Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. L-46240 November 3, 1939MARGARITA QUINTOS and ANGEL A. ANSALDO,plaintiffs-appellants,vs.BECK,defendant-appellee.Mauricio Carlos for appellants.Felipe Buencamino, Jr. for appellee.IMPERIAL,J.:The plaintiff brought this action to compel the defendant to return her certain furniture which she lent him for his use. She appealed from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila which ordered that the defendant return to her the three has heaters and the four electric lamps found in the possession of the Sheriff of said city, that she call for the other furniture from the said sheriff of Manila at her own expense, and that the fees which the Sheriff may charge for the deposit of the furniture be paidpro rataby both parties, without pronouncement as to the costs.The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and as such occupied the latter's house on M. H. del Pilar street, No. 1175. On January 14, 1936, upon the novation of the contract of lease between the plaintiff and the defendant, the former gratuitously granted to the latter the use of the furniture described in the third paragraph of the stipulation of facts, subject to the condition that the defendant would return them to the plaintiff upon the latter's demand. The plaintiff sold the property to Maria Lopez and Rosario Lopez and on September 14, 1936, these three notified the defendant of the conveyance, giving him sixty days to vacate the premises under one of the clauses of the contract of lease. There after the plaintiff required the defendant to return all the furniture transferred to him for them in the house where they were found. On November 5, 1936, the defendant, through another person, wrote to the plaintiff reiterating that she may call for the furniture in the ground floor of the house. On the 7th of the same month, the defendant wrote another letter to the plaintiff informing her that he could not give up the three gas heaters and the four electric lamps because he would use them until the 15th of the same month when the lease in due to expire. The plaintiff refused to get the furniture in view of the fact that the defendant had declined to make delivery of all of them. On November 15th, before vacating the house, the defendant deposited with the Sheriff all the furniture belonging to the plaintiff and they are now on deposit in the warehouse situated at No. 1521, Rizal Avenue, in the custody of the said sheriff.In their seven assigned errors the plaintiffs contend that the trial court incorrectly applied the law: in holding that they violated the contract by not calling for all the furniture on November 5, 1936, when the defendant placed them at their disposal; in not ordering the defendant to pay them the value of the furniture in case they are not delivered; in holding that they should get all the furniture from the Sheriff at their expenses; in ordering them to pay-half of the expenses claimed by the Sheriff for the deposit of the furniture; in ruling that both parties should pay their respective legal expenses or the costs; and in denying pay their respective legal expenses or the costs; and in denying the motions for reconsideration and new trial. To dispose of the case, it is only necessary to decide whether the defendant complied with his obligation to return the furniture upon the plaintiff's demand; whether the latter is bound to bear the deposit fees thereof, and whether she is entitled to the costs of litigation.lawphi1.netThe contract entered into between the parties is one ofcommadatum, because under it the plaintiff gratuitously granted the use of the furniture to the defendant, reserving for herself the ownership thereof; by this contract the defendant bound himself to return the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the latters demand (clause 7 of the contract, Exhibit A; articles 1740, paragraph 1, and 1741 of the Civil Code). The obligation voluntarily assumed by the defendant to return the furniture upon the plaintiff's demand, means that he should return all of them to the plaintiff at the latter's residence or house. The defendant did not comply with this obligation when he merely placed them at the disposal of the plaintiff, retaining for his benefit the three gas heaters and the four eletric lamps. The provisions of article 1169 of the Civil Code cited by counsel for the parties are not squarely applicable. The trial court, therefore, erred when it came to the legal conclusion that the plaintiff failed to comply with her obligation to get the furniture when they were offered to her.As the defendant had voluntarily undertaken to return all the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the latter's demand, the Court could not legally compel her to bear the expenses occasioned by the deposit of the furniture at the defendant's behest. The latter, as bailee, was not entitled to place the furniture on deposit; nor was the plaintiff under a duty to accept the offer to return the furniture, because the defendant wanted to retain the three gas heaters and the four electric lamps.As to the value of the furniture, we do not believe that the plaintiff is entitled to the payment thereof by the defendant in case of his inability to return some of the furniture because under paragraph 6 of the stipulation of facts, the defendant has neither agreed to nor admitted the correctness of the said value. Should the defendant fail to deliver some of the furniture, the value thereof should be latter determined by the trial Court through evidence which the parties may desire to present.The costs in both instances should be borne by the defendant because the plaintiff is the prevailing party (section 487 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The defendant was the one who breached the contract ofcommodatum, and without any reason he refused to return and deliver all the furniture upon the plaintiff's demand. In these circumstances, it is just and equitable that he pay the legal expenses and other judicial costs which the plaintiff would not have otherwise defrayed.The appealed judgment is modified and the defendant is ordered to return and deliver to the plaintiff, in the residence to return and deliver to the plaintiff, in the residence or house of the latter, all the furniture described in paragraph 3 of the stipulation of facts Exhibit A. The expenses which may be occasioned by the delivery to and deposit of the furniture with the Sheriff shall be for the account of the defendant. the defendant shall pay the costs in both instances. So ordered.Avancea, C.J., Villa-Real, Laurel, Concepcion and Moran, JJ., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaFIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. 80294-95 September 21, 1988CATHOLIC VICAR APOSTOLIC OF THE MOUNTAIN PROVINCE,petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF EGMIDIO OCTAVIANO AND JUAN VALDEZ,respondents.Valdez, Ereso, Polido & Associates for petitioner.Claustro, Claustro, Claustro Law Office collaborating counsel for petitioner.Jaime G. de Leon for the Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano.Cotabato Law Office for the Heirs of Juan Valdez.GANCAYCO,J.:The principal issue in this case is whether or not a decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated a long time ago can properly be consideredres judicataby respondent Court of Appeals in the present two cases between petitioner and two private respondents.Petitioner questions as allegedly erroneous the Decision dated August 31, 1987 of the Ninth Division of Respondent Court of Appeals1in CA-G.R. No. 05148 [Civil Case No. 3607 (419)] and CA-G.R. No. 05149 [Civil Case No. 3655 (429)], both for Recovery of Possession, which affirmed the Decision of the Honorable Nicodemo T. Ferrer, Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio and Benguet in Civil Case No. 3607 (419) and Civil Case No. 3655 (429), with the dispositive portion as follows:WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant, Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Province to return and surrender Lot 2 of Plan Psu-194357 to the plaintiffs. Heirs of Juan Valdez, and Lot 3 of the same Plan to the other set of plaintiffs, the Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano (Leonardo Valdez, et al.). For lack or insufficiency of evidence, the plaintiffs' claim or damages is hereby denied. Said defendant is ordered to pay costs. (p. 36, Rollo)Respondent Court of Appeals, in affirming the trial court's decision, sustained the trial court's conclusions that the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated May 4,1977 in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R, in the two cases affirmed by the Supreme Court, touched on the ownership of lots 2 and 3 in question; that the two lots were possessed by the predecessors-in-interest of private respondents under claim of ownership in good faith from 1906 to 1951; that petitioner had been in possession of the same lots as bailee in commodatum up to 1951, when petitioner repudiated the trust and when it applied for registration in 1962; that petitioner had just been in possession as owner for eleven years, hence there is no possibility of acquisitive prescription which requires 10 years possession with just title and 30 years of possession without; that the principle ofres judicataon these findings by the Court of Appeals will bar a reopening of these questions of facts; and that those facts may no longer be altered.Petitioner's motion for reconsideation of the respondent appellate court's Decision in the two aforementioned cases (CA G.R. No. CV-05418 and 05419) was denied.The facts and background of these cases as narrated by the trail court are as follows ... The documents and records presented reveal that the whole controversy started when the defendant Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Province (VICAR for brevity) filed with the Court of First Instance of Baguio Benguet on September 5, 1962 an application for registration of title over Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Psu-194357, situated at Poblacion Central, La Trinidad, Benguet, docketed as LRC N-91, said Lots being the sites of the Catholic Church building, convents, high school building, school gymnasium, school dormitories, social hall, stonewalls, etc. On March 22, 1963 the Heirs of Juan Valdez and the Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano filed their Answer/Opposition on Lots Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, asserting ownership and title thereto. After trial on the merits, the land registration court promulgated its Decision, dated November 17, 1965, confirming the registrable title of VICAR to Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4.The Heirs of Juan Valdez (plaintiffs in the herein Civil Case No. 3655) and the Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano (plaintiffs in the herein Civil Case No. 3607) appealed the decision of the land registration court to the then Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 38830-R. The Court of Appeals rendered its decision, dated May 9, 1977, reversing the decision of the land registration court and dismissing the VICAR's application as to Lots 2 and 3, the lots claimed by the two sets of oppositors in the land registration case (and two sets of plaintiffs in the two cases now at bar), the first lot being presently occupied by the convent and the second by the women's dormitory and the sister's convent.On May 9, 1977, the Heirs of Octaviano filed a motion for reconsideration praying the Court of Appeals to order the registration of Lot 3 in the names of the Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano, and on May 17, 1977, the Heirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez filed their motion for reconsideration praying that both Lots 2 and 3 be ordered registered in the names of the Heirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez. On August 12,1977, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Heirs of Juan Valdez on the ground that there was "no sufficient merit to justify reconsideration one way or the other ...," and likewise denied that of the Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano.Thereupon, the VICAR filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing his (its) application for registration of Lots 2 and 3, docketed as G.R. No. L-46832, entitled 'Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Province vs. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano.'From the denial by the Court of Appeals of their motion for reconsideration the Heirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez, on September 8, 1977, filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review, docketed as G.R. No. L-46872, entitled,Heirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez vs. Court of Appeals, Vicar, Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano and Annable O. Valdez.On January 13, 1978, the Supreme Court denied in a minute resolution both petitions (of VICAR on the one hand and the Heirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez on the other) for lack of merit. Upon the finality of both Supreme Court resolutions in G.R. No. L-46832 and G.R. No. L- 46872, the Heirs of Octaviano filed with the then Court of First Instance of Baguio, Branch II, a Motion For Execution of Judgment praying that the Heirs of Octaviano be placed in possession of Lot 3. The Court, presided over by Hon. Salvador J. Valdez, on December 7, 1978, denied the motion on the ground that the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. No. 38870 did not grant the Heirs of Octaviano any affirmative relief.On February 7, 1979, the Heirs of Octaviano filed with the Court of Appeals a petitioner for certiorari and mandamus, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 08890-R, entitledHeirs of Egmidio Octaviano vs. Hon. Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. and Vicar. In its decision dated May 16, 1979, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.It was at that stage that the instant cases were filed. The Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano filed Civil Case No. 3607 (419) on July 24, 1979, for recovery of possession of Lot 3; and the Heirs of Juan Valdez filed Civil Case No. 3655 (429) on September 24, 1979, likewise for recovery of possession of Lot 2 (Decision, pp. 199-201, Orig. Rec.).In Civil Case No. 3607 (419) trial was held. The plaintiffs Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano presented one (1) witness, Fructuoso Valdez, who testified on the alleged ownership of the land in question (Lot 3) by their predecessor-in-interest, Egmidio Octaviano (Exh. C ); his written demand (Exh. BB-4 ) to defendant Vicar for the return of the land to them; and the reasonable rentals for the use of the land at P10,000.00 per month. On the other hand, defendant Vicar presented the Register of Deeds for the Province of Benguet, Atty. Nicanor Sison, who testified that the land in question is not covered by any title in the name of Egmidio Octaviano or any of the plaintiffs (Exh. 8). The defendant dispensed with the testimony of Mons.William Brasseur when the plaintiffs admitted that the witness if called to the witness stand, would testify that defendant Vicar has been in possession of Lot 3, for seventy-five (75) years continuously and peacefully and has constructed permanent structures thereon.In Civil Case No. 3655, the parties admitting that the material facts are not in dispute, submitted the case on the sole issue of whether or not the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court touching on the ownership of Lot 2, which in effect declared the plaintiffs the owners of the land constituteres judicata.In these two cases , the plaintiffs arque that the defendant Vicar is barred from setting up the defense of ownership and/or long and continuous possession of the two lots in question since this is barred by prior judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 038830-R under the principle ofres judicata. Plaintiffs contend that the question of possession and ownership have already been determined by the Court of Appeals (Exh. C, Decision, CA-G.R. No. 038830-R) and affirmed by the Supreme Court (Exh. 1, Minute Resolution of the Supreme Court). On his part, defendant Vicar maintains that the principle ofres judicatawould not prevent them from litigating the issues of long possession and ownership because the dispositive portion of the prior judgment in CA-G.R. No. 038830-R merely dismissed their application for registration and titling of lots 2 and 3. Defendant Vicar contends that only the dispositive portion of the decision, and not its body, is the controlling pronouncement of the Court of Appeals.2The alleged errors committed by respondent Court of Appeals according to petitioner are as follows:1. ERROR IN APPLYING LAW OF THE CASE ANDRES JUDICATA;2. ERROR IN FINDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT RULED THAT LOTS 2 AND 3 WERE ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE BUT WITHOUT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED;3. ERROR IN FINDING THAT PETITIONERS' CLAIM IT PURCHASED LOTS 2 AND 3 FROM VALDEZ AND OCTAVIANO WAS AN IMPLIED ADMISSION THAT THE FORMER OWNERS WERE VALDEZ AND OCTAVIANO;4. ERROR IN FINDING THAT IT WAS PREDECESSORS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WHO WERE IN POSSESSION OF LOTS 2 AND 3 AT LEAST FROM 1906, AND NOT PETITIONER;5. ERROR IN FINDING THAT VALDEZ AND OCTAVIANO HAD FREE PATENT APPLICATIONS AND THE PREDECESSORS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ALREADY HAD FREE PATENT APPLICATIONS SINCE 1906;6. ERROR IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER DECLARED LOTS 2 AND 3 ONLY IN 1951 AND JUST TITLE IS A PRIME NECESSITY UNDER ARTICLE 1134 IN RELATION TO ART. 1129 OF THE CIVIL CODE FOR ORDINARY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION OF 10 YEARS;7. ERROR IN FINDING THAT THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN CA G.R. NO. 038830 WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT;8. ERROR IN FINDING THAT THE DECISION IN CA G.R. NO. 038830 TOUCHED ON OWNERSHIP OF LOTS 2 AND 3 AND THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR PREDECESSORS WERE IN POSSESSION OF LOTS 2 AND 3 UNDER A CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP IN GOOD FAITH FROM 1906 TO 1951;9. ERROR IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN IN POSSESSION OF LOTS 2 AND 3 MERELY AS BAILEE BOR ROWER) IN COMMODATUM, A GRATUITOUS LOAN FOR USE;10. ERROR IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER IS A POSSESSOR AND BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH WITHOUT RIGHTS OF RETENTION AND REIMBURSEMENT AND IS BARRED BY THE FINALITY AND CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE DECISION IN CA G.R. NO. 038830.3The petition is bereft of merit.Petitioner questions the ruling of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Nos. 05148 and 05149, when it clearly held that it was in agreement with the findings of the trial court that the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 4,1977 in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R, on the question of ownership of Lots 2 and 3, declared that the said Court of Appeals Decision CA-G.R. No. 38830-R) did not positively declare private respondents as owners of the land, neither was it declared that they were not owners of the land, but it held that the predecessors of private respondents were possessors of Lots 2 and 3, with claim of ownership in good faith from 1906 to 1951. Petitioner was in possession as borrower in commodatum up to 1951, when it repudiated the trust by declaring the properties in its name for taxation purposes. When petitioner applied for registration of Lots 2 and 3 in 1962, it had been in possession in concept of owner only for eleven years. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession for ten years, but always with just title. Extraordinary acquisitive prescription requires 30 years.4On the above findings of facts supported by evidence and evaluated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R, affirmed by this Court, We see no error in respondent appellate court's ruling that said findings areres judicatabetween the parties. They can no longer be altered by presentation of evidence because those issues were resolved with finality a long time ago. To ignore the principle ofres judicatawould be to open the door to endless litigations by continuous determination of issues without end.An examination of the Court of Appeals Decision dated May 4, 1977, First Division5in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R, shows that it reversed the trial court's Decision6finding petitioner to be entitled to register the lands in question under its ownership, on its evaluation of evidence and conclusion of facts.The Court of Appeals found that petitioner did not meet the requirement of 30 years possession for acquisitive prescription over Lots 2 and 3. Neither did it satisfy the requirement of 10 years possession for ordinary acquisitive prescription because of the absence of just title. The appellate court did not believe the findings of the trial court that Lot 2 was acquired from Juan Valdez by purchase and Lot 3 was acquired also by purchase from Egmidio Octaviano by petitioner Vicar because there was absolutely no documentary evidence to support the same and the alleged purchases were never mentioned in the application for registration.By the very admission of petitioner Vicar, Lots 2 and 3 were owned by Valdez and Octaviano. Both Valdez and Octaviano had Free Patent Application for those lots since 1906. The predecessors of private respondents, not petitioner Vicar, were in possession of the questioned lots since 1906.There is evidence that petitioner Vicar occupied Lots 1 and 4, which are not in question, but not Lots 2 and 3, because the buildings standing thereon were only constructed after liberation in 1945. Petitioner Vicar only declared Lots 2 and 3 for taxation purposes in 1951. The improvements oil Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 were paid for by the Bishop but said Bishop was appointed only in 1947, the church was constructed only in 1951 and the new convent only 2 years before the trial in 1963.When petitioner Vicar was notified of the oppositor's claims, the parish priest offered to buy the lot from Fructuoso Valdez. Lots 2 and 3 were surveyed by request of petitioner Vicar only in 1962.Private respondents were able to prove that their predecessors' house was borrowed by petitioner Vicar after the church and the convent were destroyed. They never asked for the return of the house, but when they allowed its free use, they became bailors incommodatumand the petitioner the bailee. The bailees' failure to return the subject matter ofcommodatumto the bailor did not mean adverse possession on the part of the borrower. The bailee held in trust the property subject matter of commodatum. The adverse claim of petitioner came only in 1951 when it declared the lots for taxation purposes. The action of petitioner Vicar by such adverse claim could not ripen into title by way of ordinary acquisitive prescription because of the absence of just title.The Court of Appeals found that the predecessors-in-interest and private respondents were possessors under claim of ownership in good faith from 1906; that petitioner Vicar was only a bailee incommodatum; and that the adverse claim and repudiation of trust came only in 1951.We find no reason to disregard or reverse the ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R. Its findings of fact have become incontestible. This Court declined to review said decision, thereby in effect, affirming it. It has become final and executory a long time ago.Respondent appellate court did not commit any reversible error, much less grave abuse of discretion, when it held that the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R is governing, under the principle of res judicata, hence the rule, in the present cases CA-G.R. No. 05148 and CA-G.R. No. 05149. The facts as supported by evidence established in that decision may no longer be altered.WHEREFORE AND BY REASON OF THE FOREGOING, this petition is DENIED for lack of merit, the Decision dated Aug. 31, 1987 in CA-G.R. Nos. 05148 and 05149, by respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with costs against petitioner.SO ORDERED.Narvasa, Cruz, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

FIRST DIVISION[G.R. No. 146364.June 3, 2004]COLITO T. PAJUYO,petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and EDDIE GUEVARRA,respondents.D E C I S I O NCARPIO, J.:The CaseBefore us is a petition for review[1]of the 21 June 2000 Decision[2]and 14 December 2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 43129.The Court of Appeals set aside the 11 November 1996 decision[3]of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 81,[4]affirming the 15 December 1995 decision[5]of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 31.[6]The AntecedentsIn June 1979, petitioner Colito T. Pajuyo (Pajuyo) paidP400 to a certain Pedro Perez for the rights over a 250-square meter lot in Barrio Payatas, Quezon City.Pajuyo then constructed a house made of light materials on the lot.Pajuyo and his family lived in the house from 1979 to 7 December 1985.On 8 December 1985, Pajuyo and private respondent Eddie Guevarra (Guevarra) executed aKasunduanor agreement. Pajuyo, as owner of the house, allowed Guevarra to live in the house for free provided Guevarra would maintain the cleanliness and orderliness of the house. Guevarra promised that he would voluntarily vacate the premises on Pajuyos demand.In September 1994, Pajuyo informed Guevarra of his need of the house and demanded that Guevarra vacate the house.Guevarra refused.Pajuyo filed an ejectment case against Guevarra with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 31 (MTC).In his Answer, Guevarra claimed that Pajuyo had no valid title or right of possession over the lot where the house stands because the lot is within the 150 hectares set aside by Proclamation No. 137 for socialized housing. Guevarra pointed out that from December 1985 to September 1994, Pajuyo did not show up or communicate with him. Guevarra insisted that neither he nor Pajuyo has valid title to the lot.On 15 December 1995, the MTC rendered its decision in favor of Pajuyo. The dispositive portion of the MTC decision reads:WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiff and against defendant, ordering the latter to:A) vacate the house and lot occupied by the defendant or any other person or persons claiming any right under him;B) pay unto plaintiff the sum of THREE HUNDRED PESOS (P300.00) monthly as reasonable compensation for the use of the premises starting from the last demand;C) pay plaintiff the sum ofP3,000.00 as and by way of attorneys fees; andD) pay the cost of suit.SO ORDERED.[7]Aggrieved, Guevarra appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 81 (RTC).On 11 November 1996, the RTC affirmed the MTC decision. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds no reversible error in the decision appealed from, being in accord with the law and evidence presented, and the same is hereby affirmeden toto.SO ORDERED.[8]Guevarra received the RTC decision on 29 November 1996.Guevarra had only until 14 December 1996 to file his appeal with the Court of Appeals. Instead of filing his appeal with the Court of Appeals, Guevarra filed with the Supreme Court a Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal by Certiorari Based on Rule 42 (motion for extension).Guevarra theorized that his appeal raised pure questions of law.The Receiving Clerk of the Supreme Court received the motion for extension on 13 December 1996 or one day before the right to appeal expired.On 3 January 1997, Guevarra filed his petition for review with the Supreme Court.On 8 January 1997, the First Division of the Supreme Court issued a Resolution[9]referring the motion for extension to the Court of Appeals which has concurrent jurisdiction over the case. The case presented no special and important matter for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of at the first instance.On 28 January 1997, the Thirteenth Division of the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution[10]granting the motion for extension conditioned on the timeliness of the filing of the motion.On 27 February 1997, the Court of Appeals ordered Pajuyo to comment on Guevaras petition for review.On 11 April 1997, Pajuyo filed his Comment.On 21 June 2000, the Court of Appeals issued its decision reversing the RTC decision.The dispositive portion of the decision reads:WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision of the courta quoin Civil Case No. Q-96-26943 isREVERSEDandSET ASIDE; and it is hereby declared that the ejectment case filed against defendant-appellant is without factual and legal basis.SO ORDERED.[11]Pajuyo filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision.Pajuyo pointed out that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed outright Guevarras petition for review because it was filed out of time.Moreover, it was Guevarras counsel and not Guevarra who signed the certification against forum-shopping.On 14 December 2000, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution denying Pajuyos motion for reconsideration. The dispositive portion of the resolution reads:WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the motion for reconsideration is herebyDENIED.No costs.SO ORDERED.[12]TheRuling of the MTCThe MTC ruled that the subject of the agreement between Pajuyo and Guevarra is the house and not the lot.Pajuyo is the owner of the house, and he allowed Guevarra to use the house only by tolerance. Thus, Guevarras refusal to vacate the house on Pajuyos demand made Guevarras continued possession of the house illegal.The Ruling of the RTCThe RTC upheld theKasunduan, which established the landlord and tenant relationship between Pajuyo and Guevarra. The terms of theKasunduanbound Guevarra to return possession of the house on demand.The RTC rejected Guevarras claim of a better right under Proclamation No. 137, the Revised National Government Center Housing Project Code of Policies and other pertinent laws. In an ejectment suit, the RTC has no power to decide Guevarras rights under these laws.The RTC declared that in an ejectment case, the only issue for resolution is material or physical possession, not ownership.The Ruling of the Court of AppealsThe Court of Appeals declared that Pajuyo and Guevarra are squatters. Pajuyo and Guevarra illegally occupied the contested lot which the government owned.Perez, the person from whom Pajuyo acquired his rights, was also a squatter.Perez had no right or title over the lot because it is public land.The assignment of rights between Perez and Pajuyo, and theKasunduanbetween Pajuyo and Guevarra, did not have any legal effect.Pajuyo and Guevarra are inpari delictoor in equal fault.The court will leave them where they are.The Court of Appeals reversed the MTC and RTC rulings, which held that theKasunduanbetween Pajuyo and Guevarra created a legal tie akin to that of a landlord and tenant relationship.The Court of Appeals ruled that theKasunduanis not a lease contract but acommodatumbecause the agreement is not for a price certain.Since Pajuyo admitted that he resurfaced only in 1994 to claim the property, the appellate court held that Guevarra has a better right over the property under Proclamation No. 137.President Corazon C. Aquino (President Aquino) issued Proclamation No. 137 on 7 September 1987. At that time, Guevarra was in physical possession of the property.Under Article VI of the Code of Policies Beneficiary Selection and Disposition of Homelots and Structures in the National Housing Project (the Code), the actual occupant or caretaker of the lot shall have first priority as beneficiary of the project.The Court of Appeals concluded that Guevarra is first in the hierarchy of priority.In denying Pajuyos motion for reconsideration, the appellate court debunked Pajuyos claim that Guevarra filed his motion for extension beyond the period to appeal.The Court of Appeals pointed out that Guevarras motion for extension filed before the Supreme Court was stamped 13 December 1996 at 4:09 PM by the Supreme Courts Receiving Clerk.The Court of Appeals concluded that the motion for extension bore a date, contrary to Pajuyos claim that the motion for extension was undated.Guevarra filed the motion for extension on time on 13 December 1996 since he filed the motion one day before the expiration of the reglementary period on 14 December 1996.Thus, the motion for extension properly complied with the condition imposed by the Court of Appeals in its 28 January 1997 Resolution.The Court of Appeals explained that the thirty-day extension to file the petition for review was deemed granted because of such compliance.The Court of Appeals rejected Pajuyos argument that the appellate court should have dismissed the petition for review because it was Guevarras counsel and not Guevarra who signed the certification against forum-shopping.The Court of Appeals pointed out that Pajuyo did not raise this issue in his Comment. The Court of Appeals held that Pajuyo could not now seek the dismissal of the case after he had extensively argued on the merits of the case.This technicality, the appellate court opined, was clearly an afterthought.The IssuesPajuyo raises the following issues for resolution:WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED OR ABUSED ITS AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION:1) in GRANTING, instead of denying, Private Respondents Motion for an Extension of thirty days to file petition for review at the time when there was no more period to extend as the decision of the Regional Trial Court had already become final and executory.2) in giving due course,instead ofdismissing, private respondentsPetition for Review even though the certification against forum-shopping was signed only by counsel instead of by petitioner himself.3) in ruling that the Kasunduan voluntarily entered into by the parties was in fact a commodatum, instead of a Contract of Lease as found by the Metropolitan Trial Court and in holding that the ejectmentcase filed against defendant-appellant is without legal and factual basis.4) in reversing and setting aside the Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. Q-96-26943 and in holding that the parties are in pari delicto being both squatters, therefore, illegal occupants of the contested parcel of land.5) in deciding the unlawful detainer case based on the so-called Code of Policies of the National Government Center Housing Project instead of deciding the same under the Kasunduan voluntarily executed by the parties, the terms and conditions of which are the laws between themselves.[13]The Ruling of the CourtThe procedural issues Pajuyo is raising are baseless.However, we find merit in the substantive issues Pajuyo is submitting for resolution.Procedural IssuesPajuyo insists that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed outright Guevarras petition for review because the RTC decision had already become final and executory when the appellate court acted on Guevarras motion for extension to file the petition.Pajuyo points out that Guevarra had only one day before the expiry of his period to appeal the RTC decision.Instead of filing the petition for review with the Court of Appeals, Guevarra filed with this Court an undated motion for extension of 30 days to file a petition for review.This Court merely referred the motion to the Court of Appeals.Pajuyo believes that the filing of the motion for extension with this Court did not toll the running of the period to perfect the appeal.Hence, when the Court of Appeals received the motion, the period to appeal had already expired.We are not persuaded.Decisions of the regional trial courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction are appealable to the Court of Appeals by petition for review in cases involving questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law.[14]Decisions of the regional trial courts involving pure questions of law are appealable directly to this Court by petition for review.[15]These modes of appeal are now embodied in Section 2, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.Guevarra believed that his appeal of the RTC decision involved only questions of law.Guevarra thus filed his motion for extension to file petition for review before this Court on 14 December 1996. On 3 January 1997, Guevarra then filed his petition for review with this Court.A perusal of Guevarras petition for review gives the impression that the issues he raised were pure questions of law. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference is on what the law is on a certain state of facts.[16]There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference is on the truth or falsity of the facts alleged.[17]In his petition for review before this Court, Guevarra no longer disputed the facts.Guevarras petition for review raised these questions:(1) Do ejectment cases pertain only to possession of a structure, and not the lot on which the structure stands? (2) Does a suit by a squatter against a fellow squatter constitute a valid case for ejectment?(3) Should a Presidential Proclamation governing the lot on which a squatters structure stands be considered in an ejectment suit filed by the owner of the structure?These questions call for the evaluation of the rights of the parties under the law on ejectment and the Presidential Proclamation.At first glance, the questions Guevarra raised appeared purely legal.However, some factual questions still have to be resolved because they have a bearing on the legal questions raised in the petition for review.These factual matters refer to the metes and bounds of the disputed property and the application of Guevarra as beneficiary of Proclamation No. 137.The Court of Appeals has the power to grant an extension of time to file a petition for review.InLacsamana v. Second Special Cases Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court,[18]we declared that the Court of Appeals could grant extension of time in appeals by petition for review. InLiboro v. Court of Appeals,[19]we clarified that the prohibition against granting an extension of time applies only in a case where ordinary appeal is perfected by a mere notice of appeal.The prohibition does not apply in a petition for review where the pleading needs verification. A petition for review, unlike an ordinary appeal, requires preparation and research to present a persuasive position.[20]The drafting of the petition for review entails more time and effort than filing a notice of appeal.[21]Hence, the Court of Appeals may allow an extension of time to file a petition for review.In the more recent case ofCommissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals,[22]we held thatLiboros clarification ofLacsamanais consistent with the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Circular No. 1-91. They all allow an extension of time for filing petitions for review with the Court of Appeals. The extension, however, should be limited to only fifteen days save in exceptionally meritorious cases where the Court of Appeals may grant a longer period.A judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law. Finality of judgment becomes a fact on the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal if no appeal is perfected.[23]The RTC decision could not have gained finality because the Court of Appeals granted the 30-day extension to Guevarra.The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it approved Guevarras motion for extension. The Court of Appeals gave due course to the motion for extension because it complied with the condition set by the appellate court in its resolution dated 28 January 1997.The resolution stated that the Court of Appeals would only give due course to the motion for extension if filed on time.The motion for extension met this condition.The material dates to consider in determining the timeliness of the filing of the motion for extension are (1) the date of receipt of the judgment or final order or resolution subject of the petition, and (2) the date of filing of the motion for extension.[24]It is the date of the filing of the motion or pleading, and not the date of execution, that determines the timeliness of the filing of that motion or pleading.Thus, even if the motion for extension bears no date, the date of filing stamped on it is the reckoning point for determining the timeliness of its filing.Guevarra had until 14 December 1996 to file an appeal from the RTC decision.Guevarra filed his motion for extension before this Court on 13 December 1996, the date stamped by this Courts Receiving Clerk on the motion for extension. Clearly, Guevarra filed the motion for extension exactly one day before the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal.Assuming that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed Guevarras appeal on technical grounds, Pajuyo did not ask the appellate court to deny the motion for extension and dismiss the petition for review at the earliest opportunity.Instead, Pajuyo vigorously discussed the merits of the case.It was only when the Court of Appeals ruled in Guevarras favor that Pajuyo raised the procedural issues against Guevarras petition for review.A party who, after voluntarily submitting a dispute for resolution, receives an adverse decision on the merits, is estopped from attacking the jurisdiction of the court.[25]Estoppel sets in not because the judgment of the court is a valid and conclusive adjudication, but because the practice of attacking the courts jurisdiction after voluntarily submitting to it is against public policy.[26]In his Comment before the Court of Appeals, Pajuyo also failed to discuss Guevarras failure to sign the certification against forum shopping.Instead, Pajuyo harped on Guevarras counsel signing the verification, claiming that the counsels verification is insufficient since it is based only on mere information.A partys failure to sign the certification against forum shopping is different from the partys failure to sign personally the verification.The certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by the party, and not by counsel.[27]The certification of counsel renders the petition defective.[28]On the other hand, the requirement on verification of a pleading is a formal and not a jurisdictional requisite.[29]It is intended simply to secure an assurance that what are alleged in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.[30]The party need not sign the verification.A partys representative, lawyer or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification.[31]We agree with the Court of Appeals that the issue on the certificate against forum shopping was merely an afterthought. Pajuyo did not call the Court of Appeals attention to this defect at the early stage of the proceedings.Pajuyo raised this procedural issue too late in the proceedings.Absence of Title over the Disputed Property will not Divest the Courts of Jurisdiction to Resolve the Issue of PossessionSettled is the rule that the defendants claim of ownership of the disputed property will not divest the inferior court of its jurisdiction over the ejectment case.[32]Even if the pleadings raise the issue of ownership, the court may pass on such issue to determine only the question of possession, especially if the ownership is inseparably linked with the possession.[33]The adjudication on the issue of ownership is only provisional and will not bar an action between the same parties involving title to the land.[34]This doctrine is a necessary consequence of the nature of the two summary actions of ejectment, forcible entry and unlawful detainer, where the only issue for adjudication is the physical or material possession over the real property.[35]In this case, what Guevarra raised before the courts was that he and Pajuyo are not the owners of the contested property and that they are mere squatters.Will the defense that the parties to the ejectment case are not the owners of the disputed lot allow the courts to renounce their jurisdiction over the case?The Court of Appeals believed so and held that it would just leave the parties where they are since they are inpari delicto.We do not agree with the Court of Appeals.Ownership or the right to possess arising from ownership is not at issue in an action for recovery of possession.The parties cannot present evidence to prove ownership or right to legal possession except to prove the nature of the possession when necessary to resolve the issue of physical possession.[36]The same is true when the defendant asserts the absence of title over the property. The absence of title over the contested lot is not a ground for the courts to withhold relief from the parties in an ejectment case.The only question that the courts must resolve in ejectment proceedings is - who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possessionde factoand not to the possessionde jure.[37]It does not even matter if a partys title to the property is questionable,[38]or when both parties intruded into public land and their applications to own the land have yet to be approved by the proper government agency.[39]Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror.[40]Neither is the unlawful withholding of property allowed.Courts will always uphold respect for prior possession.Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself.[41]Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him.[42]To repeat, the only issue that the court has to settle in an ejectment suit is the right to physical possession.InPitargue v. Sorilla,[43]the government owned the land in dispute.The government did not authorize either the plaintiff or the defendant in the case of forcible entry case to occupy the land.The plaintiff had prior possession and had already introduced improvements on the public land.The plaintiff had a pending application for the land with the Bureau of Lands when the defendant ousted him from possession.The plaintiff filed the action of forcible entry against the defendant.The government was not a party in the case of forcible entry.The defendant questioned the jurisdiction of the courts to settle the issue of possession because while the application of the plaintiff was still pending, title remained with the government, and the Bureau of Public Lands had jurisdiction over the case.We disagreed with the defendant.We ruled that courts have jurisdiction to entertain ejectment suits even before the resolution of the application.The plaintiff, by priority of his application and of his entry, acquired prior physical possession over the public land applied for as against other private claimants. That prior physical possession enjoys legal protection against other private claimants because only a court can take away such physical possession in an ejectment case.While the Court did not brand the plaintiff and the defendant inPitargue[44]as squatters, strictly speaking, their entry into the disputed land was illegal.Both the plaintiff and defendant entered the public land without the owners permission.Title to the land remained with the government because it had not awarded to anyone ownership of the contested public land. Both the plaintiff and the defendant were in effect squatting on government property.Yet, we upheld the courts jurisdiction to resolve the issue of possession even if the plaintiff and the defendant in the ejectment case did not have any title over the contested land.Courts must not abdicate their jurisdiction to resolve the issue of physical possession because of the public need to preserve the basic policy behind the summary actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer.The underlying philosophy behind ejectment suits is to prevent breach of the peace and criminal disorder and to compel the party out of possession to respect and resort to the law alone to obtain what he claims is his.[45]The party deprived of possession must not take the law into his own hands.[46]Ejectment proceedings are summary in nature so the authorities can settle speedily actions to recover possession because of the overriding need to quell social disturbances.[47]We further explained inPitarguethe greater interest that is at stake in actions for recovery of possession. We made the following pronouncements inPitargue:The question that is before this Court is: Are courts without jurisdiction to take cognizance of possessory actions involving these public lands before final award is made by the Lands Department, and before title is given any of the conflicting claimants? It is one of utmost importance, as there are public lands everywhere and there are thousands of settlers, especially in newly opened regions. It also involves a matter of policy, as it requires the determination of the respective authorities and functions of two coordinate branches of the Government in connection with public land conflicts.Our problem is made simple by the fact that under the Civil Code, either in the old, which was in force in this country before the American occupation, or in the new, we have a possessory action, the aim and purpose of which is the recovery of the physical possession of real property, irrespective of the question as to who has the title thereto. Under the Spanish Civil Code we had the accion interdictal, a summary proceeding which could be brought within one year from dispossession (Roman Catholic Bishop of Cebu vs. Mangaron, 6 Phil. 286, 291); and as early as October 1, 1901, upon the enactment of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190 of the Philippine Commission) we implanted the common law action of forcible entry (section 80 of Act No. 190), the object of which has been stated by this Court to beto prevent breaches of the peace and criminal disorder which would ensue from the withdrawal of the remedy, and the reasonable hope such withdrawal would create that some advantage must accrue to those persons who, believing themselves entitled to the possession of property, resort to force to gain possession rather than to some appropriate action in the court to assert their claims. (Supia and Batioco vs. Quintero and Ayala, 59 Phil. 312, 314.) So before the enactment of the first Public Land Act (Act No. 926) the action of forcible entry was already available in the courts of the country. So the question to be resolved is, Did the Legislature intend, when it vested the power and authority to alienate and dispose of the public lands in the Lands Department, to exclude the courts from entertaining the possessory action of forcible entry between rival claimants or occupants of any land before award thereof to any of the parties? Did Congress intend that the lands applied for, or all public lands for that matter, be removed from the jurisdiction of the judicial Branch of the Government, so that any troubles arising therefrom, or any breaches of the peace or disorders caused by rival claimants, could be inquired into only by the Lands Department to the exclusion of the courts? The answer to this question seems to us evident. The Lands Department does not have the means to police public lands; neither does it have the means to prevent disorders arising therefrom, or contain breaches of the peace among settlers; or to pass promptly upon conflicts of possession.Then its power is clearly limited to disposition and alienation, and while it may decide conflicts of possession in order to make proper award, the settlement of conflicts of possession which is recognized in the court herein has another ultimate purpose, i.e., the protection of actual possessors and occupants with a view to the prevention of breaches of the peace.The power to dispose and alienate could not have been intended to include the power to prevent or settle disorders or breaches of the peace among rival settlers or claimants prior to the final award.As to this, therefore, the corresponding branches of the Government must continue to exercise power and jurisdiction within the limits of their respective functions.The vesting of the Lands Department with authority to administer, dispose, and alienate public lands, therefore, must not be understood as depriving the other branches of the Government of the exercise of the respective functions or powers thereon, such as the authority to stop disorders and quell breaches of the peace by the police, the authority on the part of the courts to take jurisdiction over possessory actions arising therefrom not involving, directly or indirectly, alienation and disposition.Our attention has been called to a principle enunciated in American courts to the effect that courts have no jurisdiction to determine the rights of claimants to public lands, and that until the disposition of the land has passed from the control of the Federal Government, the courts will not interfere with the administration of matters concerning the same. (50C. J. 1093-1094.) We have no quarrel with this principle. The determination of the respective rights of rival claimants to public lands is different from the determination of who has the actual physical possession or occupation with a view to protecting the same and preventing disorder and breaches of the peace. A judgment of the court ordering restitution of the possession of a parcel of land to the actual occupant, who has been deprived thereof by another through the use of force or in any other illegal manner, can never be prejudicial interference with the disposition or alienation of public lands.On the other hand, if courts were deprived of jurisdiction of cases involving conflicts of possession, that threat of judicial action against breaches of the peace committed on public lands would be eliminated, and a state of lawlessness would probably be produced between applicants, occupants or squatters, where force or might, not right or justice, would rule.It must be borne in mind that the action that would be used to solve conflicts of possession between rivals or conflicting applicants or claimants would be no other than that of forcible entry. This action, both in England and the United States and in our jurisdiction, is a summary and expeditious remedy whereby one in peaceful and quiet possession may recover the possession of which he has been deprived by a stronger hand, by violence or terror; its ultimate object being to prevent breach of the peace and criminal disorder. (Supia and Batioco vs. Quintero and Ayala, 59 Phil. 312, 314.) The basis of the remedy is mere possession as a fact, of physical possession, not a legal possession. (Mediran vs. Villanueva, 37 Phil. 752.) The title or right to possession is never in issue in an action of forcible entry; as a matter of fact, evidence thereof is expressly banned, except to prove the nature of the possession. (Second 4, Rule 72, Rules of Court.) With this nature of the action in mind, by no stretch of the imagination can conclusion be arrived at that the use of the remedy in the courts of justice would constitute an interference with the alienation, disposition, and control of public lands. To limit ourselves to the case at bar can it be pretended at all that its result would in any way interfere with the manner of the alienation or disposition of the land contested? On the contrary, it would facilitate adjudication, for the question of priority of possession having been decided in a final manner by the courts, said question need no longer waste the time of the land officers making the adjudication or award.(Emphasis ours)The Principle of Pari Delicto is not Applicable to Ejectment CasesThe Court of Appeals erroneously applied the principle ofpari delictoto this case.Articles 1411 and 1412 of the Civil Code[48]embody the principle ofpari delicto. We explained the principle ofpari delictoin these words:The rule ofpari delictois expressed in the maximsex dolo malo non eritur actioandin pari delicto potior est conditio defedentis. The law will not aid either party to an illegal agreement. It leaves the parties where it finds them.[49]The application of thepari delictoprinciple is not absolute, as there are exceptions to its application. One of these exceptions is where the application of thepari delictorule would violate well-established public policy.[50]InDrilon v. Gaurana,[51]we reiterated the basic policy behind the summary actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer.We held that:It must be stated that the purpose of an action of forcible entry and detainer is that, regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out by strong hand, violence or terror. In affording this remedy of restitution the object of the statute is to prevent breaches of the peace and criminal disorder which would ensue from the withdrawal of the remedy, and the reasonable hope such withdrawal would create that some advantage must accrue to those persons who, believing themselves entitled to the possession of property, resort to force to gain possession rather than to some appropriate action in the courts to assert their claims. This is the philosophy at the foundation of all these actions of forcible entry and detainer which are designed to compel the party out of possession to respect and resort to the law alone to obtain what he claims is his.[52]Clearly, the application of the principle ofpari delictoto a case of ejectment between squatters is fraught with danger.To shut out relief to squatters on the ground ofpari delictowould openly invite mayhem and lawlessness.A squatter would oust another squatter from possession of the lot that the latter had illegally occupied, emboldened by the knowledge that the courts would leave them where they are. Nothing would then stand in the way of the ousted squatter from re-claiming his prior possession at all cost.Petty warfare over possession of properties is precisely what ejectment cases or actions for recovery of possession seek to prevent.[53]Even the owner who has title over the disputed property cannot take the law into his own hands to regain possession of his property.The owner must go to court.Courts must resolve the issue of possession even if the parties to the ejectment suit are squatters.The determination of priority and superiority of possession is a serious and urgent matter that cannot be left to the squatters to decide.To do so would make squatters receive better treatment under the law.The law restrains property owners from taking the law into their own hands.However, the principle ofpari delictoas applied by the Court of Appeals would give squatters free rein to dispossess fellow squatters or violently retake possession of properties usurped from them. Courts should not leave squatters to their own devices in cases involving recovery of possession.Possession is the only Issue for Resolution in an Ejectment CaseThe case for review before the Court of Appeals was a simple case of ejectment.The Court of Appeals refused to rule on the issue of physical possession. Nevertheless, the appellate court held that the pivotal issue in this case is who between Pajuyo and Guevarra has the priority right as beneficiary of the contested land under Proclamation No. 137.[54]According to the Court of Appeals, Guevarra enjoys preferential right under Proclamation No. 137 because Article VI of the Code declares that the actual occupant or caretaker is the one qualified to apply for socialized housing.The ruling of the Court of Appeals has no factual and legal basis.First.Guevarra did not present evidence to show that the contested lot is part of a relocation site under Proclamation No. 137.Proclamation No. 137 laid down the metes and bounds of the land that it declared open for disposition tobona fideresidents.The records do not show that the contested lot is within the land specified by Proclamation No. 137. Guevarra had the burden to prove that the disputed lot is within the coverage of Proclamation No. 137.He failed to do so.Second. The Court of Appeals should not have given credence to Guevarras unsubstantiated claim that he is the beneficiary of Proclamation No. 137. Guevarra merely alleged that in the survey the project administrator conducted, he and not Pajuyo appeared as the actual occupant of the lot.There is no proof that Guevarra actually availed of the benefits of Proclamation No. 137.Pajuyo allowed Guevarra to occupy the disputed property in 1985.President Aquino signed Proclamation No. 137 into law on 11 March 1986.Pajuyo made his earliest demand for Guevarra to vacate the property in September 1994.During the time that Guevarra temporarily held the property up to the time that Proclamation No. 137 allegedly segregated the disputed lot, Guevarra never applied as beneficiary of Proclamation No. 137. Even when Guevarra already knew that Pajuyo was reclaiming possession of the property, Guevarra did not take any step to comply with the requirements of Proclamation No. 137.Third.Even assuming that the disputed lot is within the coverage of Proclamation No. 137 and Guevarra has a pending application over the lot, courts should still assume jurisdiction and resolve the issue of possession. However, the jurisdiction of the courts would be limited to the issue of physical possession only.InPitargue,[55]we ruled that courts have jurisdiction over possessory actions involving public land to determine the issue of physical possession. The determination of the respective rights of rival claimants to public land is, however, distinct from the determination of who has the actual physical possession or who has a better right of physical possession.[56]The administrative disposition and alienation of public lands should be threshed out in the proper government agency.[57]The Court of Appeals determination of Pajuyo and Guevarras rights under Proclamation No. 137 was premature.Pajuyo and Guevarra were at most merely potential beneficiaries of the law. Courts should not preempt the decision of the administrative agency mandated by law to determine the qualifications of applicants for the acquisition of public lands.Instead, courts should expeditiously resolve the issue of physical possession in ejectment cases to prevent disorder and breaches of peace.[58]Pajuyo is Entitled to Physical Possession of the Disputed PropertyGuevarra does not dispute Pajuyos prior possession of the lot and ownership of the house built on it.Guevarra expressly admitted the existence and due execution of theKasunduan.TheKasunduanreads:Ako, si COL[I]TO PAJUYO, may-ari ng bahay at lote sa Bo. Payatas, Quezon City, ay nagbibigay pahintulot kay G. Eddie Guevarra, na pansamantalang manirahan sa nasabing bahay at lote ng walang bayad.Kaugnay nito, kailangang panatilihin nila ang kalinisan at kaayusan ng bahay at lote.Sa sandaling kailangan na namin ang bahay at lote, silay kusang aalis ng walang reklamo.Based on theKasunduan, Pajuyopermitted Guevarra to reside in the house and lot free of rent, but Guevarra was under obligation to maintain the premises in good condition. Guevarra promised to vacate the premises on Pajuyos demand but Guevarra broke his promise and refused to heed Pajuyos demand to vacate.These facts make out a case for unlawful detainer. Unlawful detainer involves the withholding by a person from another of the possession of real property to which the latter is entitled after the expiration or termination of the formers right to hold possessionunder a contract, express or implied.[59]Where the plaintiff allows the defendant to use his property by tolerance without any contract, the defendant is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate on demand, failing which, an action for unlawful detainer will lie.[60]The defendants refusal to comply with the demand makes his continued possession of the property unlawful.[61]The status of the defendant in such a case is similar to that of a lessee or tenant whose term of lease has expired but whose occupancy continues by tolerance of the owner.[62]This principle should apply with greater force in cases where a contract embodies the permission or tolerance to use the property.TheKasunduanexpressly articulated Pajuyos forbearance. Pajuyo did not require Guevarra to pay any rent but only to maintain the house and lot in good condition.Guevarra expressly vowed in theKasunduanthat he would vacate the property on demand. Guevarras refusal to comply with Pajuyos demand to vacate made Guevarras continued possession of the property unlawful.We do not subscribe to the Court of Appeals theory that theKasunduanis one ofcommodatum.In a contract ofcommodatum, one of the parties delivers to another something not consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it.[63]An essential feature ofcommodatumis that it is gratuitous. Another feature ofcommodatumis that the use of the thing belonging to another is for a certain period.[64]Thus, the bailor cannot demand the return of the thing loaned until after expiration of the period stipulated, or after accomplishment of the use for which thecommodatumisconstituted.[65]If the bailor should have urgent need of the thing, he may demand its return for temporary use.[66]If the use of the thing is merely tolerated by the bailor, he can demand the return of the thing at will, in which case the contractual relation is called aprecarium.[67]Under theCivil Code,precariumis a kind ofcommodatum.[68]TheKasunduanreveals that the accommodation accorded by Pajuyo to Guevarra was not essentially gratuitous. While theKasunduandid not require Guevarra to pay rent, it obligated him to maintain the property in good condition. The imposition of this obligation makes theKasunduana contract different from acommodatum.The effectsof theKasunduanare also different from that of acommodatum. Case law on ejectment has treated relationship based on tolerance as one that is akin to a landlord-tenant relationship where the withdrawal of permission would result in the termination of the lease.[69]The tenants withholding of the property would then be unlawful.This is settled jurisprudence.Even assuming that the relationship between Pajuyo and Guevarra is one ofcommodatum, Guevarra as bailee would still have the duty to turn over possession of the property to Pajuyo, the bailor.The obligation to deliver or to return the thing received attaches to contracts for safekeeping, or contracts of commission, administration andcommodatum.[70]These contracts certainly involve the obligation to deliver or return the thing received.[71]Guevarra turned his back on theKasunduanon the sole ground that like him, Pajuyo is also a squatter. Squatters, Guevarra pointed out, cannot enter into a contract involving the land they illegally occupy. Guevarra insists that the contract is void.Guevarra should know that there must be honor even between squatters.Guevarra freely entered into theKasunduan.Guevarra cannot now impugn theKasunduanafter he had benefited from it.TheKasunduanbinds Guevarra.TheKasunduanis not void for purposes of determining who between Pajuyo and Guevarra has a right to physical possession of the contested property.TheKasunduanis the undeniable evidence of Guevarras recognition of Pajuyos better right of physical possession. Guevarra is clearly a possessor in bad faith.The absence of a contract would not yield a different result, as there would still be an implied promise to vacate.Guevarra contends that there is a pernicious evil that is sought to be avoided, and that is allowing an absentee squatter who (sic) makes (sic) a profit out of his illegal act.[72]Guevarra bases his argument on the preferential right given to the actual occupant or caretaker under Proclamation No. 137 on socialized housing.We are not convinced.Pajuyo did not profit from his arrangement with Guevarra because Guevarra stayed in the property without paying any rent.There is also no proof that Pajuyo is a professional squatter who rents out usurped properties to other squatters.Moreover, it is for the proper government agency to decide who between Pajuyo and Guevarra qualifies for socialized housing.The only issue that we are addressing is physical possession.Prior possession is not always a conditionsine qua nonin ejectment.[73]This is one of the distinctions between forcible entry and unlawful detainer.[74]In forcible entry, the plaintiff is deprived of physical possession of his land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.Thus, he must allege and prove prior possession.[75]But in unlawful detainer, the defendant unlawfully withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to possess under any contract, express or implied. In such a case, prior physical possession is not required.[76]Pajuyos withdrawal of his permission to Guevarra terminated theKasunduan.Guevarras transient right to possess the property ended as well.Moreover, it was Pajuyo who was in actual possession of the property because Guevarra had to seek Pajuyos permission to temporarily hold the property and Guevarra had to follow the conditions set by Pajuyo in theKasunduan.Control over the property still rested with Pajuyo and this is evidence of actual possession.Pajuyos absence did not affect his actual possession of the disputed property. Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on every square meter of the ground before he is deemed in possession.[77]One may acquire possession not only by physical occupation, but also by the fact that a thing is subject to the action of ones will.[78]Actual or physical occupation is not always necessary.[79]Ruling on Possession Does not Bind Title to the Land in DisputeWe are aware of our pronouncement in cases where we declared that squatters and intruders who clandestinely enter into titled government property cannot, by such act, acquire any legal right to said property.[80]We made this declaration because the person who had title or who had the right to legal possession over the disputed property was a party in the ejectment suit and that party instituted the case against squatters or usurpers.In this case, the owner of the land, which is the government, is not a party to the ejectment case.This case is between squatters.Had the government participated in this case, the courts could have evicted the contending squatters, Pajuyo and Guevarra.Since the party that has title or a better right over the property is not impleaded in this case, we cannot evict on our own the parties. Such a ruling would discourage squatters from seeking the aid of the courts in settling the issue of physical possession.Stripping both the plaintiff and the defendant of possession just because they are squatters would have the same dangerous implications as the application of the principle ofpari delicto.Squatters would then rather settle the issue of physical possession among themselves than seek relief from the courts if the plaintiff and defendant in the ejectment case would both stand to lose possession of the disputed property.This would subvert the policy underlying actions for recovery of possession.Since Pajuyo has in his favor priority in time in holding the property, he is entitled to remain on the property until a person who has title or a better right lawfully ejects him.Guevarra is certainly not that person. The ruling in this case, however, does not preclude Pajuyo and Guevarra from introducing evidence and presenting arguments before the proper administrative agency to establish any right to which they may be entitled under the law.[81]In no way should our ruling in this case be interpreted to condone squatting. The ruling on the issue of physical possession does not affect title to the property nor constitute a binding and conclusive adjudication on the merits on the issue of ownership.[82]The owner can still go to court to recover lawfully the property from the person who holds the property without legal title.Our ruling here does not diminish the power of government agencies, including local governments, to condemn, abate, remove or demolish illegal or unauthorized structures in accordance with existing laws.Attorneys Fees and RentalsThe MTC and RTC failed to justify the award ofP3,000 attorneys fees to Pajuyo.Attorneys fees as part of damages are awarded only in the instances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code.[83]Thus, the award of attorneys fees is the exception rather than the rule.[84]Attorneys fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[85]We therefore delete the attorneys fees awarded to Pajuyo.We sustain theP300 monthly rentals the MTC and RTC assessed against Guevarra.Guevarra did not dispute this factual finding of the two courts.We find the amount reasonable compensation to Pajuyo.TheP300 monthly rental is counted from the last demand to vacate, which was on 16 February 1995.WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition.The Decision dated 21 June 2000 and Resolution dated 14 December 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 43129 are SET ASIDE.The Decision dated 11 November 1996 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 81 in Civil Case No. Q-96-26943, affirming the Decision dated 15 December 1995 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 31 in Civil Case No. 12432, is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION. The award of attorneys fees is deleted. No costs.SO ORDERED.Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago,andAzcuna, JJ.,concur.

Republic vs. Bagtas, No. L-17474, 6 SCRA 262, October 25, 1962

G.R. No. L-17474 October 25, 1962REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.JOSE V. BAGTAS,defendant,FELICIDAD M. BAGTAS, Administratrix of the Intestate Estate left by the late Jose V. Bagtas,petitioner-appellant.D. T. Reyes, Liaison and Associates for petitioner-appellant.Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.PADILLA,J.:The Court of Appeals certified this case to this Court because only questions of law are raised.On 8 May 1948 Jose V. Bagtas borrowed from the Republic of the Philippines through the Bureau of Animal Industry three bulls: a Red Sindhi with a book value of P1,176.46, a Bhagnari, of P1,320.56 and a Sahiniwal, of P744.46, for a period of one year from 8 May 1948 to 7 May 1949 for breeding purposes subject to a government charge of breeding fee of 10% of the book value of the bulls. Upon the expiration on 7 May 1949 of the contract, the borrower asked for a renewal for another period of one year. However, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approved a renewal thereof of only one bull for another year from 8 May 1949 to 7 May 1950 and requested the return of the other two. On 25 March 1950 Jose V. Bagtas wrote to the Director of Animal Industry that he would pay the value of the three bulls. On 17 October 1950 he reiterated his desire to buy them at a value with a deduction of yearly depreciation to be approved by the Auditor General. On 19 October 1950 the Director of Animal Industry advised him that the book value of the three bulls could not be reduced and that they either be returned or their book value paid not later than 31 October 1950. Jose V. Bagtas failed to pay the book value of the three bulls or to return them. So, on 20 December 1950 in the Court of First Instance of Manila the Republic of the Philippines commenced an action against him praying that he be ordered to return the three bulls loaned to him or to pay their book value in the total sum of P3,241.45 and the unpaid breeding fee in the sum of P199.62, both with interests, and costs; and that other just and equitable relief be granted in (civil No. 12818).On 5 July 1951 Jose V. Bagtas, through counsel Navarro, Rosete and Manalo, answered that because of the bad peace and order situation in Cagayan Valley, particularly in the barrio of Baggao, and of the pending appeal he had taken to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the President of the Philippines from the refusal by the Director of Animal Industry to deduct from the book value of the bulls corresponding yearly depreciation of 8% from the date of acquisition, to which depreciation the Auditor General did not object, he could not return the animals nor pay their value and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.After hearing, on 30 July 1956 the trial court render judgment . . . sentencing the latter (defendant) to pay the sum of P3,625.09 the total value of the three bulls plus the breeding fees in the amount of P626.17 with interest on both sums of (at) the legal rate from the filing of this complaint and costs.On 9 October 1958 the plaintiff moved ex parte for a writ of execution which the court granted on 18 October and issued on 11 November 1958. On 2 December 1958 granted an ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff on November 1958 for the appointment of a special sheriff to serve the writ outside Manila. Of this order appointing a special sheriff, on 6 December 1958, Felicidad M. Bagtas, the surviving spouse of the defendant Jose Bagtas who died on 23 October 1951 and as administratrix of his estate, was notified. On 7 January 1959 she file a motion alleging that on 26 June 1952 the two bull Sindhi and Bhagnari were returned to the Bureau Animal of Industry and that sometime in November 1958 the third bull, the Sahiniwal, died from gunshot wound inflicted during a Huk raid on Hacienda Felicidad Intal, and praying that the writ of execution be quashed and that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued. On 31 January 1959 the plaintiff objected to her motion. On 6 February 1959 she filed a reply thereto. On the same day, 6 February, the Court denied her motion. Hence, this appeal certified by the Court of Appeals to this Court as stated at the beginning of this opinion.It is true that on 26 June 1952 Jose M. Bagtas, Jr., son of the appellant by the late defendant, returned the Sindhi and Bhagnari bulls to Roman Remorin, Superintendent of the NVB Station, Bureau of Animal Industry, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, as evidenced by a memorandum receipt signed by the latter (Exhibit 2). That is why in its objection of 31 January 1959 to the appellant's motion to quash the writ of execution the appellee prays "that another writ of execution in the sum of P859.53 be issued against the estate of defendant deceased Jose V. Bagtas." She cannot be held liable for the two bulls which already had been returned to and received by the appellee.The appellant contends that the Sahiniwal bull was accidentally killed during a raid by the Huk in November 1953 upon the surrounding barrios of Hacienda Felicidad Intal, Baggao, Cagayan, where the animal was kept, and that as such death was due toforce majeureshe is relieved from the duty of returning the bull or paying its value to the appellee. The contention is without merit. The loan by the appellee to the late defendant Jose V. Bagtas of the three bulls for breeding purposes for a period of one year from 8 May 1948 to 7 May 1949, later on renewed for another year as regards one bull, was subject to the payment by the borrower of breeding fee of 10% of the book value of the bulls. The appellant contends that the contract wascommodatumand that, for that reason, as the appellee retained ownership or title to the bull it should suffer its loss due toforce majeure. A contract ofcommodatumis essentially gratuitous.1If the breeding fee be considered a compensation, then the contract would be a lease of the bull. Under article 1671 of the Civil Code the lessee would be subject to the responsibilities of a possessor in bad faith, because she had continued possession of the bull after the expiry of the contract. And even if the contract becommodatum, still the appellant is liable, because article 1942 of the Civil Code provides that a bailee in a contract ofcommodatum. . . is liable for loss of the things, even if it should be through a fortuitous event:(2) If he keeps it longer than the period stipulated . . .(3) If the thing loaned has been delivered with appraisal of its value, unless there is a stipulation exempting the bailee from responsibility in case of a fortuitous event;The original period of the loan was from 8 May 1948 to 7 May 1949. The loan of one bull was renewed for another period of one year to end on 8 May 1950. But the appellant kept and used the bull until November 1953 when during a Huk raid it was killed by stray bullets. Furthermore, when lent and delivered to the deceased husband of the appellant the bulls had each an appraised book value, to with: the Sindhi, at P1,176.46, the Bhagnari at P1,320.56 and the Sahiniwal at P744.46. It was not stipulated that in case of loss of the bull due to fortuitous event the late husband of the appellant would be exempt from liability.The appellant's contention that the demand or prayer by the appellee for the return of the bull or the payment of its value being a money claim should be presented or filed in the intestate proceedings of the defendant who died on 23 October 1951, is not altogether without merit. However, the claim that his civil personality having ceased to exist the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case against him, is untenable, because section 17 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that After a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legal representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased, within a period of thirty (30) days, or within such time as may be granted. . . .and after the defendant's death on 23 October 1951 his counsel failed to comply with section 16 of Rule 3 which provides that Whenever a party to a pending case dies . . . it shall be the duty of his attorney to inform the court promptly of such death . . . and to give the name and residence of the executory administrator, guardian, or other legal representative of the deceased . . . .The notice by the probate court and its publication in theVoz de Manilathat Felicidad M. Bagtas had been issue letters of administration of the estate of the late Jose Bagtas and that "all persons having claims for monopoly against the deceased Jose V. Bagtas, arising from contract express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, for funeral expenses and expenses of the last sickness of the said decedent, and judgment for monopoly against him, to file said claims with the Clerk of this Court at the City Hall Bldg., Highway 54, Quezon City, within six (6) months from the date of the first publication of this order, serving a copy thereof upon the aforementioned Felicidad M. Bagtas, the appointed administratrix of the estate of the said deceased," is not a notice to the court and the appellee who were to be notified of the defendant's death in accordance with the above-quoted rule, and there was no reason for such failure to notify, because the attorney who appeared for the defendant was the same who represented the administratrix in the special proceedings instituted for the administration and settlement of his estate. The appellee or its attorney or representative could not be expected to know of the death of the defendant or of the administration proceedings of his estate instituted in another court that if the attorney for the deceased defendant did not notify the plaintiff or its attorney of such death as required by the rule.As the appellant already had returned the two bulls to the appellee, the estate of the late defendant is only liable for the sum of P859.63, the value of the bull which has not been returned to the appellee, because it was killed while in the custody of the administratrix of his estate. This is the amount prayed for by the appellee in its objection on 31 January 1959 to the motion filed on 7 January 1959 by the appellant for the quashing of the writ of execution.Special proceedings for the administration and settlement of the estate of the deceased Jose V. Bagtas having been instituted in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Q-200), the money judgment rendered in favor of the appellee cannot be enforced by means of a writ of execution but must be presented to the probate court for payment by the appellant, the administratrix appointed by the court.ACCORDINGLY, the writ of execution appealed from is set aside, without pronouncement as to costs.Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ.,concur.Barrera, J.,concurs in the result.

In their appeal, plaintiffs-appellants argued that the promissory note, which consolidated all the unpaid loans of the defendants, is the law that governs the parties. They further argued that Circular No. 416 of the Central Bank prescribing the rate of interest for loans or forbearance of money, goods or credit at 12% per annum, applies only in the absence of a stipulation on interest rate, but not when the parties agreed thereon.The Court of Appeals sustained the plaintiffs-appellants' contention. It ruled that "the Usury Law having become 'legally inexistent' with the promulgation by the Central Bank in 1982 of Circular No. 905, the lender and borrower could agree on any interest that may be charged on the loan".9The Court of Appeals further held that "the imposition of 'an additional amount equivalent to 1% per month of the amount due and demandable as penalty charges in the form of liquidated damages until fully paid' was allowed bylaw".10

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. L-60033 April 4, 1984TEOFISTO GUINGONA, JR., ANTONIO I. MARTIN, and TERESITA SANTOS,petitioners,vs.THE CITY FISCAL OF MANILA, HON. JOSE B. FLAMINIANO, ASST. CITY FISCAL FELIZARDO N. LOTA and CLEMENT DAVID,respondents.MAKASIAR,Actg. C.J.:+.wph!1This is a petition for prohibition and injunction with a prayer for the immediate issuance of restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction filed by petitioners on March 26, 1982.On March 31, 1982, by virtue of a court resolution issued by this Court on the same date, a temporary restraining order was duly issued ordering the respondents, their officers, agents, representatives and/or person or persons acting upon their (respondents') orders or in their place or stead to refrain from proceeding with the preliminary investigation in Case No. 8131938 of the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila (pp. 47-48, rec.). On January 24, 1983, private respondent Clement David filed a motion to lift restraining order which was denied in the resolution of this Court dated May 18, 1983.As can be gleaned from the above, the instant petition seeks to prohibit public respondents from proceeding with the preliminary investigation of I.S. No. 81-31938, in which petitioners were charged by private respondent Clement David, with estafa and violation of Central Bank Circular No. 364 and related regulations regarding foreign exchange transactions principally, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in that the allegations of the charged, as well as the testimony of private respondent's principal witness and the evidence through said witness, showed that petitioners' obligation is civil in nature.For purposes of brevity, We hereby adopt the antecedent facts narrated by the Solicitor General in its Comment dated June 28,1982, as follows:t.hqwOn December 23,1981, private respondent David filed I.S. No. 81-31938 in the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila, which case was assigned to respondent Lota for preliminary investigation (Petition, p. 8).In I.S. No. 81-31938, David charged petitioners (together with one Robert Marshall and the following directors of the Nation Savings and Loan Association, Inc., namely Homero Gonzales, Juan Merino, Flavio Macasaet, Victor Gomez, Jr., Perfecto Manalac, Jaime V. Paz, Paulino B. Dionisio, and one John Doe) with estafa and violation of Central Bank Circular No. 364 and related Central Bank regulations on foreign exchange transactions, allegedly committed as follows (Petition, Annex "A"):t.hqw"From March 20, 1979 to March, 1981, David invested with the Nation Savings and Loan Association, (hereinafter called NSLA) the sum of P1,145,546.20 on nine deposits, P13,531.94 on savings account deposits (jointly with his sister, Denise Kuhne), US$10,000.00 on time deposit, US$15,000.00 under a receipt and guarantee of payment and US$50,000.00 under a receipt dated June 8, 1980 (au jointly with Denise Kuhne), that David was induced into making the aforestated investments by Robert Marshall an Australian national who was allegedly a close associate of petitioner Guingona Jr., then NSLA President, petitioner Martin, then NSLA Executive Vice-President of NSLA and petitioner Santos, then NSLA General Manager; that on March 21, 1981 N LA was placed under receivership by the Central Bank, so that David filed claims therewith for his investments and those of his sister; that on July 22, 1981 David received a report from the Central Bank that only P305,821.92 of those investments were entered in the records of NSLA; that, therefore, the respondents in I.S. No. 81-31938 misappropriated the balance of the investments, at the same time violating Central Bank Circular No. 364 and related Central Bank regulations on foreign exchange transactions; that after demands, petitioner Guingona Jr. paid only P200,000.00, thereby reducing the amounts misappropriated to P959,078.14 and US$75,000.00."Petitioners, Martin and Santos, filed a joint counter-affidavit (Petition, Annex' B') in which they stated the following.t.hqw"That Martin became President of NSLA in March 1978 (after the resignation of Guingona, Jr.) and served as such until October 30, 1980, while Santos was General Manager up to November 1980; that because NSLA was urgently in need of funds and at David's insistence, his investments were treated as special- accounts with interest above the legal rate, an recorded in separate confidential documents only a por