G.R. No. 253426

G.R. No. 253426, November 29, 2022,
♦ Decision, Gaerlan, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Gesmundo, [CJ]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Lazaro-Javier, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Singh, [J]

Bacolod City

EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 253426. November 29, 2022 ]

ANA MARIA C. MANGUERRA, PETITIONER, VS. MA. PATRICIA CONCEPCION E. MANGUERRA-ABERASTURI, JOSE MARIANO E. MANGUERRA, CHRISTINE MARTINA E. MANGUERRA, MAMERTO LUIS E. MANGUERRA, JUAN PAOLO E. MANGUERRA, AND GREGORIO CONSTANTINO E. MANGUERRA, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N

GAERLAN, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 dated September 30, 2020 filed by Ana Maria C. Manguerra (petitioner), assailing the Decision2 dated June 17, 2019 and the Resolution3 dated September 8, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 151780, which: (1) reversed and set aside the Orders dated April 5, 20174 and June 16, 20175 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 56, in SP. Proc. No. M-5599; and (2) ordered the RTC to approve the notice of appeal and record on appeal filed by Ma. Patricia Concepcion E. Manguerra-Aberasturi, Jose Mariano E. Manguerra, Christine Martina E. Manguerra, Mamerto Luis E. Manguerra, Juan Paolo E. Manguerra, and Gregorio Constantino E. Manguerra (Gregorio; collectively, respondents).

Factual Antecedents

On January 27, 2003, petitioner filed a Petition6 for the probate of the Last Will and Testament7 of decedent Concepcion A. Cuenco Vda. De Manguerra (decedent) before the RTC of Makati City, docketed as SP Proc. No. M-5599, where she prayed for the allowance of the decedent's will and for her appointment as executor8 of the estate.

In the will, the decedent expressly designated petitioner as the executor of her estate,9 and disinherited all but one of her grandchildren from her late son, Mariano Jesus Manguerra, Jr. – the respondents, except Gregorio – from receiving any share of her estate.10

The will likewise specified to whom the properties of the estate are to be bequeathed, thus:

SEVENTH – To GREGORIO CONSTANTINO E. MANGUERRA, the remaining grandchild I have with my late son MARIANO JESUS C. MANGUERRA, JR., I give and bequeath, for him to have and to hold, the following:

7.1 Lot No. 903-A-6 of the Banilad Estate under TCT No. 113781 of the Registry of Deeds of Cebu City, 894 square meters, situated behind Redemptorist and Capital Parish Church, Cebu City x x x.

7.2 Cash in an amount equivalent to the balance of his legitime after deducting therefrom the prevailing market value at the time of my death of above property and the cash advances I made to his late father.

EIGHTH – To my daughter, MA. VICTORIA C. MANGUERRA-MONTILLA, I give and bequeath the following:

8.1 A house and lot situated in No. 1820 Luis Ma. Guerrero St., Malate, Manila City x x x.

8.2 Cash in an amount equivalent to the balance of her legitime after deducting therefrom the prevailing market value of the above house and lot at the time of my death and the cash advances I made to her.

NINTH – To my daughter, MA. CECILIA C. MANGUERRA-BRAINARD, I give and bequeath the following:

9.1 A commercial lot and building, situated in No. 31, Polaris Street, Bel-Air I, Makati City x x x.

9.2 Cash in an amount equivalent to the balance of her legitime after deducting therefrom the prevailing market value of the above commercial lot and building at the time of my death.

TENTH – To my daughter, ANA MARIA C. MANGUERRA, I give and bequeath the following:

10.1 An agricultural lot together with all the improvements thereon, 2.8292 hectares, situated in Magsaysay Street, Poblacion, Toledo, Cebu City x x x.

10.2 A residential lot with house and buildings (3039 square meters) situated in No. 873 C.G. Briones Street, Guadalupe, Cebu City x x x.

10.3 All my remaining cash to be found in the bank or banks where I may have deposited the same including the securities for cash and other legal and commercial instruments found therein – after the distributions in Sections SEVENTH, EIGHTH[,] and NINTH shall have been made and completed.

10.4 All my jewelries, genuine and fancy.

ELEVENTH – I give and bequeath my rights and interest in 1) Macovic Development Corporation; 2) Rio Dorado; and 3) CCM Realty Corporation; to be distributed as follows:

11.1 ANA MARIA C. MANGUERRA - 75.00%

11.2 MELLISA M. MONTILLA
(nee) married to LEONARDO JOSE GONZALES, my granddaughter with Ma. Victoria and Eduardo Montilla - 12.1aшphi150%

11.3 MONIKA M. MONTILLA
(nee) married to PEROM TAWNGDEE, my other granddaughter with Ma. Victoria and Eduardo Montilla - 12.50%
--------

100%
---------

TWEL[FTH] - All the rest, residues and remainder of my estate, real and personal, whatsoever and wheresoever found, I give, devise[,] and bequeath to my daughter, ANA MARIA C. MANGUERRA.11

On April 15, 2003, the RTC issued an Order,12 which allowed the decedent's will, ordered the issuance of letters testamentary to petitioner, but invalidated the disinheritance provision contained in the will, to wit:

WHEREFORE, finding that the subject Last Will and Testament was duly executed by the testatrix Concepcion A. Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra in accordance with the requirements and formalities prescribed by law, the petition is hereby granted. Accordingly, the said will is hereby declared duly proved and, consequently, hereby allowed.

Likewise, finding the cause for disinheritance under the Sixth Clause of the Last Will and Testam[e]nt not to be one of those set forth in Article 918 of the Civil Code, the disinheritance is hereby deemed invalid, and therefore, oppositors Ma. Concepcion E. Manguerra-Aberasturi, et al[.] shall be entitled to their legitime as compulsory heirs in representation of their father Mariano Jesus C. Manguerra, Jr[.], who predeceased the testatrix.

Accordingly, let letters testamentary be issued to Ana Maria C. Manguerra, who is named executrix in the will, to administer the estate of decedent Concepcion A. Cuenca Vda. de Manguerra, to serve without bond.

However, her authority to sell or dispose of any property of said decedent shall only be for purposes of paying the taxes and debts due to creditors of the estate of the decedent, pending final disposition by this Court of the shares due the compulsory heirs and/or upon approval by this Court.

SO ORDERED.13

Petitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration where she argued that the invalidation of the disinheritance provision was premature. Thereafter, the RTC issued its Order14 dated July 16, 2003, which granted petitioner's motion and ruled that resolving the issue of disinheritance is premature as it pertains to the intrinsic validity of the will, to wit:

In this case, inasmuch as the issue of disinheritance raised by oppositors-grandchildren in their opposition to the petition for probate of the will, pertains to the intrinsic validity or legality of the provisions thereon in the will, a determination of the same as passed upon in the Order allowing the Will is indeed premature.

Thus, the Last Will and Testament of the decedent Dna. Concepcion A. Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra having been proved and allowed in the Order dated April 15, 2003, the determination of the validity of the disinheritance can now be ventilated in further proceedings.

Wherefore, petitioner's motion (for partial reconsideration) is hereby granted. x x x15

On February 15, 2005, petitioner filed a Motion,16 praying for the distribution of the properties of the estate to the named devisees and legatees in the will.17

After several years of litigation, the RTC finally rendered its Resolution18 (Partial Distribution Order) dated October 21, 2013, which directed the partial distribution of the decedent's estate. Specifically, the Partial Distribution Order directed the distribution of the: (1) lots and shareholdings bequeathed in favor of petitioner; (2) the shareholdings bequeathed in favor of Melissa Montilla Gonzalez; and (3) the shareholdings bequeathed in favor of Monika Montilla Tawngdee.19

In the Partial Distribution Order, the RTC also noted that the properties bequeathed in favor of Gregorio have not yet been accepted by him. The RTC thus directed him to submit within five days a Manifestation of his acceptance or rejection of the same.20

Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration21 of the Partial Distribution Order, but the same was denied by the RTC in its Order22 dated February 13, 2014.

Aggrieved, respondents filed their Notice of Appeal23 and Record on Appeal24 both dated April 2, 2014, challenging the Partial Distribution Order.

On June 2, 2014, the RTC rendered its Order,25 which approved the record on appeal and directed the submission of the records to the CA, thus:

There being no objection to the Record on Appeal filed by the oppositors last 2 April 2014, and pursuant to Section 6, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, said Record on Appeal is hereby APPROVED.

The Branch Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to send the record on appeal to the Honorable Court of Appeals for appropriate disposition.

SO ORDERED.26

Notably, while the appeal of the Partial Distribution Order was pending, petitioner filed a Motion for Final Distribution of Remainder of the Estate27 dated July 28, 2014, which was not opposed by the respondents despite ample opportunity to do so.28

On September 17, 2014, the RTC rendered its Resolution29 (Final Distribution Order), which granted petitioner's motion, to wit:

For resolution is petitioner-Administratrix's Motion for Final Distribution of Remainder of the Estate filed on 30 July 2014. There being no Comment filed by Oppositors, despite having been given ample opportunity to do so, and that up to the present, there is no compliance on the part of Gregorio Constantino Manguerra or his heirs pursuant to the Order dated 21 October 2013, the present motion is hereby ordered GRANTED.

The Court hereby DISTRIBUTES the following properties, by way of completion of the provisions set out in the Will of Testratrix Concepcion Cuenco Vda. De Manguerra, x x x.30 (Underscoring supplied; emphases and italics in the original)

In the Final Distribution Order, the RTC directed the distribution of all remaining assets in the decedent's estate, thereby completing all the provisions set out in the will. The Final Distribution Order likewise ordered that the property bequeathed to Gregorio be reverted back to the estate and distributed in favor of the petitioner, in view of Gregorio's failure to comply with the RTC's directive, which ordered him to manifest his acceptance or rejection of the same.31

On September 30, 2014, respondents filed a Motion to Inhibit,32 which was granted by the RTC. After the re-raffle of the case, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration33 dated October 10, 2014. However, the said motion was denied by the RTC in its Order34 dated September 7, 2015.

Respondents received the RTC Order denying their motion for reconsideration on September 22, 2015. Thereafter, on October 21, 2015 or 29 days after their receipt of the order of the RTC, respondents filed their Notice of Appeal35 with attached Record on Appeal,36 challenging the Final Distribution Order.

On April 5, 2017, the RTC issued its Order,37 which disapproved respondents' record on appeal for being filed out of time, to wit:

Upon careful evaluation of the record on appeal and the arguments of the parties, the Court is inclined to disapprove the record on appeal filed by Oppositors Manguerra-[Aberasturi], et al. Petitioner is correct that this case has already been finally disposed of and the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal. Considering that Oppositors Manguerra-[Aberasturi], et al., received the assailed Order dated 07 September 2015 on 22 September 2015, they had fifteen (15) days from said date to file a notice of appeal. However, no notice of appeal was filed within the period and instead a record on appeal was submitted on 21 October 2015. Clearly, the period to file an ordinary appeal has prescribed. The Court also notes the fact that Oppositors Manguerra-[Aberasturi], et al., are trying to raise the same issues in the previous record on appeal they have made.

Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, the Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal dated 21 October 2015 filed by Oppositors Manguerra [Aberasturi], et al. is hereby DISAPPROVED.

SO ORDERED.38 (Emphases and italics in the original)

Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the RTC in its Order39 dated June 16, 2017. Significantly, in the same order, the RTC also granted petitioner's Motion for Issuance of Entry of Judgment,40 to wit:

It is significant to note, that while a multiple appeal is allowed on this kind of petition, the proceedings must end at some point. The Resolution dated 17 September 2014 involves the final distribution of the remainder of the Estate which ultimately disposes of the principal and core issue in this petition.

Accordingly, let the Resolution dated 17 September 2014 and the Order dated 07 September 2015 be entered in the Book of Entries of Judgment.41 (Italics in the original)

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Aggrieved, respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari42 before the CA, alleging that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it: (1) disapproved their notice of appeal and record on appeal; (2) denied their motion for reconsideration; and (3) ordered that an entry of judgment be issued.43

On June 17, 2019, the CA rendered its Decision,44 which granted respondents' Petition for Certiorari, and ordered the RTC to approve the notice of appeal and record on appeal, thus:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The orders issued by public respondent Bonifacio S. Pascua, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 56 dated April 5, 2017 and June 16, 2017, respectively, in SP Proc. No. M-5599 are Annulled and Set Aside. Public respondent is ORDERED to approve the Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal filed by petitioners and to cause the immediate removal of the resolution dated September 17, 2014 and order dated September 7, 2015 from the Book of Entries of Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.45 (Emphases in the original)

In ruling in favor of respondents, the CA noted that in special proceedings, the proper mode of appeal from a judgment or final order is by notice of appeal and record on appeal, in accordance with Section 2(a),46 Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. As Section 3,47 Rule 41 of the Rules of Court prescribes a period of 30 days within which to file a record on appeal, the CA found that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it disapproved respondents' notice of appeal and record on appeal, since respondents timely filed their appeal.48

In compliance with the CA's directive, on July 8, 2019, the RTC issued an Order49 approving respondents' notice of appeal and record on appeal.

On July 9, 2019, petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration [Re: Decision dated 17 June 2019,50 where she emphasized that a record on appeal is only necessary if the trial court needs to continue with some remaining matters or issues of the case, which requires the trial court to keep the records not relevant or affected by the matters or issues being appealed. Considering that in this case, the RTC already resolved the core issues of the case when it issued the Final Distribution Order, petitioner argued that there was no need for a record on appeal as there is nothing left for the RTC to do. In fine, petitioner averred that with respondents' failure to appeal the Final Distribution Order within the prescribed period of 15 days for a notice of appeal, the same had attained finality.51

On September 8, 2020, the CA issued its Resolution,52 which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

The Instant Petition

Unfazed by the adverse rulings of the CA, petitioner filed the instant petition, raising the following issue:

A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY AND SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROPER MODE OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENTS IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS THAT COMPLETELY DISPOSES OF THE CASE IS BY WAY OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RECORD ON APPEAL AND NOT BY ORDINARY APPEAL. THIS IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE INTENT OF THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF RULE 41 IN RELATION TO RULE 109 OF THE RULES OF COURT OR ON HOW THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT WOULD HAVE INTERPRETED IT.53

On September 6, 2021, respondents filed their Opposition [to Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 30 September 2020,54 where they prayed for the dismissal of petitioner's petition and argued that the CA correctly found that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disapproving their notice of appeal and record on appeal.

Issue

The crux of the controversy the Court is now tasked to resolve is whether a record on appeal is still necessary in special proceedings, when the trial court has already completely disposed of the case.

The Court's Ruling

The Petition has no merit.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that in special proceedings, multiple appeals are allowed. As explained in Aranas v. Mercado,55 multiple appeals are allowed in special proceedings because material issues of the case may be determined at various stages thereof, thus:

Multiple appeals are permitted in special proceedings as a practical recognition of the possibility that material issues may be finally determined at various stages of the special proceedings. x x x56 (Emphasis supplied)

Relatedly, Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court57 provides that the proper mode of appealing judgments or final orders in special proceedings is by notice of appeal and record on appeal, thus:

Section 2. Modes of appeal. –

(a) Ordinary appeal. – The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner. (Emphasis supplied)

The purpose of requiring a record on appeal in cases where multiple appeals are allowed has been extensively discussed by the Court in Spouses Lebin v. Mirasol,58 thus:

As the foregoing rules further indicate, a judgment or final order in special proceedings is appealed by record on appeal. A judgment or final order determining and terminating a particular part is usually appealable, because it completely disposes of a particular matter in the proceeding, unless otherwise declared by the Rules of Court. The ostensible reason for requiring a record on appeal instead of only a notice of appeal is the multi-part nature of nearly all special proceedings, with each part susceptible of being finally determined and terminated independently of the other parts. An appeal by notice of appeal is a mode that envisions the elevation of the original records to the appellate court as to thereby obstruct the trial court in its further proceedings regarding the other parts of the case. In contrast, the record on appeal enables the trial court to continue with the rest of the case because the original records remain with the trial court even as it affords to the appellate court the full opportunity to review and decide the appealed matter.59 (Emphasis supplied; citation omitted)

From the foregoing, it is clear that the purpose of a record on appeal is to allow the lower court to continue with the rest of the case considering that the records, which do not pertain to the matter being appealed, remains with the lower court. This also allows the appellate court the full opportunity to review the records, and to resolve the appealed matter without hindrance.

In this case, the RTC, in its Order dated April 5, 2017, stated that the case has been fully disposed of, and thus, the proper remedy is filing a notice of appeal. Indeed, the ratiocination behind such ruling appears to be sound because when the case is fully disposed of and resolved by the lower court, it seems that there is no need for a record on appeal because the lower court has nothing left to do and such record on appeal would serve no purpose. In fact, in Republic v. Nishina60 (Nishina), the Court stated that "the filing of a record on appeal was not necessary since no other matter remained to be heard and determined by the trial court x x x."61

Nevertheless, Nishina is not squarely applicable in this case because Nishina involves a petition for cancellation of birth records and change of name, and not a matter covered by Section 1, Rule 109 of the Rules of Court where multiple appeals are allowed.

More compellingly, the current Rules do not specify that a record on appeal is only required when the whole case is not yet fully disposed of. In other words, while it is possible that there would be no need for a record on appeal when the case is fully disposed of, the requirements under the Rules of Court, specifically Section 2(a), Rule 41, still stand. Thus, in special proceedings, and in other cases of multiple and separate appeals, a record on appeal must be filed together with a notice of appeal.

In Brual v. Contreras,62 the Court declared that both a notice of appeal and a record on appeal are required in appealing final orders in special proceedings:

Thus, the rules are clear. While it is not necessary that a notice of appeal and a record on appeal be filed simultaneously, the rule is unequivocal that the notice of appeal and record of appeal shall be filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order.

Here, considering that the respondents intended to appeal the final order of the denial of their motion for intervention in the special proceedings case, they should have filed both a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within the period prescribed by the rules.

x x x x

There is ample jurisprudence holding that both a notice of appeal and a record on appeal are required for appealing final orders in a special proceeding case. Here, respondents' long delayed filing of the record on appeal without any justifiable reason clearly violated the settled rules thereon.63 (Underscoring supplied; emphasis in the original; citation omitted)

Given all the foregoing, the respondents should not be faulted for relying on the express provisions of the Rules. To reiterate, Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court states, in no uncertain terms, that when a record on appeal is required, the same shall be filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order being appealed. Thus, the CA correctly ordered the RTC to approve respondents' notice of appeal and record on appeal because respondents satisfied all the requirements under the Rules.

On another note, a review of the records of the case reveals that the RTC's conclusion – that the case is fully disposed of – is doubtful. To recall, respondents' appeal of the Partial Distribution Order was still pending when the RTC issued the Final Distribution Order. Likewise, despite the issuance of the Final Distribution Order, respondents still had several remedies to enforce their shares in the estate. Indubitably, it cannot be said that there was nothing left to be done on the part of the RTC.

Simply put, a record on appeal was certainly required to challenge the Final Distribution Order. All in all, the Court finds that the CA unerringly reversed the RTC's Order dated April 5, 2017, which disapproved respondents' notice of appeal and record on appeal because respondents aptly observed the proper procedure when they timely filed their notice of appeal and record on appeal.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated September 30, 2020 filed by Ana Maria C. Manguerra is DENIED. The Decision dated June 17, 2019 and the Resolution dated September 8, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 151780 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Rosario, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur.

Gesmundo, C.J., see separate concurring opinion.

Lazaro-Javier, J., please see concurrence.

Dimaampao,* J., on official leave.

Marquez,** J., on official business.

Singh, J., please see separate opinion.

Footnotes

* On official leave.

** On official business.

1 Rollo, pp. 3-30.

2 Id. at 34-41; penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring.

3 Id. at 43-44.

4 Id. at 81-82.

5 Id. at 83-85.

6 Id. at 131-134.

7 Id. at 135-141.

8 "Executrix" in the original document; A.M. No. 21-11-25-SC; RE: PROPOSED RULES ON THE USE OF GENDER-FAIR LANGUAGE IN THE JUDICIARY AND GENDER-FAIR COURTROOM ETIQUETTE, p. 8; approved on February 15, 2022.

9 Rollo, p. 139.

10 Id. at 136-137.

11 Id. at 137-139.

12 Id. at 144-153; penned by Pairing Judge Zeus C. Abrogar.

13 Id. at 152-153.

14 Id. at 154-158; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Oscar B. Pimentel.

15 Id. at 155.

16 Id. at 159-163.

17 Id. at 162.

18 Id. at 316-325.

19 Id. at 324-325.

20 Id. at 325.

21 Id. at 326-337.

22 Id. at 352.

23 Id. at 355-356.

24 Id. at 358-362.

25 Id. at 363.

26 Id.

27 Id. at 364-370.

28 Id. at 86.

29 Id. at 86-87.

30 Id. at 86.

31 Id. at 87.

32 Id. at 386-390.

33 Id. at 88-102.

34 Id. at 107-111.

35 Id. at 115-116.

36 Id. at 117-123.

37 Id. at 81-82.

38 Id. at 81.

39 Id. at 83-85.

40 Id. at 391-394.

41 Id. at 84.

42 Id. at 45-79.

43 Id. at 60.

44 Id. at 34-41.

45 Id. at 40.

46 RULES OF COURT (1997), Rule 41, Sec. 2, par. (a) provides:

Section 2. Modes of appeal. -

(a) Ordinary appeal. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where law on these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner. (Emphasis supplied).

47 RULES OF COURT (1997), Rule 41, Section 3 provides:

Section 3. Period of ordinary appeal. -The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellants shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order. x x x

The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed (Emphasis supplied).

48 Rollo, pp. 39-40.

49 Id. at 502-503.

50 Id. at 479-494.

51 Id. at 481-483.

52 Id. at 43-44.

53 Id. at 13.

54 Id. at 553-584.

55 724 Phil. 174 (2014).

56 Id. at 186-187.

57 RULES OF COURT (1997).

58 672 Phil. 477 (2011).

59 Id. at 489.

60 649 Phil. 206 (2010).

61 Id. at 212. Italics in the original.

62 G.R. No. 205451, March 7, 2022.

63 Id.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation