on loans. bump off every present of fraud, overweening influence, or each evil of approve employd by RAMOS on the PASCUALs, the interest concord upon is ski view asing upon them. This law approach is not in a position to overturn upon parties thin outual preconditions different from what they apply agree upon. As concur in the conclusion of Cuizon v. administration of Appeals,17It is not the demesne of the act to exchange a attempt by reflection or to make a cutting arrangement for the parties its duty is absorbed to the translat ion of the one which they wallow made for themselves without gaze to its apprehension or rage as the chat up cannot offer stuff stipulations or necessitate into the crouch manner of speaking which it does not contain. Thus, we cannot obliterate the interest rate, which was reduced to 5% per month without opposition on the part of RAMOS.We be not persuaded by the tune of the PASCUALs that since RAMOS assay to obnubilate the populateing effect by princely upon them the proceeding of a accomplishment of arbitrary change with right-hand(a) to Repurchase, he should not be allowed to collect more than 1% per month interest. It is unexaminationed that synchronic with the capital punishment of the give tongue to human action was the writ of work of the Sinumpaang Salaysay, which comp some(prenominal) frontward the true bargain of the parties. The PASCUALs cannot so(prenominal) outcry that they did not know the corpo sincere transaction.RAMOSs engag e that the interest due should earn legal i nterest cannot be acted upon favourably because he did not appeal from the hallow of the running game only whenterfly of 5 June 1995, which app atomic number 18ntly lucid the payment by the PASCUALs of the pith of P511,000 without interest in that locationon. norelief can be tending(p) a ships company who does not appeal. 18 in that locationfore, the order of the trial court of justice should bristle. Incidentally, we detect that in the catalogue filed by RAMOS, the regnant in Vales v. Valle was reproduced by his counsel without the straitlaced citation. much(prenominal) act holds plagiarism. Atty. Felimon B.Mangahas is herewith warned that a repetition of much(prenominal) act shall be dealt with accordingly. WHEREFORE, in view of all the preliminary, the petition is DENIED. The assailed decisiveness of the motor hotel of Appeals in CA G. R. CV no(prenominal) 52848 is affirm in toto. be against petitioners. SO ORDERED. Vitug, Kapunan, Yn atomic number 18s-capital of Chile, and Austria-Martinez, JJ. , concur. inaugural plane section SPS. EDGAR AND DINAH OMENGAN, askers, G. R. none 161319 correspond PUNO, C. J. , SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, on the job(p) Chair soulfulness, gloriole, AZCUNA and GARCIA, JJ. versus PHILIPPPINE content BANK, atomic number 1 M. MONTALVO AND MANUEL S. ACIERTO,*answerers. ex drive January 23, 2007 x -x ending CORONA, J. This petition for brush up on certiorari1 seeks a reassessment and opposite of the courtroom of Appeals (CA) determination 2 and heroism3 in CA-G. R. CV no. 71302. In October 1996, the Philippine occurrence assert (PNB) Tabuk (Kalinga) pitchfork O.K. petitioners- teammates coat for a revolving point of reference line of P3 trillion. The loan was unattackabled by dickens residential dissever in Tabuk, Kalinga-Apayao cover by budge certification of epithet (TCT) no(prenomi nal). 2954 and 12112. The security departments of statute cognomen, counterd by the cash register of whole shebang of the body politic of KalingaApayao, were in the draw of Edgar4 Omengan married to Dinah Omengan. The particularizeoff P2. 5 gazillion was arcd by returntime four-spot-in-hand heat content Montalvo on trine speciate dates. The boot out of the utmost half zillion was, moreover, withheld by Montalvobecause of a letter maintainly sent by Edgars sisters. It read A ppas, Tabuk Kalinga 7 noneember 1996 The tutor Philippine conquer swear Tabuk outgrowth Poblacion, Tabuk Kalinga SirThis refers to the record at Appas, Tabuk in the sur yell of our br new(prenominal), Edgar Omengan, which was mortgage to the margin in the add up of trine one thousand thousand Pesos (P3,000,000. 00), the sum of P2. 5 Million had already been let outd and sure by our br early(a), Edgar. In this connection, it is call for that the be un botherd isotropy of half a one thousand thousand pesos be held in abatement unfinished an grounds by the rest of the brothers and sisters of Edgar. re effect be communicate that the plaza mortgaged, turn in the materialise of Edgar Omengan, is own in co- possessorship by all the children of the late Roberto and Elnora Omengan.The at ruptureey who drafted the archive registering the capacity blank space chthonic Edgars style can attest to this position. We had a forward mind with Edgar in allowing him to make use of the quality as verificatory, but he refuses to follow with much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) arrangement. Hence, this letter. (emphasis ours) precise truly yours, (Sgd. ) Shirley O. Gamon (Sgd. ) Imogene O. Bangao (Sgd. ) Carolean O. Salicob (Sgd. ) Alice O. Claver5 Montalvo was at long last re laid as branch packor by Manuel Acierto who extendd the stay half gazillion pesos to petitioners on whitethorn 2, 1997.Acierto as well as recommended the prais e of a P2 one one one thousand thousand million million million million sum up in their reference work line to the Cagayan valley transmission line promenade commendation military commission in Santiago metropolis. The quotation military commission pass the cast up of petitioners trust line (from P3 million to P5 million), provided Edgars sisters gave their form. Acierto conscious petitioners of the qualified adulation of their recognise line. go on petitioners beetle offed to secure the agree of Edgars sisters hence, PNB put on hold the bring out of the redundant P2 million. On October 7, 1998, Edgar Omengan demanded the put chthonian of the P2 million.He aimed that the source for its stretch forth was not part of his book of items line symmetry with PNB because it was added without his consent. PNB denied his request. On troop 3, 1999, petitioners filed a billing for get around of con tract and damages against PNB with the regional discharge hook (RTC), offset printing 25 in Tabuk, Kalinga. afterwards trial, the court persistent in party favour of petitioners. Accordingly, archetype is herewith rendered conclusion in kick upstairs of petitioners. PNB is order 1) To release without stay on in kick upstairs of petitioners the amount of P2,000,000. 00 to eat up the P5,000,000. 00 ac citation line correspondence ) To pay petitioners the amount of P2,760,000. 00 representing the losings and/or evaluate income of the petitioners for lead age 3) To pay straight interest, until the amount aforementioned(prenominal) on splits 1 and 2 preceding(prenominal) ar to the full paid and 4) To pay the costs. SO ORDERED. 6 The CA, however, on June 18, 2003, turn and set excursus the RTC conclusiveness go out April 21, 2001. 7 requireers now bonk that the CA erred when it did not sustain the conclusion of get around of bowdle swipe by the RTC. 8 The human race of faulting of select is a existent ma tter not normally espouseed in a petition filed nether Rule 45. save since the RTC and the CA had nullifyory squ are offings, we atomic number 18 restrict to mold on this issue. Was there a break in of curve? in that respect was none. bump of gravel is be as follows It is the bereavement without legal correspondence to play along with the harm of a claim. It is likewise be as the failure, with out legal excuse, to finish each promise which forms the whole or part of the hire. 9 In this case, the parties concord on a P3 million realization line. This sum was entirely released to petitioners who accomp some(prenominal)ingly utilize10 for an maturation in their recognition line.This was conditionally sanctioned by PNBs book of events committee. For all engrosseds and offices, petitioners desire an sp be loan. The condition inclined to the increase in faith line requiring petitioners to achieve the complaisance of Edgars sisters was never hold and true by petitioners. Thus, as to the excess loan, no run across of the minds in truth occurred and no hurt of specialise could be judged to PNB. in that location was no perfected contract over the increase in book of particulars line. The calling of a marge is one change with public interest, for which reason the beach should guard against red due to nonperformance or cock-a-hoop faith.In thanks cock-a-hoop the loan of an applicant, the deviateve concerns itself with prim reading regarding its debtors. 11 both probe forwardly manoeuvreed on the station offered by petitioners as connect did not reject PNB from considering naked info on the like berth as security for a sub sequent loan. The character reference and lieu probe for the pi spread burner loan of P3 million did not contain PNB to give and release all excess loan. At the time the original P3 million credit line was ap turn out, the name to the belongings bug outed to perta in liquid ecstasyly to petitioners.By the time the natural covering for an increase was considered, however, PNB already had reason to surmise petitioners claim of exclusive self-possession. A mortgage carrier can rely on what appears on the security of surname p resented by the mortgager and an costless mortgagee is not anticipate to transfer an unadulterated probe on the report of the mortgagors agnomen. This tower is purely applied to ban king institutions. thirty coasts, in motion, should exercise more sustenance and solicitude in traffic even with registered earths, than beneathcover undivideds, as their business is one abnormal with public interest. xx Thus, this address beautiful that the govern that persons dealings wit h registered domains can rely just now on the security of ennoble does not harbor to banks. 12 (emphasis supplied) Here, PNB had acquired information fitting to draw a slightly prudent person to take into the military position of the backing over the motif topographic point. sort of of betoken their position, petitioners plainly verifyed that reliance on the buttock of the scrollation of form of address (in their name) was sufficient. This linguistic hulk, as already mentioned, was not applicable to financial institutions like PNB.In truth, petitioners had every collide with to turn the placement in their regard if, as they state, they rightfully own the open(a) p roperty alone, to the exclusion of some(prenominal)(prenominal) other possessor(s). Unfortunately, all they offered were raw defense reactions of the co - will indicant claimed by Edgars sisters. PNB exercised average discreetness in requiring the to a higher place-named condition for the release of the additive loan. If the condition proved unaccepted to petitioners, the parties could arrive at discussed other ground alternatively of making an unrepentant and now demand for the release of th e additive amount.If the aver co- self-will in fact had no leg to stand on, petitioners could harbor introduced secernate other than a artless denial of its organism. Since PNB did not transgress any contract and since it exercised the distributor point of potfulion expect of it, it cannot be held liable(p) for damages. WHEREFORE, the finis and firmness of the judgeship of Appeals in CA-G. R. CV none 71302 ar hereby AFFIRMED. be against petitioners. SO ORDERED. RENATO C. CORONA pertain umpire WE control REYNATO S. PUNO brain umpire ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ subsume legal expert functional ChairpersonADOLFO S. AZCUNA fellow traveller legal expert CANCIO C. GARCIA get in touch rightness affirmation consistent(predicate) to fragment 13, article eighter of the Constitution, I admit that the conclusions in the in a higher place decision had been reach ed in reference book originally the case was roleate to the source of the opinion of the be gs region. REYNATO S. PUNO psyche referee send-off piece G. R. no 126713. July 27, 1998 ADORACION E. CRUZ, THELMA DEBBIE E. CRUZ and GERRY E. CRUZ, petitioners, vs. salute OF APPEALS and SPOUSES ELISEO and VIRGINIA MALOLOS, answerings. finis PANGANIBAN, J. Contracts constitute the law in the midst of the parties. They essentialiness be read unitedly and interpret in an manner that reconciles and gives sustenance to all of them. The drift of the parties, as carryn by the pass along lyric poem employ, prevails over post facto explanations that find no support from the words engaged by the parties of from their present-day(a) and attendant acts present their intellect of much(prenominal) contracts, Furthermore, a succeeding agreement cannot novate or change by innuendo a previous one, unless old and untried contracts atomic number 18, on every point, absurd with each other.Finally, substantiative facts may be admitted in cause when a demythologized pa rity exists in the midst of the conditions natural endowment rise to the fact offered and the caboodle touch the issue or fact to be proved. The reason forrader us is a petition for review on certiorari quest to abolish the speak to of Appeals (CA) closing1 in CA- GR CV 33566, promulgated July 15, 1996, which converse the regional rivulet cost (RTC) of Antipolo, Rizal and CA event 2 of October 1, 1996, which denied petitioners movement for rethink.Petitioners Adoracion, Thelma Debbie, Gerry and Arnel (all surnamed Cruz) filed an action for part against the individual(a) responders, Spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos. On January 28, 1991, the trial court rendered a last which given as follows3 WHEREFORE, appraisal is hereby rendered for the plaintiffs and against the defendants -spouses 1. ordering the divider of the 7erer packages of shoot totalling 1,912 sq. m. among the four (4) plaintiffs and the defendants-spouses as follows a. b. c. d. e. Adoraci on E. Cruz (1/5) Thelma Debbie Cruz (1/5) Gerry E. Cruz (1/5) Arnel E. Cruz (1/5)Spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos (1/5) 382 sq. m. 382 sq. m. 382 sq. m. 382 sq. m. 382 sq. m. to whom clustering zero(prenominal) 1-C-2-B-2-B-4-L-1-A with an flying field of 276 sq. m. cover by TCT zero(prenominal) 502603 and a pot of mint candy nary(prenominal) 1-C2-B-2-B-4-L-1-B cover by TCT no. 502604 to the end of 106 sq. m. conterminous TCT no 502603. 2. say the parties herein to execute a mold of district in unity with this decision indicating the zone of the cardin besidesme (7) parcels of arrive inwardly 15 (15) eld upon receipt of this notion. 3. guild defendants-spouses to pay plaintiffs herein P5,000. 00 as and for attorneys fees 4. bell of suit. On appeal, responder courtyard transposed the trial court accordingly4 WHEREFORE, purpose the appeal to be meritorious, we turn back the appealed decision and render archetype DISMISSING the indisposition without prejudice however to the claim of plaintiff -appellees for their grapples in the reappearance of the auction off exchange of the seven (7) parcels of come to in challenge against Nerissa Cruz Tamayo pursuant to the document transcription. represent against the plaintiff-appellees. As in front stated, reconsideration was denied by the appellant courts challenged reticuloendothelial systemolution 5 WHEREFORE, for miss of merit, the enquiry for Reconsideration in DENIED. . The harbinger Facts The facts of this case argon un battle. The assailed Decision relates them as follows6 Delfin I. Cruz and Adoracion Cruz were spouses and their children were Thelma, Nerissa, Arnel and Gerry Cruz. Upon the utmost stage of Delfin I. Cruz, his live on spouse and children kill on terrific 22, 1977 a notarized work of partial tone tone air division (Exhibit 2) by celibacy of which each one of them was give a persona of several(prenominal) parcels of registered toss offs all situat ed in Taytay, Rizal.The pursuit day, supercilious 23, 1977, the like(p) bugger off and children punish a inventory compact (Exhibit H) which provided That the parties hereto ar super acid co- possessors pro-indiviso in peer tracts of the pastime registered real properties, all laid at Taytay, Rizal, Philippines, x x x. thirty That sometime on fantastic 22, 1977, a title of partial fall apart was penalize among us originally Atty. Virgilio J. Tamayo, notary unexclusive on and for the duty of Rizal, per Doc. no(prenominal) 1776 rascal no 14 of his nary(prenominal)arial indicate no XLIX, series of 1977 xxxThat as a way out of give tongue to partial divider, the properties touched were in truth sectioned and the various(prenominal) dowers of ea ch party, adjudicated to him/her That condescension the death penalty of this movement of partial tone cleavage and the eventu al inclination or cut-rate deal of their various(prenominal) destinys, the contract parties herein covenanted and concur among themselves and by these presents do hereby obtain themselves to one another(prenominal) that they shall dowery alike and au hencetic pit plow dole outs from the matter of the cut-rate sales agreement of any jalopy or rafts dispense to and adjudicated in their individual name calling by justness of this achievement of partial variance. That this symmetricalness shall stay put to be well-grounded and enforceable among the espial parties herein up to and until the last handle cover by the operation of Partial Partition above adverted to shall get downstairs ones skin been trade of or sell and the reaping hence evenly overlapd out and their several(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) piece of grounds standard by each of them. This memorandum organization was registered and annotated in the titles of the primers cover by the effect of incomplete section. Subsequently, th e very(prenominal) parties ca utilise the consolidation and sleeves of the overthrowed estates they respectively transmittable from the late Delfin I.Cruz per accomplishment of overtone breakdown. aft(prenominal) that, they registered the form of address of partial sectionalization and member plans and titles were issued in their name calling. In the case of Nerissa Cruz Tamayo, the sideline titles were issued to her in her name TCT nary(prenominal) 502603 (Exhibit A), TCT none 502604, (Exhibit B), TCT nary(prenominal) 502605 (Exhibit C), TCT nary(prenominal) 502606 (Exhibit D), TCT no 502608 (Exhibit E), TCT none 502609 (Exhibit F), TCT nary(prenominal) 502610 (Exhibit G), herenether called the rural argonas in interrogate. Naturally, the notation pertaining to the inscription correspondence was carried in each of verbalise seven (7) titles and annotated in each of them.Mean mend, the spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos filed civil slickness none 31 231 against the spouses Nerissa Cruz -Tamayo and Nelson Tamayo for a sum of money. The court of law of basal spokesperson of Rizal, section sixteen (Quezon city) rendered a decision of June 1, 1981 in prefer of Eliseo and Virginia condemn the spouses Nerissa and Nelson Tamayo to pay them P126,529. 00 with 12% interest per annum from the register of the complaint summation P5,000. 00 attorneys fee. After the decision of that decision, a writ of effect (Exhibit J) was issued on noember 20, 1981. Enforcing say writ, the sheriff of the court levied upon the go throughs in inquire.On June 29, 1983, these properties were change in an action sale to the highest bidders, the spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos. Accordingly, the sheriff penalize a credentials of change (Exhibit K) over all the rights, claims, interests, titles, sh ares, and participations of defendant spouses Nerissa Tamayo and Ne lson Tamayo.. Nerissa Cruz Tamayo failed to exercise her right of buyb ack inside the statutory period and so the closing consummation of sale was execute by the sheriff transferral the vote downs in suspicion to spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos.The Malolos meet asked Nerissa Cruz Tamayo to give them the owners ingeminate write of the seven (7) titles of the estates in hesitation but she ref apply. The gibe up moved the court to compel her to cease render titles to the indicate of whole kit of Rizal for cancellation. This was given(p) on kinsfolk 7, 1984. But Nerissa was adamant. She did not approve with the Order of the court and so the Malolos couple asked the court to declare tell titles as useless and void.At this point, Adoracion Cruz, Thelma Cruz, Gerry Cruz and Arnel Cruz entered the portraying by file is tell begin court a doubt for distribute to interfere and oppose the Maloloses effort. The Cruzes alleged that they were co-owners of Nerissa Cruz Tamayo over the discharges in head. On January 18, 1985, ut ter court issued an Order modifying the Order of phratry 7, 1984 by directing the conceding of the owners duplicate copies of the titles of the institutes in question to the show of kit and caboodle not for cancellation but for the musical note of the rights, interest acquired by the Maloloses over verbalise fine-tunes.On February 17, 1987, Adoracion, Thelma, Gerry and Arnel Cruz filed courteous good example No. 961-A for class of strong estate against spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos over the shores in question. As already stated in the depression paragraph of this Decision, the court a quo rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs from which the defendants appealed to this court, x x x x . popular opinion of the motor hotel of Appeals For responsive judicatory, the downstairslie issue was Did the schedule of compact MOA (Exhibit H)7 revoke, cancel or supervene upon the number of overtone zone DPP (Exhibit 2)? 8 If so, thusly petitioners and Sp ouses Tamayo were co-owners of the reduce in issue, and divider should practise upon motion of the fountain if not, then the latter are its inviolable owners and to splitter should be made. answering flirt single-minded the above question in the veto for the by-line(a) reasons setoff, the DPP was not materially and comfortably inappropriate with the MOA. The DPP conferred commanding monomania of the parcels of country in issue on Nerissa Cruz Tamayo, season the MOA exactly created an debt promoter on her part to fate with the petitioners the production of the sale of express properties. minute of arc, the fact that mystic responder registered the DPP was discordant with the allegement that they think to overturn it. In accomplishment, had they meant to overturn it, they would require simply collected the copies of tell document and then torn of burnt-out them. trio, petitioners were estopped from claiming co-ownership over the contend properties because, as arbitrary owners, they either mortgaged or change the other properties adjudicated to them by justice of the DPP. Hence, this petition. 9 appellation of ErrorsIn their catalogue,10 petitioners submit the interest identification of faults A. responder motor lodge erred in sentiment that the memorial of organization (Exhibit H) does not prevail over the turn of uncomplete district (Exhibit 2). B. sale. C. responder act erred in feeling that petitioners can only claim their right to the issue of the auction responder address erred in control that petitioners are in estoppel by deed. D. responsive coquet erred in reigning that the readjustment of the deed of partial partition precluded the petitioners from abrogating it. E. responder hook erred when it completely ignored the finality of the order of the regional essay philander of Quezon city, showtime lxxxvi as incarnate in the decision of the regional ladder royal court of Antipolo, Ri zal, get-go 71. In fine, the resolution of this petition hinges of the sideline issues (1) whether DPP was scratch or novated by the MOA (2) whether the MOA established, amongst petitioners and the plan debtor, a co -ownership of the a good deal in question (3) whether petitioners are nix by estoppel from claiming co-ownership of the seven parcels of land and (4) whether res judicata has set in.The tourist courts impression The petition is grieving of merit. It fails to present any rechargeable actus reus on the part of the flirt of Appeals. First trim back No Novation or Cancellation In their Memorandum, petitioners insist that the MOA flatly and unusually named and covenanted them as co owners of the parcels in issue and novated their front agreement, the action of uncomplete Part ition. Petitioners claim that the MOA gain groundly manifested their purport to create a co -ownership. This is especially apparent(a) in Exhibit 1-B, which provides That scor n the action of this movement of uncomplete straighten out and ultimate judicature or sale of their respective appoints, the espial parties herein covenanted and agree among themselves and by these presents do hereby keep themselves to one another that they shall fortune and perk up cost pieces from the issuing of the sale of any hooking or often lot to and adjudicated in their individual names by rectitude of this deed of partial partition. The solicit disagrees. The introductory planning in the MOA does not novate, much less cancel, the front DPP.Novation, one of the modes of quenching an agreement, requires the accord of the hobby (1) there is a previous reasonable agreement (2) the parties bear on agree to a in the raw contract (3) the old contract is do aside with and (4) there is a valid new contract. 11Novation may be express or implied. member 1292 of the mandate provides In order that an bargain may be snuff out by another which substitu tes the equal, it is peremptory that it be so stated in unequivocal foothold express novation,12 or that the old and new debt instruments be on every point mismatched with each other implied novation. tried and true against the foregoing standards, petitioners stance is shattered to pieces. The stipulation that the petitioners and Spouses Tamayo were co-owners was entirely the forward part of the MOA, and it reads13 That the parties are putting sur mettle co-owners pro-indiviso in advert dowers of the following registered real properties, all placed at Taytay, Rizal, Philippines. xxx xxx xxx xxx That sometime in appalling 22, 1977, a movement of fond(p) sectionalization was penalize among us ahead Atty. Virgilio J.Tamayo, notary habitual in and for the cat valiumwealth of Rizal, per Doc. No. 1796 pageboy No. 14 of his Notarial annals No. XLIX, series of 1977 chase the above-quoted stipulation is a tale that the pillowcase parcels of land had in fact been partitioned, but that the creator co-owner think to plowfortune with petitioners the proceed of any sale of state land,14 viz That as a moderate of utter partial partition, the properties affected were genuinely partitioned and the respe ctive shares of each party, adjudicated to him/herThat condescension the exertion of this statute title of partial(p) Partition and the ultimate inclination or sale of their respective shares, th e catching parties herein covenanted and concur among themselves and to one another that they shall do sic hereby bind themselves to one another that they shall share alike and get equal shares from the income tax return of the sale of any lot or dissever lot to and adjudicated in their individual names by virtue of this deed of p artial partition That this responsibleness shall report to be valid and enforceable among the espial parties herein up to and until the last lot cover by the deed or partial partition above adverted to sha ll fall in been inclined of or exchange and the procee ds thence every bit shared out and their respective shares genuine by each of them. xxx xxx xxxThe MOA fall short of producing a novation, because it does not express a clear int ent to scatter the old obligation as a consideration for the subject of the new one. 15 Likewise, petitioners fail to show that the DPP and the MOA are materially and substantially inharmonious with each other. Petitioners admit that, under the MOA, they and the Tamayo spouses concord to as share in the final payment of the sale of the split up. 16 Indeed, the DPP give ined title to the practically in question to the co-owner to whom they were assigned, and the MOA created an obligation on the part of such(prenominal)(prenominal) co -owner to share with the others the harvest of the sale of such parcels. there is no mutual exclusiveness surrounded by these ii contracts. Verily, the MOA cannot be construed as a forgoing of the rather DPP.Both documents can exist together and must(prenominal) be so interpreted as to give life to both. responsive tourist court capably explained17 The movement of Partition conferred upon Nerissa Cruz Tamayo exacting ownership over the lands in question. The Memorandum of Agreement scarcely created an obligation on the part of impregnable owner Nerissa Cruz Tamayo to share with the appellees with sic the offspring of the sale of state properties. The obligation of the owner of a piece of land to share with individual with sic its fruits or the government issue of its sale does not inescapably flub his pattern over the airplane propeller much less make the benefactive role his co -owner thereof. tout ensemble in all, the basic principle underlying this belief is sincere when t he text of a contract is unequivocal and leaves no doubt as to its inclination, the court may not read into it any tendency that would contradict its plain import. 18 The hornbook reign on interpretation of contracts gives primacy to the aim of the parties, which is the law among them. Ultimately, their invention is to be decode not from the one-sided post facto assertions of one of the parties, but from the linguistic process utilize in the contract. And when the impairment of the agreement, as evince in such vocabulary, are clear, they are to be soundless literally, just as they appear on the face of the contract. Indeed, the legal make of a contract are determined by extracting the intention of the parties from the language they used and from their modern-day and subsequent acts. 19 This principle gains more force when trine parties are concerned. To require such persons to go beyond what is clearly scripted in the document is partial and unjust. They cannot by chance delve into the detection parties minds and suspect that something is amiss, when the language of th e instrument appears clear and unequivocal. chip electric outlet No Co-o wnership in the MOA Petitioners contend that they reborn their calve and individual ownership over the lands in bitterness into a co ownership by their exertion of the MOA and the eminence thereof on the separate titles. The butterfly is not convinced. The very cookery of the MOA belie the foundation of a co -ownership.First, it retains the partition of the properties, which petitioners purportedly placed in co -ownership and, second, it vests in the registered owner the power to pitch of the land adjudicated to him or her under the DPP. These are different to the petitioners rivalry. In a co-ownership, an undivided thing or right belongs to 2 or more persons. 20 contrive differently, several persons hold customary ruler over a spiritual (or ideal) part of a thing, which is not physically divided. 21 In the present case, however, the parcels of land in the MOA have all been partitioned and coroneted under separate and individual names. More important, the MOA stip ulated that the registered owner could sell the land without the consent of the other parties to the MOA.Jus disponendi is an attribute of ownership, and only the owner can dispose of a belongings. 22 opposed to petitioners claim, the bill of the MOA in the certificate of title did not set about any co -ownership. W ell colonised is the article of belief that enrollment precisely confirms, but does not confer, title. 23 It does not give the holder any dampen title than what he in truth has. As foregoing observed, the MOA did not make petitioners co-owners of the contest parcels of land. Hence, the annotation of this document in the separate certificates of title did not grant them a greater right over the similar property. Third free Estoppel by effect responsive coquet demonstrate that several whole works of sale and real estate mortgage, which petitioners put to death when they change or mortgaged some parcels adjudicated to them under the DPP, contained the st atement that the vender/mortgagor was the lordly owner of the parcel of residential land and that he or she represent it as free from liens and encumbrances. On the home of these pieces of depict, respondent lawcourt held that petitioners were estopped from claiming that there was a co-ownership over the disputed parcels of land which were withal cover by the DPP. Petitioners contend that responsive beg , in so judgement violate the res inter alios acta rule. Petitioners rocks is untenable.Res inter alios acta, as a universal rule, prohibits the memory access of establish that tends to show that what a person has do at one time is probative of the contention that he has do a mistakable as act at another time. 24 examine of comparable acts or occurrences compels the qualified to meet allegement s that are not mentioned in the complaint, confuses him in his defense, raises a regeneration of impertinent issues, and diverts the charge of the court from th e issues immediately in the number 1 place it. Hence, this evidentiary rule guards against the matter-of-fact inconven ience of essay collateral issues and protracting the trial and prevents force or other trickiness harmful to litigants. 25 The rule, however, is not without censure.W hile impermissible in general, collateral facts may be acquire as grounds under transcendent caboodle, as when there is a rational comparison or similitude amongst the conditions giving rise to the fact offered and the circumstances border the issue or fact to be proved. 26 narrate of analogous acts may a great deal develop relevant, especially in actions ground on fraud and conjuring trick , because it sheds light on the state of mind or friendship of a persons it provides sagacity into such persons motive or intent it uncovers a scheme, approach pattern or plan or it reveals a mistake. 27 In this case, petitioners argue that proceeding relating to the other parcels of land they ent ered into, in the excogitation of domineering owners, are in permissible as designate to show that the parcels in issue are not co -own.The court is not persuaded. show up of such minutes falls under the exception to the rule on the res inter alios acta. such separate is admissible because it is relevant to an issue in the case and confirmative of evidence already determined. 28 The relevancy of such transactions is quick apparent. The nature of ownership of state property should be the analogous as that of the lashings on question since they are all subject to the MOA. If the parcels of land were held and given by petitioners in fee simple, in the concept of absolute owners, then the lots in question should in like manner be treated as abruptly own in fee simple by the Tamayo spouses.Unmistakably, the evidence in dispute manifests petitioners common purpose and design to treat all the parcels of land cover by the DPP as suddenly owned and not subject to co -owner ship. 29 infra the principle of estoppel, petitioners are interdict from claiming co-ownership of the lands in issue. In estoppel, a person, who by his deed or conduct has introduced another to act in a particular m anner, is prohibit from adopting an at odds(predicate) position, carriage or lineage of conduct that thereby causes release or injury to another. 30 It advertize disallow him from revokeing the truth of a fact which has, in the rumination of law, get settled by the acts and proceedings of judicial or legislative officers or by the act of the party himself, either by conventional opus or by representations, express or im plied or in pairs. 31In their transaction with others, petitioners have declared that the other lands cover by the uniform MOA are absolutely owned, without indicating the earth of a co-ownership over such properties. Thus, they are estopped from claiming other than because, by their very own acts and representations as attest by the wor ks of mortgage and of sale, they have denied such co-ownership. 32 quaternary ISSUES No Res Judicata On Co-ownership Petitioners argue that the Order (Exhibit J)33 dated January 18, 1985, issued by the RTC of Quezon city, fork 86, which had long become final and executory, sustain their co-ownership. Thus, they claim that answerer acts about turn of the ruling of the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, is a violation of the rule on res judicata. This contention is evenly untenable.The elements of res judicata are (1) the former judgment was final (2) the court which rendered it had legal power over the subject matter and the parties(3) the judgment was on the merits and (4) the parties, subject matters and causes of action in the first and second actions are identical. 34 The RTC of Quezon City had no jurisdiction to decide on the merits of the present case or to entertain questions regarding the existence of co-ownership over the parcels in dispute, because the suit pending in advance it was only for the disposition of a sum of money. Its oratory on co-ownership was merely for the charge and the execution of the properties of the Tamayo spouses, in blessedness of their judgment debt to the hugger-mugger respondents. perchance more perceptible is the need of identity mingled with the ii actions.The first action earlier the RTC of Quezon City was for the line of battle of money, while the second out front the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, was for partition. There macrocosm no coincidence of the elements of res judicata in this case, the court finds no erroneous belief in Respondent acts ruling. No make headway discourse is postulate to show the stare difference between the two controversies. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision is Affirmed. monetary value against petitioners. SO ORDERED. Davide, younger , (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug, and Quisumbing, JJ. , concur. 3rd course of study G. R. No. 134559. celestial l atitude 9, 1999 ANTONIA TORRES, support by her husband, ANGELO TORRES and EMETERIA BARING, petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and MANUEL TORRES,respondents. ratiocination PANGANIBAN, J. coquets may not unsnarl parties from the needful consequences of their acts. That the terms of a contract turn out to be financially inexpedient to them will not borrow them of their obligations therein. The wishing of an inventory of real property will not ipso facto release the undertake retainers from their respective obligations to each other arising from acts penalize in accordance with their agreement. The shift The Petition for appraise on certiorari before us assails the demonstrate 5, 1998 Decision 1 Second Division of the Court of Appeals2 (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 2378 and its June 25, 1998 outcome denying reconsideration. The assailed Decision substantiate the ruling of the regional ravel Court (RTC) of Cebu City in polished facial expression No. R -21208, which given over a s follows WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing considerations, the Court, finding for the defendant and against the plaintiffs, orders the arc of the plaintiffs complaint. The counterclaims of the defendant are as well as ordered ignore. No dictum as to costs. 3 The Facts Sisters Antonia Torres and Emeteria Baring, herein petitioners, entered into a sound out make agreement with Respondent Manuel Torres for the learning of a parcel of land into a ramification.Pursuant to the contract, they execute a Deed of sales event covering the utter parcel of land in favor of respondent, who then had it registered in his name. By mortgaging the property, respondent obtained from fair Bank a loan ofP40,000 which, under the reefer proceed Agreement, was to be used for the knowledge of the ramification. 4 totally triad of them also agree to share the go on from the sale of the subdivided lots. The thrust did not repulse through, and the land was afterward foreclosed by the bank. Ac cording to petitioners, the enter failed because of respondents lack of notes or sum and skills. They add that respondent used the loan not for the exploitation of the ramification, but in publicity of his own company, usual Umbrell a Company.On the other hand, respondent alleged that he used the loan to go through the Agreement. With the said amount, he was able to effect the survey and the subdivision of the lots. He secured the Lapu Lapu City Councils approval of the subdivision mold which he advertise in a local newspaper. He also caused the twisting of roads, curbs and gutters. Likewise, he entered into a contract with an technology firm for the twist of lx low -cost hold units and actually even set up a modelling dramaturgy on one of the subdivision lots. He did all of these for a total expense of P85,000. Respondent claimed that the subdivision project failed, however, because petitioners and their relatives had apiece cause d the annotations of dverse clai ms on the title to the land, which in the end panic-stricken away potential buyers. disrespect his requests, petitioners refused to cause the elucidation of the claims, thereby forcing him to give up on the project. 5 Subsequently, petitioners filed a roughshod case for estafa against respondent and his wife, who were however acquitted. Thereafter, they filed the present civil case which, upon respondents motion, was later dismissed by the trial court in an Order dated folk 6, 1982. On appeal, however, the appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings. Thereafter, the RTC issued its assailed Decision, which, as earlier stated, was corroborate by the CA. Hence, this Petition. 6 reigning of the Court of AppealsIn affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that petitioners and respondent had organise a confederation for the development of the subdivision. Thus, they must bear the bolshie suffered by the fusion in the very(prenominal) similitude as t heir share in the clams stipulated in the contract. Disagreeing with the trial courts say-so that losings as well as bread in a vocalize endanger should be distributed equally,7 the CA invoked member 1797 of the obliging Code which provides article 1797 The losings and simoleons shall be distributed in conformity with the agreement. If only the share of each ally in the profit has been agree upon, the share of each in the losses shall be in the same symmetry. The CA elucidated further In the absence of stipulation, the share of each spouse in th e shekels and losses shall be in equalizer to what he may have contributed, but the industrial assistant shall not be liable for the losses. As for the remuneration, the industrial partner shall bid such share as may be just and equitable under the circumstances. If besides his work he has contributed capital, he shall also receive a share in the profits in proportion to his capital. The relinquish Petitioners desig nate to the Court of Appeals the following error x x x The Court of Appeals erred in conclud ing that the transaction x x x between the petitioners and respondent was that of a joystick move/ union, ignoring now the provision of obligate 1769, and other related provision of the accomplished Code of the Philippines. 8 The Courts RulingThe Petition is bereft of merit. primary(prenominal) ignore earth of a partnership Petitioners deny having create a partnership with respondent.