SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 174333, April 20, 2016
PILIPINAS SHELL FOUNDATION, INC. AND SHELL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION B.V., Petitioners, v. TOMAS M. FREDELUCES, MARCOS B. CORPUZ, JR., REYNALDO M. SAMONTE, NORMA M. SAMONTE, AMBROCIO VILLANUEVA, SALVACION A. BON, RAMIRO A. BON, LUZVIMINDA B. ANDILLO, LUDIVICO F. BON, ELMO AREGLO, ROSE A. SAN PEDRO, DANTE U. SANTOS, SR., MIGUEL SANTOS, EFREN U. SANTOS, RIC U. SANTOS, SIMON MARCE, JR., JOEL F. SALINEL, BEBIANA SAN PEDRO, AND MARINA SANTOS, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
When a motion to dismiss is filed, only allegations of ultimate facts are hypothetically admitted. Allegations of evidentiary facts and conclusions of law, as well as allegations whose falsity is subject to judicial notice, those which are legally impossible, inadmissible in evidence, or unfounded, are disregarded.
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Court of Appeals Decision2 and Resolution3 in CA-G.R. CV No. 74791. Except for respondent Tomas M. Fredeluces, the Court of Appeals reinstated the Complaint4 for damages filed by respondents Marcos B. Corpuz, Jr., Reynaldo M. Samonte, Norma M. Samonte, Ambrocio Villanueva, Salvacion A. Bon, Ramiro A. Bon, Luzviminda B. Andillo, Ludivico F. Bon, Elmo Areglo, Rose A. San Pedro, Dante U. Santos, Sr., Miguel Santos, Efren U. Santos, Ric U. Santos, Simon Marce, Jr., Joel F. Salinel, Bebiana San Pedro, and Marina Santos against petitioners Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. and Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.5 The Court of Appeals remanded the case to Branch 72 of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, which had earlier dismissed the Complaint for damages on the grounds of litis pendentia, failure to state a cause of action, and lack of cause of action.6
With respect to Tomas M. Fredeluces, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action.7
Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 87, otherwise known as the Oil Exploration and Development Act of 1972, the Republic of the Philippines entered into Service Contract No. 38 and engaged the services of Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. "for the exploration, development[,] and production of petroleum resources in an . . . area offshore northwest of . . . Palawan[.]"8 The service contractors eventually discovered in offshore Malampaya-Camago at least 2.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas deposits.9
Exploration and development of the Malampaya-Camago natural gas reservoir required the construction and operation of a shallow water platform off the coast of Palawan. The water platform further required a concrete gravity structure that would sit on the seabed, and a topside or the platform's deck which would sit on top of the concrete gravity structure.10
The topside was constructed in Singapore. As for the concrete gravity structure, Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. searched for possible construction sites here in the Philippines. Subsequently identified as a possible construction site was Subic, Zambales, and Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. met with representatives of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority.11
The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority proposed a 40-hectare site in Sitio Agusuhin as a possible construction site for the concrete gravity structure.12 The site formed part of the military reservation of the former naval base of the United States in Subic, which, under Republic Act No. 7227,13 became part of the Subic Special Economic Zone.14
Results of a socio-economic survey commissioned by Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. showed that there were about 200 households living at or near the proposed construction site. Together with the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc., Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. established contact with the occupants of Sitio Agusuhin. It was ultimately determined that 80 households would have to be relocated to nearby areas within the Subic Seaport Economic Free Zone to carry out the project.15
In May 1998, the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority and Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. entered into a Lease and Development Agreement for the construction of the concrete gravity structure in Sitio Agusuhin. The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority undertook to relocate the affected households, while Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. undertook to give financial assistance to them.16
The undertakings of Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. were implemented through Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. By the end of May 1998, Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. concluded agreements with some of the affected households. In exchange for financial assistance, some of the claimants voluntarily dismantled their houses and relocated to nearby areas within the Subic Seaport Economic Free Zone. Other claims, however, were denied by Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. for the claimant's failure to show that he or she resided in Sitio Agusuhin prior to the construction project.17
With the assistance of the Subic Sangguniang Bayan, a Compensation Community Relations Study Group was organized to re-evaluate the claims that had been previously denied by Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.18 In the meantime, the construction of the concrete gravity structure was completed, and the shallow water platform was successfully installed in Palawan on June 2, 2000.19 Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. turned over Sitio Agusuhin to the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, cleared, leveled, and elevated, together with improvements "consisting of a finger pier, a fence and gate, a drainage system[,] and a berthing facility for ferry sea crafts or similar vessels along the southern bank of the basin."20
On December 1, 2000, a Complaint for damages was filed against Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. before the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City.21 Tomas M. Fredeluces, Marcos B. Corpuz, Jr., Reynaldo M. Samonte, Norma M. Samonte, Ambrocio Villanueva, Salvacion A. Bon, Ramiro A. Bon, Luzviminda B. Andillo, Ludivico F. Bon, Elmo Areglo, Rose A. San Pedro, Dante U. Santos, Sr., Miguel Santos, Efren U. Santos, Ric U. Santos, Simon Marce, Jr., Joel F. Salinel, Bebiana San Pedro, and Marina Santos (Fredeluces, et al.) alleged that having resided in the area even prior to 1998, they were lawful residents of Sitio Agusuhin.22 They allegedly constructed their houses and introduced improvements in Sitio Agusuhin, such as fruit trees and other seasonal plants.23
However, "[f]or the direct benefit of the defendants [Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc.],"24 Fredeluces, et al. were "effectively evicted"25 from their homes in "total disregard"26 of their rights. Admitting that some of the claimants were given financial assistance, Fredeluces, et al. alleged that the amounts given were "insufficient to compensate the damages they sustained[.]"27 Worse, they were allegedly "pressured, coerced or . . . 'sweet talked'"28 into signing quitclaims and waivers.
"In arbitrarily and unlawfully evicting [Fredeluces, et al.] from their place of abode and livelihood,"29 Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. allegedly failed to act with justice, "did not give . . . [Fredeluces, et al.] their due[,] and acted in bad faith."30 The actions of Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. were allegedly contrary to law, for which they should pay Fredeluces, et al. the following amounts representing actual damages:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In addition to their allegations, Fredeluces, et al. moved that they be allowed to litigate as paupers considering that "[t]he gross income of each of [them] and the members of their [families] do not exceed P3,000.00[,]"32 and that none of them allegedly owned real property.33
1. Tomas Fredeluces P27,000,000.002. Marcos Corpuz, Jr. 905,000.003. Reynaldo Samonte 2,000,000.004. Norma Samonte 2,000,000.005. Ambrocio Villanueva 1,700,000.006. Salvacion Bon 750,000.007. Ramiro Bon 1,000,000.008. Luzviminda Andillo 500,000.009. Ludivico Bon 500,000.0010. Elmo Areglo 1,000,000.0011. Rose San Pedro 500,000.0012. Dante Santos, Sr., 12,000,000.0013. Miguel Santos 4,000,000.0014. Efren Santos 5,000,000.0015. Ric Santos 1,000,000.0016. Simon Marce, Jr. 4,000,000.0017. Joel Salinel (no amount)18. Bebiana San Pedro 1,500,000.0019. Marina Santos 3,000,000.00TOTAL P68,255,000.0031
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants dated April 5, 2001 is hereby granted. The case is ordered DISMISSED.Fredeluces, et al. filed a Notice of Appeal before the Court of Appeals on June 28, 2001.71 The parties subsequently filed their respective appeal briefs,72 both reiterating the arguments they had made before the trial court.
SO ORDERED.70ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, except with respect to appellant Tomas Fredeluces, appellants' complaint is ordered REINSTATED and the case is, accordingly, REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. and Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or Clarification,79 which the Court of Appeals denied in the Resolution dated August 16, 2006.80
SO . . . .
. . . . ORDERED.78 (Emphasis in the original)
SECTION 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:Litis pendentia in Latin means "a pending suit."115 Occasionally referred to as lis pendens116 or auter action pendant,117litis pendentia has the following elements: first, "[i]dentity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions;"118 second, "[i]dentity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts;"119 and third, "[i]dentity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case."120
. . . .
(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause[.]
The Complaints similarly allege that petitioners had an obligation to respect the supposed right of respondents when petitioners commenced the construction of the concrete gravity structure:
Complaint for sum of money filed on October 9, 2000 Complaint for damages filed on December 1, 2000 2. That plaintiffs are the possessor and long-time occupants under claim of ownership of certain parcels of land situated in Sitio Agusuhin, Cawag, Subic Zambales; . . . .. . . .4. That plaintiffs are in possession of the following areas which were expropriated by the defendants, and their corresponding values[:]
[Name: Bibiana [sic] San Pedro
Area occupied: 20,000 sq.m.
Amount: 1,500,000.00
Disturbance compensation:
80,000.00].127 3. The plaintiffs are lawful residents at Sitio Agusuhin, Bgy. Cawag, Subic, Zambales. They have settled in this place long prior to 1998.
They have put up their residence in this area and constructed their residential structures of various kind. They have put in various improvements, like fruit trees and devoted the area to seasonal plants. The place was a community by itself.128
The Complaints allege a similar violative act: petitioners allegedly failed to sufficiently compensate respondents for their eviction from Sitio Agusuhin:
Complaint for sum of money filed on October 9, 2000 Complaint for damages filed on December 1, 2000 3. That sometime in 1998, the defendant Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc. thru its exploration and development arm Shell Philippines Exploration, expropriated some 325,000 square meters of land belonging to the plaintiffs for the construction of the Malampaya Concrete Gravity Structure under the helm of Shell Philippines Exploration's Malampaya deepwater gas power project, the value of the expropriated parcels of land belonging to plaintiffs amounted to TWENTY-FIVE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P25,495,000.00) computed at SEVENTY FIVE PESOS (P75.00) per square meter plus a disturbance fee of EIGHTY THOUSAND PESOS (P80,000) per occupant. This is the amount paid by the defendant Corporation to the other lucky occupants similarly situated as the plaintiffs[.]129 4. About 1998, the defendants, upon agreement drawn up with the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, used this area as a launching site of its exploration project for Shell CGS Project (Malampaya project). The project site required the use of 400,000 square meters of land.
5. The area in the actual occupation and use by the plaintiffs were inside the 400,000 square meter site used by the plaintiffs.130
As for the reliefs sought, respondents Dante Santos, Efren Santos, Miguel Santos, Ric Santos, and Bebiana San Pedro, in the Complaint for sum of money, prayed for amounts equivalent to the "value of their lands[,]"133 while respondents, in their Complaint for damages, prayed for actual damages suffered by them.134In both Complaints, respondent Bebiana San Pedro prayed that she be paid P1,500,000.00 in addition to the prayer for payment of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.135 Respondent Bebiana San Pedro sought substantially identical reliefs in the Complaint for sum of money and the Complaint for damages.
Complaint for sum of money filed on October 9, 2000 Complaint for damages filed on December 1, 2000 5. That the defendant Corporation thru Mr[.] David Greer, after occupying and actually completing the construction works on the aforesaid parcels of land, reneged on its verbal promise to compensate the plaintiffs for the value of their lands which were expropriated by the former, for which reason the latter requested the assistance of counsel who sent a letter to the defendant dated March 15, 2000; . . .
. . . .
9. That despite several and repeated demands from the plaintiff, and defendants['] repeated assurances of payment thru defendant Mr. Greer, several meetings and submissions of numerous requirements as requested by the latter, the defendants failed and refused, and continuously fail and refuse to settle the abovementioned valid and legal claims of the plaintiffs, which constrained plaintiffs['] counsel to send another letter dated April 15, 2000; . . .
10. That after the plaintiffs['] counsel received defendants['] reply letter dated May 30, 2000, nothing was heard of from the defendants again[.]131 6. For the direct benefit of the defendants, the plaintiffs were effectively evicted starting in May 1998. There was a total disregard of the rights of the plaintiffs; although, the defendants tried to work out an acceptable compensation package for the plaintiffs, which, however, failed.
7. Some of the plaintiffs were paid some amount, others were not. For those who accepted some amounts, the payment were insufficient to compensate the damages they sustained, but they have to accept said amount for them to somehow start their life.
. . . .
9. In arbitrarily and unlawfully evicting the plaintiffs from their place of abode and livelihood, the defendants did not [sic] with justice, they did not give to the plaintiffs their due and acted in bad faith. The said action taken on the plaintiffs was contrary to law, in the process, they willfully and negligently caused damage to the plaintiff[s].
. . .
10. The damages suffered by the plaintiffs by their eviction from the area are in the following amounts -
[Name of Plaintiffs: San Pedro, B Actual Damages: P1,500,000.00].132
SECTION 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:Failure to state a cause of action goes into the sufficiency of the allegation of the cause of action in the complaint. "When the facts alleged in the complaint show that the defendant has committed acts constituting a delict or wrong by which he violates the rights of the plaintiff, causing [the plaintiff] loss or injury, there is sufficient allegation of a cause of action. Otherwise, there is none."148
. . . .
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action[.]
There is no hypothetical admission of the veracity of allegations if their falsity is subject to judicial notice, or if such allegations are legally impossible, or if these refer to facts which are inadmissible in evidence, or if by the record or document included in the pleading these allegations appear unfounded. Also, inquiry is not confined to the complaint if there is evidence which has been presented to the court by stipulation of the parties, or in the course of hearings related to the case.158 (Citations omitted)Even assuming the truth of the ultimate facts alleged in the Complaint for damages, the Complaint states no cause of action. Respondents may have resided in Sitio Agusuhin, constructed their houses, and planted fruit trees in the area. However, they failed to allege any circumstance showing that they had occupied Sitio Agusuhin under claim of ownership for the required number of years. In their Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, respondents admitted that they do not own Sitio Agusuhin.159 The property belongs to the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, pursuant to Republic Act No. 7227; hence, it is a government property the possession of which, however long, "never confers title [to] the possessor[.]"160
In receiving the previously enumerated amounts, respondents declared in their respective quitclaims that they waived, released, and abandoned any claims thait they might have had over the parcels of land they occupied in Sitio Agusuhin as well as the improvements they introduced in the property.
Luzviminda B. Andillo P17,000.00170Salvacion A. Bon 150,000.00171Ramiro A. Bon 100,000.00172Elmo Areglo 270,000.00173Rose A. San Pedro 103,500.00174Dante U. Santos, Sr. 200,000.00175Efren U. Santos 270,000.00176Miguel Santos 150,000.00177Ric U. Santos 35,000.00178Simon Marce, Jr. 100,000.00179Joel F. Salinel 125,000.00180Bebiana San Pedro 140,000.00181Marcos B. Corpuz, Jr. 200,000.00182Reynaldo M. Samonte 100,000.00183Ambrocio Villanueva 150,000.00184
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 14-75.
2 Id. at 85-98. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and concurred in by Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes (subsequently appointed as Associate Justice of this Court) and Associate Justice Aurora Santiago-Lagman of the First Division.
3 Id. at 100-101. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and concurred in by Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes (subsequently appointed as Associate Justice of this Court) and Associate Justice Aurora Santiago-Lagman of the Former First Division.
4 Id. at 202-209. The Complaint was entitled Action for Damages with Motion to Litigate as Paupers.
5 Id. at 97, Court of Appeals Decision.
6 Id. at 85-86 and 97.
7 Id. at 94-95.
8 Exec. Order No. 473 (2005), whereas clause.
9 Exec. Order No. 254 (1995), whereas clause.
10Rollo, p. 86.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992.
14 Rep. Act No. 7227, sec. 12 provides:
Sec. 12. Subic Special Economic Zone. - Subject to the concurrence by resolution of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Olongapo and the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipalities of Subic, Morong and Hermosa, there is hereby created a Special Economic and Free-port Zone consisting of . . . the lands occupied by the Subic Naval Base and its contiguous extensions as embraced, covered, and defme[d] by the 1947 Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines and United States of America as amended[.]
15Rollo, pp. 86-87.
16 Id. at 87.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 88.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id. at 202, Complaint for damages.
22 Id. at 204.
23 Id. at 205.
24 Id.cralawred
25 Id.
26 Id.cralawred
27 Id.
28 Id. at 205-206.
29 Id. at 206.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id. at 207.
33 Id.
34 Id. at 103-135.
35 Id. at 103-104.
36 Id. at 198-201.
37 Id. at 112-113, Motion to Dismiss.
38 Id. at 199-201, Complaint for sum of money.
39 Id. at 112-116, Motion to Dismiss.cralawred
40 Id. at 124-125.
41 Id. at 118-119.
42 Id. at 125-132.
43 Id.
44 Id. at 132-133.
45 Id. at 132-134.
46 Id. at 224, Opposition.
47 Id. at 224-237. The Opposition was entitled Opposition to: Motion to Dismiss.
48 Id. at 224-225.
49 Id. at 225-228.
50 Id. at 234.
51 Id.
52 Id.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 Id. at 234-235.
56 Id. at 235-236.
57 Id. at 236-237.
58 Id. at 254, Regional Trial Court Order dated June 7, 2001.
59 Id. at 249-254. The Order was issued by Presiding Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas.
60 Id. at 254.
61 Id. at 249-250.
62 Id. at 250.
63 Id.
64 Id. at 251.
65 Id.
66 Id. at 183-190.
67 Id. at 187-188.
68 Id. at 254, Regional Trial Court Order dated June 7, 2001.
69 Id.
70 Id.
71 Id. at 261, Fredeluces, et al.'s Appelants' Brief.
72 Id. at 255-278, Fredeluces, et al.'s Appellants' Brief, and 287-358, Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc., et al.'s Appellees' Brief.
73 Id. at 93-94, Court of Appeals Decision.
74 Id. at 96.
75 Id.
76 Id. at 95.
77 Id. at 94-95.
78 Id. at 97-98.
79 Id. at 31, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
80 Id. at 101, Court of Appeals Resolution.
81 Id. at 14, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
82 Id. at 430-434.
83 Id. at 445-456, Reply.
84 Id. at 43-47.
85 Id. at 366-371, Regional Trial Court Order dated October 3, 2001.
86 Id. at 48-49, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
87 Id. at 373-388. The Decision, dated February 27, 2004 and docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 74724, was penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos (Chair) and was concurred in by Associate Justices Perlita J. Tria Tirona and Rosalinda Asuncion Vicente of the Tenth Division.
88 Id. at 389.
89 Id. at 34-39, Petition for Review on Certiorari.
90 Id. at 43-47.
91 Id. at 41-43.
92 Id.
93 Id. at 41-42.
94 Id. at 42-43 and 68.
95 Id. at 47.
96 Id. at 47-51.
97 Id. at 50.
98 Id.
99 Id.
100 Id. at 51.
101 Id. at 51-53.
102 Id. at 53-55.
103 Id. at 55.
104 CIVIL CODE, art. 449 provides:
Article 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity.
105Rollo, pp. 56-57.
106 Id. at 57-63.
107 Id. at 63-66.
108 Id. at 69-71.
109 Id. at 431-433, Fredeluces, et al.'s Compliance and Comment.
110 Id. at 431-432.
111 Id. at 432-433.
112 Id. at 433.
113 RULES OF COURT, Rule 2, sec. 3 provides:
RULE 2. Cause of Action
. . . .
SEC. 3. One suit for a single cause of action. — A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.
114Victronics Computers, Inc. v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati, G.R. No. 104019, January 25, 1993, 217 SCRA 517, 531 [Per J. Davide, Jr., Third Division]; Arceo v. Oliveros, et al., 219 Phil. 279, 287 (1985) [Per J. Cuevas, Second Division].
115Feliciano v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 499, 505 (1998) [Per J. Bellosillo, First Division].
116Buan v. Lopez, Jr., 229 Phil. 65, 68 (1986) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division].
117 Id.
118Dasmariñas Village Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 359 Phil. 944, 951 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].
119 Id. at 952.
120 Id.
121Rollo, p. 238.
122Gatmaytan v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 155, 167 (1997) [Per C.J. Narvasa, Third Division].
123 RULES OF COURT, Rule 2, sec. 2.
124The City of Bacolod v. San Miguel Brewery, Inc., 140 Phil. 363, 371 (1969) [Per J. Barredo, En Banc].
125 Id.
126 Id.
127Rollo, pp. 198-199, Complaint for sum of money.
128 Id. at 204-205, Complaint for damages.
129 Id. at 199, Complaint for sum of money.
130 Id. at 205, Complaint for damages.
131 Id. at 199-200, Complaint for sum of money.
132 Id. at 205-206, Complaint for damages.
133 Id. at 199, Complaint for sum of money.
134 Id. at 206, Complaint for damages.
135 Id. at 199, Complaint for sum of money, and 206, Complaint for damages.
136Philippine National Bank v. Barreto, 52 Phil. 818, 824 (1929) [Per J. Villamor, En Banc].
137Rollo, pp. 366-371. The Order was penned by Presiding Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas.
138 Id. at 373, Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 74724.
139 Id. at 370-371, Regional Trial Court Order in Civil Case No. 399-0-2000.
140 Id. at 366-367.
141 Id. at 368-369.
142 Id. at 368.
143 Id. at 388, Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 74724.
144 Id. at 389, Entry of Judgment.
145See Luzon Development Bank v. Conquilla, 507 Phil. 509 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
146Rollo, p. 361, Regional Trial Court Order dated October 3, 2001.
147 Id. at 387, Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 74724.
148U. Bañez Electric Light Company (UBELCO) v. Abra Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ABRECO), et al., 204 Phil. 440, 445 (1982) [Per J. Plana, First Division].
149 RULES OF COURT, Rule 8, sec. 1.
150Remitere, et al. v. Yulo, et al., 123 Phil. 57, 62 (1966) [Per J. Zaldivar, En Banc].
151 RULES OF COURT, Rule 8, sec. 1.
152Viola v. The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, 47 Phil. 849, 853 (1925) [Per J. Villa-Real, En Banc].
153U. Bañez Electric Light Company (UBELCO) v. Abra Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ABRECO), et al., 204 Phil. 440, 445 (1982) [Per J. Plana, First Division].
154 Id.
155 RULES OF COURT, Rule 129, sec. 1 provides:
SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
156U. Bañez Electric Light Company (UBELCO) v. Abra Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ABRECO) et al., 204 Phil. 440, 445 (1982) [Per J. Plana, First Division].
157 379 Phil. 939 (2000) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].
158 Id. at 950-951.
159Rollo, p. 234, Tomas M. Fredeluces, et al.'s Opposition to: Motion to Dismiss.
160Director of Lands v. Judge Reyes, 160-A Phil. 832, 851 (1975) [Per J. Antonio, En Banc].
161 CIVIL CODE, art. 435 provides:
Article 435. No person shall be deprived of his property except by competent authority and for public use and always upon payment of just compensation.
Should this requirement be not first complied with, the courts shall protect and, in a proper case, restore the owner in his possession.
162 CIVIL CODE, art. 526 provides:
Article 526. He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.
He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the foregoing. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith.
163 CIVIL CODE, art. 449.
164Rollo, p. 253, Regional Trial Court Order dated June 7, 2001.
165 Id. at 196, Certification.
166 Id. at 195.
167 Id. at 183-190.
168 Id. at 205, Complaint for damages.
169 Id.
170 Id. at 154, Luzviminda B. Andillo's Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
171 Id. at 150, Salvacion A. Bon's Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
172 Id. at 152, Ramiro A. Bon's Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
173 Id. at 156, Elmo Areglo's Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
174 Id. at 158, Rose A. San Pedro's Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
175 Id. at 160, Dante U. Santos, Sr.'s Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
176 Id. at 164, Efren U. Santos' Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
177 Id. at 162, Miguel Santos' Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
178 Id at 166, Ric U. Santos' Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim)
179 Id. at 168, Simon Marce, Jr.'s Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
180 Id. at 170, Joel F. Salinel's Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
181 Id at 172, Bebiana San Pedro's Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
182 Id. at 146, Marcos B. Corpuz, Jr.'s Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
183 Id. at 147, Reynaldo M. Samonte's Agreement (with Release, Waiver and Quitclaim).
184 Id. at 145, Pilipinas Shell Foundation, Inc.'s Final Report on Compensation Claims.
185 CIVIL CODE, art. 2028 provides:
Article 2028. A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced.
186Rollo, p. 205, Complaint for damages.
187 Id. at 205-206.
188 RULES OF COURT, Rule 8, sec. 5 provides:
Rule 8. Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings
. . . .
SEC 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. — In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, 189 knowledge or other condition of the mind of a person may be averred generally.
189Rollo, p. 251, Regional Trial Court Order dated June 7, 2001.