OSCAR ANGELES v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, GR NO.

142612, 2005-08-29 Mercado attached bank receipts showing deposits in behalf of Emerita Angeles
and contracts under his name for the Angeles spouses. Mercado also attached
Facts: the minutes of the barangay conciliation proceedings held on 7 September
the Angeles spouses filed a criminal complaint for estafa under Article 315 of the 1996. During the barangay conciliation... proceedings, Oscar Angeles stated
Revised Penal Code against Mercado before the Provincial Prosecution that there was a written sosyo industrial agreement: capital would come from
Office. Mercado is the brother-in-law of the Angeles spouses, being married to the Angeles spouses while the profit would be divided evenly between Mercado
Emerita Angeles'... sister Laura. and the Angeles spouses.[

Mercado convinced them to enter into a contract of antichresis,[5] colloquially On appeal to the Secretary of Justice, the Angeles spouses emphasized that the
known as sanglaang-perde, covering eight parcels of land ("subject land") document evidencing the contract of sanglaang-perde with Juana Suazo was
planted with... fruit-bearing lanzones trees located in Nagcarlan, Laguna and executed in the name of the Mercado spouses, instead of the Angeles
owned by Juana Suazo. The contract of antichresis was to last for five years spouses. The Angeles spouses allege that... this document alone proves
with P210,000 as consideration. As the Angeles spouses stay in Manila during Mercado's misappropriation of their P210,000.
weekdays and go to Laguna only on weekends, the parties agreed... that Reviewing the records of the case, we are of the opinion that the indictment of
Mercado would administer the lands and complete the necessary paperwork.[ [Mercado] for the crime of estafa cannot be sustained. [The Angeles spouses]
After three years, the Angeles spouses asked for an accounting from failed to show sufficient proof that [Mercado] deliberately deceived them in the
Mercado. Mercado explained that the subject land earned P46,210 in 1993, "sanglaang perde"... transaction.
which he used to buy more lanzones trees. The document alone, which was in the name of [Mercado and his spouse], failed
Mercado also reported that the trees bore no fruit in 1994. to convince us that there was deceit or false representation on the part of
[Mercado] that induced the [Angeles spouses] to part with their money.
Mercado gave no... accounting for 1995.
[Mercado] satisfactorily... explained that the [Angeles spouses] do not want to
The Angeles spouses claim that only after this demand for an accounting did be revealed as the financiers. Indeed, it is difficult to believe that the [Angeles
they discover that Mercado had put the contract of sanglaang-perde over the spouses] would readily part with their money without holding on to some
subject land under Mercado and his spouse's names. document to evidence the receipt of money, or at least to inspect... the
In his counter-affidavit, Mercado denied the Angeles spouses' document involved in the said transaction. Under the circumstances, we are
allegations. Mercado claimed that there exists an industrial partnership, inclined to believe that [the Angeles spouses] knew from the very start that the
colloquially known as sosyo industrial, between him and his spouse as industrial questioned document was not really in their names.
partners and the Angeles spouses as the... financiers. In addition, we are convinced that a partnership truly existed between the
This industrial partnership had existed since 1991, before the contract of [Angeles spouses] and [Mercado]. The formation of a partnership was clear
antichresis over the subject land. from the fact that they contributed money to a common fund and divided the
profits among themselves.
As the years passed, Mercado used his and his spouse's earnings as part of the
capital in the business transactions which he entered into in behalf of... the Records would... show that [Mercado] was able to make deposits for the
Angeles spouses. It was their practice to enter into business transactions with account of the [Angeles spouses]. These deposits represented their share in the
other people under the name of Mercado because the Angeles spouses did not profits of their business venture.
want to be identified as the financiers.
Although the [Angeles spouses] deny the existence of a partnership, they, Grave Abuse of Discretion
however, never disputed... that the deposits made by [Mercado] were indeed for
An act of a court or tribunal may constitute grave abuse of discretion when the
their account.
same is performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment amounting
The transcript of notes on the dialogue between the [Angeles spouses] and to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as
[Mercado] during the hearing of their barangay conciliation case reveals that the to amount... to an evasion of positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform a
[Angeles spouses] acknowledged their joint business ventures with [Mercado] duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
although they assailed the manner by which despotic manner because of passion or personal hostility.[13]
[Mercado] conducted the business and handled and distributed the funds. The The Angeles spouses fail to convince us that the Secretary of Justice committed
veracity of this transcript was not raised in issued [sic] by [the Angeles spouses]. grave abuse of discretion when he dismissed their appeal. Moreover, the
Although the legal formalities for the formation of a partnership were not Angeles spouses committed an error in procedure when they failed to file a
adhered to, the partnership... relationship of the [Angeles spouses] and motion for reconsideration of the Secretary of
[Mercado] is evident in this case. Consequently, there is no estafa where money
is delivered by a partner to his co-partner on the latter's representation that the Justice's resolution. A previous motion for reconsideration before the filing of a
amount shall be applied to the business of their partnership. petition for certiorari is necessary unless: (1) the issue raised is one purely of
law; (2) public interest is involved; (3) there is urgency; (4) a question of
In case of misapplication or conversion of the money received, the co-partner's jurisdiction is... squarely raised before and decided by the lower court; and (5)
liability is civil in nature the order is a patent nullity.[14] The Angeles spouses failed to show that their
case falls under any of the exceptions. In fact, this present petition for certiorari
Issues: is dismissible for... this reason alone.
In their affidavits Whether a Partnership Existed
Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion Between Mercado and the Angeles Spouses
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal of the Angeles
spouses; The Angeles spouses allege that they had no partnership with Mercado. The
Angeles spouses rely on Articles 1771 to 1773 of the Civil Code, which state
Whether a partnership existed between the Angeles spouses and Mercado even that:
without any documentary proof to sustain its existence;
Art. 1771. A partnership may be constituted in any form, except where
Assuming that there was a partnership, whether there was misappropriation by immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto, in which case a public
Mercado of the proceeds of the lanzones after the Angeles spouses demanded instrument shall be necessary.
an accounting from him of the income at the office of the barangay authorities
on 7 September 1996, and Mercado failed to... do so and also failed to deliver The Angeles spouses' position that there is no partnership because of the lack
the proceeds to the Angeles spouses; of a public instrument indicating the same and a lack of registration with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") holds no water. First, the
Whether the Secretary of Justice should order the filing of the information for Angeles spouses contributed money to... the partnership and not immovable
estafa against Mercado. property. Second, mere failure to register the contract of partnership with the
Ruling: SEC does not invalidate a contract that has the essential requisites of a
partnership. The purpose of registration of the contract of partnership is to...
Whether the Secretary of Justice Committed give notice to third parties. Failure to register the contract of partnership does
not affect the liability of the partnership and of the partners to third
persons. Neither does such failure to register affect the partnership's juridical
personality. A... partnership may exist even if the partners do not use the words
"partner" or "partnership."
Indeed, the Angeles spouses admit to facts that prove the existence of a
partnership: a contract showing a sosyo industrial or industrial partnership,
contribution of money and industry to a common fund, and division of profits
between the Angeles spouses and Mercado.
Whether there was
Misappropriation by Mercado
The Secretary of Justice adequately explained the alleged misappropriation by
Mercado: "The document alone, which was in the name of [Mercado and his
spouse], failed to convince us that there was deceit or false representation on
the part of [Mercado] that induced the
[Angeles spouses] to part with their money. [Mercado] satisfactorily explained
that the [Angeles spouses] do not want to be revealed as the financiers."[15]
 10 industrial partnership, contribution of money and industry to a common fund, and
OSCAR ANGELES and EMERITA ANGELES, petitioners, vs. THE division of profits between the Angeles spouses and Mercado.
HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE and FELINO MERCADO,
respondents.
Actions; Certiorari; Words and Phrases; “Grave Abuse of Discretion,”
Defined.—An act of a court or tribunal may constitute grave abuse of
discretion when the same is performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of
judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty, or to a virtual refusal
to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary
and despotic manner because of passion or personal hostility.
Same; Same; Pleadings and Practice; Motions for Reconsideration; A previous
motion for reconsideration before the filing of a petition for certiorari is necessary;
Exceptions.—The Angeles spouses fail to convince us that the Secretary of Justice
committed grave abuse of discretion when he dismissed their appeal. Moreover,
the Angeles spouses committed an error in procedure when they failed to file a
motion for reconsideration of the Secretary of Justice’s resolution. A previous
motion for reconsideration before the filing of a petition for certiorari is necessary
unless: (1) the issue raised is one purely of law; (2) public interest is involved; (3)
there is urgency; (4) a question of jurisdiction is squarely raised before and decided
by the lower court; and (5) the order is a patent nullity. The Angeles spouses failed
to show that their case falls under any of the exceptions. In fact, this present
petition for certiorari is dismissible for this reason alone.
Partnership; Mere failure to register the contract of partnership with the
Securities and Exchange Commission does not invalidate a contract that has the
essential requisites of partnership—a partnership may exist even if the partners do
not use the words “partner” or “partnership.”—The Angeles spouses’ position that
there is no partnership because of the lack of a public instrument indicating the
same and a lack of registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(“SEC”) holds no water. First, the Angeles spouses contributed money to the
partnership and not immovable property. Second, mere failure to register the
contract of partnership with the SEC does not invalidate a contract that has the
essential requisites of a partnership. The purpose of registration of the contract of
partnership is to give notice to third parties. Failure to register the contract of
partnership does not affect the liability of the partnership and of the partners to
third persons. Neither does such failure to register affect the partnership’s
juridical personality. A partnership may exist even if the partners do not use the
words “partner” or “partnership.” Indeed, the Angeles spouses admit to facts that
prove the existence of a partnership: a contract showing a sosyo industrial or
 Republic of the Philippines xxx
SUPREME COURT Na alang-alang sa halagang DALAWANG DAAN AT SAMPUNG LIBONG
FIRST DIVISION PISO (₱210,000), salaping gastahin, na aking tinanggap sa mag[-]asawa nila G.
G.R. No. 142612. July 29, 2005 AT GNG. FELINO MERCADO, mga nasa hustong gulang, Filipino, tumitira at
OSCAR ANGELES and EMERITA ANGELES, Petitioners, may pahatirang sulat sa Bgy. Maravilla, bayan ng Nagcarlan, lalawigan ng
vs. Laguna, ay aking ipinagbili, iniliwat at isinalin sa naulit na halaga, sa nabanggit
THE HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE and FELINO na mag[-] asawa nila G. AT GNG. FELINO MERCADO[,] sa kanila ay
MERCADO, Respondents. magmamana, kahalili at ibang dapat pagliwatan ng kanilang karapatan, ang
DECISION lahat na ibubunga ng lahat na puno ng lanzones, hindi kasama ang ibang halaman
CARPIO, J.: na napapalooban nito, ng nabanggit na WALONG (8) Lagay na Lupang Cocal-
The Case Lanzonal, sa takdang LIMA (5) NA [sic] TAON, magpapasimula sa taong 1993, at
This is a petition for certiorari1 to annul the letter-resolution2 dated 1 magtatapos sa taong 1997, kaya’t pagkatapos ng lansonesan sa taong 1997, ang
February 2000 of the Secretary of Justice in Resolution No. 155.3 The Secretary of pamomosision at pakikinabang sa lahat na puno ng lanzones sa nabanggit na
Justice affirmed the resolution4 in I.S. No. 96-939 dated 28 February 1997 WALONG (8) Lagay na Lupang Cocal-Lanzonal ay manunumbalik sa akin, sa
rendered by the Provincial Prosecution Office of the Department of Justice in akin ay magmamana, kahalili at ibang dapat pagliwatan ng aking karapatan na
Santa Cruz, Laguna ("Provincial Prosecution Office"). The Provincial Prosecution ako ay walang ibabalik na ano pa mang halaga, sa mag[-] asawa nila G. AT GNG.
Office resolved to dismiss the complaint for estafa filed by petitioners Oscar and FELINO MERCADO.
Emerita Angeles ("Angeles spouses") against respondent Felino Mercado Na ako at ang mag[-]asawa nila G. AT GNG. FELINO MERCADO ay
("Mercado"). nagkasundo na ako ay bibigyan nila ng LIMA (5) na [sic] kaing na lanzones taon-
Antecedent Facts taon sa loob ng LIMA (5) na [sic] taon ng aming kasunduang ito.
On 19 November 1996, the Angeles spouses filed a criminal complaint for Na ako at ang mag[-]asawa nila G. AT GNG. FELINO MERCADO ay
estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code against Mercado before the nagkasundo na silang mag[-]asawa nila G. AT GNG. FELINO MERCADO ang
Provincial Prosecution Office. Mercado is the brother-in-law of the Angeles magpapaalis ng dapo sa puno ng lansones taon-taon [sic] sa loob ng LIMA (5) [sic]
spouses, being married to Emerita Angeles’ sister Laura. taonng [sic] aming kasunduang ito.8
In their affidavits, the Angeles spouses claimed that in November 1992, In his counter-affidavit, Mercado denied the Angeles spouses’ allegations.
Mercado convinced them to enter into a contract of antichresis,5 colloquially Mercado claimed that there exists an industrial partnership, colloquially known
known as sanglaang-perde, covering eight parcels of land ("subject land") planted as sosyo industrial, between him and his spouse as industrial partners and the
with fruit-bearing lanzones trees located in Nagcarlan, Laguna and owned by Angeles spouses as the financiers. This industrial partnership had existed since
Juana Suazo. The contract of antichresis was to last for five years with ₱210,000 1991, before the contract of antichresis over the subject land. As the years passed,
as consideration. As the Angeles spouses stay in Manila during weekdays and go Mercado used his and his spouse’s earnings as part of the capital in the business
to Laguna only on weekends, the parties agreed that Mercado would administer transactions which he entered into in behalf of the Angeles spouses. It was their
the lands and complete the necessary paperwork.6 practice to enter into business transactions with other people under the name of
After three years, the Angeles spouses asked for an accounting from Mercado. Mercado because the Angeles spouses did not want to be identified as the
Mercado explained that the subject land earned ₱46,210 in 1993, which he used to financiers.
buy more lanzones trees. Mercado also reported that the trees bore no fruit in 1994. Mercado attached bank receipts showing deposits in behalf of Emerita
Mercado gave no accounting for 1995. The Angeles spouses claim that only after Angeles and contracts under his name for the Angeles spouses. Mercado also
this demand for an accounting did they discover that Mercado had put the contract attached the minutes of the barangay conciliation proceedings held on 7
of sanglaang-perde over the subject land under Mercado and his spouse’s September 1996. During the barangay conciliation proceedings, Oscar Angeles
names.7 The relevant portions of the contract of sanglaang-perde, signed by Juana stated that there was a written sosyo industrial agreement: capital would come
Suazo alone, read:
from the Angeles spouses while the profit would be divided evenly between document to evidence the receipt of money, or at least to inspect the document
Mercado and the Angeles spouses.9 involved in the said transaction. Under the circumstances, we are inclined to
The Ruling of the Provincial Prosecution Office believe that [the Angeles spouses] knew from the very start that the questioned
On 3 January 1997, the Provincial Prosecution Office issued a resolution document was not really in their names.
recommending the filing of criminal information for estafa against Mercado. This In addition, we are convinced that a partnership truly existed between the
resolution, however, was issued without Mercado’s counter-affidavit. [Angeles spouses] and [Mercado]. The formation of a partnership was clear from
Meanwhile, Mercado filed his counter-affidavit on 2 January 1997. On the fact that they contributed money to a common fund and divided the profits
receiving the 3 January 1997 resolution, Mercado moved for its reconsideration. among themselves. Records would show that [Mercado] was able to make deposits
Hence, on 26 February 1997, the Provincial Prosecution Office issued an amended for the account of the [Angeles spouses]. These deposits represented their share in
resolution dismissing the Angeles spouses’ complaint for estafa against Mercado. the profits of their business venture. Although the [Angeles spouses] deny the
The Provincial Prosecution Office stated thus: existence of a partnership, they, however, never disputed that the deposits made
The subject of the complaint hinges on a partnership gone sour. The by [Mercado] were indeed for their account.
partnership was initially unsaddled [with] problems. Management became the The transcript of notes on the dialogue between the [Angeles spouses] and
source of misunderstanding including the accounting of profits, which led to [Mercado] during the hearing of their barangay conciliation case reveals that the
further misunderstanding until it was revealed that the contract with the orchard [Angeles spouses] acknowledged their joint business ventures with [Mercado]
owner was only with the name of the respondent, without the names of the although they assailed the manner by which [Mercado] conducted the business
complainants. and handled and distributed the funds. The veracity of this transcript was not
The accusation of "estafa" here lacks enough credible evidentiary support to raised in issued [sic] by [the Angeles spouses]. Although the legal formalities for
sustain a prima facie finding. the formation of a partnership were not adhered to, the partnership relationship
Premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that the complaint for of the [Angeles spouses] and [Mercado] is evident in this case. Consequently, there
estafa be dismissed. is no estafa where money is delivered by a partner to his co-partner on the latter’s
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.10 representation that the amount shall be applied to the business of their
The Angeles spouses filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Provincial partnership. In case of misapplication or conversion of the money received, the co-
Prosecution Office denied in a resolution dated 4 August 1997. partner’s liability is civil in nature (People v. Clarin, 7 Phil. 504)
The Ruling of the Secretary of Justice WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.11
On appeal to the Secretary of Justice, the Angeles spouses emphasized that Hence, this petition.
the document evidencing the contract of sanglaang-perde with Juana Suazo was Issues
executed in the name of the Mercado spouses, instead of the Angeles spouses. The The Angeles spouses ask us to consider the following issues:
Angeles spouses allege that this document alone proves Mercado’s 1. Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion
misappropriation of their ₱210,000. amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal of the Angeles spouses;
The Secretary of Justice found otherwise. Thus: 2. Whether a partnership existed between the Angeles spouses and Mercado
Reviewing the records of the case, we are of the opinion that the indictment even without any documentary proof to sustain its existence;
of [Mercado] for the crime of estafa cannot be sustained. [The Angeles spouses] 3. Assuming that there was a partnership, whether there was
failed to show sufficient proof that [Mercado] deliberately deceived them in the misappropriation by Mercado of the proceeds of the lanzones after the Angeles
"sanglaang perde" transaction. The document alone, which was in the name of spouses demanded an accounting from him of the income at the office of the
[Mercado and his spouse], failed to convince us that there was deceit or false barangay authorities on 7 September 1996, and Mercado failed to do so and also
representation on the part of [Mercado] that induced the [Angeles spouses] to part failed to deliver the proceeds to the Angeles spouses;
with their money. [Mercado] satisfactorily explained that the [Angeles spouses] do 4. Whether the Secretary of Justice should order the filing of the information
not want to be revealed as the financiers. Indeed, it is difficult to believe that the for estafa against Mercado.12
[Angeles spouses] would readily part with their money without holding on to some The Ruling of the Court
 The petition has no merit. purpose of registration of the contract of partnership is to give notice to third
Whether the Secretary of Justice Committed parties. Failure to register the contract of partnership does not affect the liability
Grave Abuse of Discretion of the partnership and of the partners to third persons. Neither does such failure
An act of a court or tribunal may constitute grave abuse of discretion when to register affect the partnership’s juridical personality. A partnership may exist
the same is performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment even if the partners do not use the words "partner" or "partnership."
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and Indeed, the Angeles spouses admit to facts that prove the existence of a
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform partnership: a contract showing a sosyo industrial or industrial partnership,
a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and contribution of money and industry to a common fund, and division of profits
despotic manner because of passion or personal hostility.13 between the Angeles spouses and Mercado.
The Angeles spouses fail to convince us that the Secretary of Justice Whether there was
committed grave abuse of discretion when he dismissed their appeal. Moreover, Misappropriation by Mercado
the Angeles spouses committed an error in procedure when they failed to file a The Secretary of Justice adequately explained the alleged misappropriation
motion for reconsideration of the Secretary of Justice’s resolution. A previous by Mercado: "The document alone, which was in the name of [Mercado and his
motion for reconsideration before the filing of a petition for certiorari is necessary spouse], failed to convince us that there was deceit or false representation on the
unless: (1) the issue raised is one purely of law; (2) public interest is involved; (3) part of [Mercado] that induced the [Angeles spouses] to part with their money.
there is urgency; (4) a question of jurisdiction is squarely raised before and decided [Mercado] satisfactorily explained that the [Angeles spouses] do not want to be
by the lower court; and (5) the order is a patent nullity.14 The Angeles spouses revealed as the financiers."15
failed to show that their case falls under any of the exceptions. In fact, this present Even Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna which
petition for certiorari is dismissible for this reason alone. decided the civil case for damages, injunction and restraining order filed by the
Whether a Partnership Existed Angeles spouses against Mercado and Leo Cerayban, stated:
Between Mercado and the Angeles Spouses xxx [I]t was the practice to have all the contracts of antichresis of their
The Angeles spouses allege that they had no partnership with Mercado. The partnership secured in [Mercado’s] name as [the Angeles spouses] are
Angeles spouses rely on Articles 1771 to 1773 of the Civil Code, which state that: apprehensive that, if they come out into the open as financiers of said contracts,
Art. 1771. A partnership may be constituted in any form, except where they might be kidnapped by the New People’s Army or their business deals be
immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto, in which case a public questioned by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or worse, their assets and
instrument shall be necessary. unexplained income be sequestered, as xxx Oscar Angeles was then working with
Art. 1772. Every contract of partnership having a capital of three thousand the government.16
pesos or more, in money or property, shall appear in a public instrument, which Furthermore, accounting of the proceeds is not a proper subject for the
must be recorded in the Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission. present case.
Failure to comply with the requirements of the preceding paragraph shall not For these reasons, we hold that the Secretary of Justice did not abuse his
affect the liability of the partnership and the members thereof to third persons. discretion in dismissing the appeal of the Angeles spouses.
Art. 1773. A contract of partnership is void, whenever immovable property is WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision of the Secretary of Justice. The
contributed thereto, if an inventory of said property is not made, signed by the present petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.
parties, and attached to the public instrument. SO ORDERED.
The Angeles spouses’ position that there is no partnership because of the lack Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, and Azcuna,
of a public instrument indicating the same and a lack of registration with the JJ., concur.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") holds no water. First, the Angeles
spouses contributed money to the partnership and not immovable property.
Second, mere failure to register the contract of partnership with the SEC does not
invalidate a contract that has the essential requisites of a partnership. The
 Footnotes
1 Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
2 Penned by Secretary of Justice Serafin R. Cuevas.
3 Series of 2000.
4 Penned by 4th Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Carlos I. Acain,
recommended for approval by 1st Assistant Prosecutor Felipe L. Arcigal, Jr., and
approved by Provincial Prosecutor George C. Dee.
5 Article 2132 of the Civil Code provides: "By the contract of antichresis the

creditor acquires the right to receive the fruits of an immovable of his debtor, with
the obligation to apply them to the payment of the interest, if owing, and thereafter
to the principal of his credit."
6 Rollo, pp. 24, 26.
7 Ibid., pp. 24, 26-27.
8 Ibid., p. 75.
9 Ibid., pp. 30-32.
10 Ibid., p. 53.
11 Ibid., pp. 21-22.
12 See Rollo, p. 9.
13 Intestate Estate of Carmen de Luna v. IAC, G.R. No. 72424, 13 February

1989, 170 SCRA 246 citing Litton Mills, Inc. v. Galleon Trader, Inc., No. L-40867,
26 July 1988, 163 SCRA 489.
14 Justice Jose Y. Feria (Ret.) and Maria Concepcion S. Noche, 2 Civil

Procedure Annotated, 473 (2001).