~;:r:fIF!

ED TRUE COPY
.:r(.;(~"\;\ ~#I:~'
. , , \ 'flJ'i, Lf.-:-·"'
•.• ..."':'.i('
..J .-r •
,..
LA AN
l\epttblit Of tbe ~btltpptnegnivLi,: (,~erk of Court
r.1

~upre1ne TL~'.-~E~:;~;~~~;,
;fffilnniln
QCourt
6

THIRD DIVISION

BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC. G.R. No. 198745

(Formerly Banco De Oro-EPCI, Inc.),
Petitioner, Present:

VELASCO, JR., J,
Chairperson,
- versus - PERALTA,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
REYES, and
JARDELEZA, JJ

SUNNYSIDE HEIGHTS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Promulgated:
INC.,
Respondent. Januar.y 13, 2016

~~
)(--------------------------- ----------------------------------- --------- -------------x

DECISION

REYES,J:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule

45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul the Decision2 dated March 11,
2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 101740, which
affirmed, with modification, the Decision 3 dated November 22, 2007 of the
Office of the President (OP) in O.P. Case No. 97-E-8033, entitled Mover
Enterprises, Inc. and Philippine Commercial & International Bank (PCIB) v.
The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and Sunnys;de
Heights J-Jomeowners Association, Inc.

Rollo, pp. 52-78.

2
Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and
Danton Q. Bueser concurring; id. at 12-22.
3
Issued by Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs Manuel B. Gaite, id. at 139-142.

1
Decision 2 G.R. No. 198745

The Facts

Mover Enterprises, Inc. (Mover) is the owner and developer of the

Sunnyside Heights Subdivision located in Batasan Hills, Quezon City. In
March 1988, Mover mortgaged Lot 5, Block 10 of Phase I of the said
subdivision containing 5,764 square meters to the Philippine Commercial
International Bank (PCIB) to secure a loan of ₱1,700,000.00. Mover failed
to pay its loan and PCIB foreclosed on the mortgage. After title was
consolidated in PCIB, the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City issued Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 86389 to the said bank on May 17, 1993.4

Sometime in mid-1994, PCIB advertised the aforesaid lot for sale in

the newspapers. This prompted the Sunnyside Heights Homeowners
Association (SHHA) to file before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB) a letter-complaint,5 docketed as HLURB Case No.
REM-091594-6077, to declare the mortgage between Mover and PCIB void
on the ground that the subject property, originally covered by TCT No.
366219, has been allocated as SHHA’s open space pursuant to law. SHHA
thus sought reconveyance of the property.6

In its Answer,7 PCIB maintained that the mortgaged lot is different

from the lot referred to in SHHA’s complaint, and moreover, the title to the
said mortgaged lot bears no annotation that it has been reserved as open
space. Claiming to be an innocent mortgagee in good faith and for value,
PCIB insisted that under Batas Pambansa Bilang 1298 and Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 1344,9 the complaint should have been filed with the
regular courts.

On August 28, 1995, the HLURB Arbiter dismissed SHHA’s

complaint for lack of cause of action.10 He found that, per the records of the
HLURB, the property claimed by SHHA to be an open space is covered by
TCT No. 223475, which is not the same as the property originally covered
by TCT No. 366219 in the name of Mover, and now titled to PCIB, viz:

There is no explanation or allegation, much less proof, that TCT

[N]o. 366219 registered in the name of respondent Mover and
subsequently registered as TCT [N]o. 8638[9] in the name of respondent
PCIB, and TCT [N]o. 223475 as identified in the letter of the Technical
4
Id. at 13, 54.
5
Id. at 54, 164-165.
6
Id. at 13.
7
Id. at 166-170.
8
AN ACT REORGANIZING THE JUDICIARY, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved on August 14, 1981.
9
EMPOWERING THE NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WRIT OF
EXECUTION IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS DECISION UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.
957. Issued on April 2, 1978.
10
Issued by HLURB Arbiter Arturo M. Dublado; rollo, pp. 148-152.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 198745

Services Section of this Office, refer to one and the same property.

From the foregoing, it has therefore not been established that the
property of respondent Mover covered by TCT [N]o. 366219 which had
been mortgaged and been foreclosed by respondent PCIB, is the very same
property identified as Lot 5, Block 10 and covered by TCT No. 223475,
that was allocated as open space for Sunnyside Heights Subdivision. The
complaint therefore must necessarily fail as it failed to state a cause of
action x x x.11

Petition for Review to the HLURB Board of Commissioners

On petition for review to the HLURB Board of Commissioners,12

SHHA presented a certification from the HLURB Expanded National
Capital Region Field Office showing that on May 18, 1987 the HLURB had
approved an alteration in the subdivision plan whereby the former Block 10,
the subdivision’s open space, had been renamed as Block 7, now covered by
TCT No. 366219:

Upon review of our records on file, lot 5, block 10 was [an] open
space covered by TCT No. 223475; however, in view of the HL[U]RB’s
grant of Alteration of Plan dated 18 May 1987, on which subject property
was involved, the boundaries of above[-]mentioned open space are [sic]
modified resulting to be identified as Block 7 of consolidation subdivision
plan Pcs-000990 covered by TCT No. 366219. x x x.13

In its Decision14 dated September 6, 1996, the HLURB Board of

Commissioners held that Lot 5, Block 10 (TCT No. 223475), the designated
open space in the original subdivision plan, became Block 7 (TCT No.
366219) in the altered plan; that the said new Block 7 was mortgaged to
PCIB; that by reason of foreclosure, PCIB became the owner of Block 7
(now covered by TCT No. 86389 in PCIB’s name); that TCT Nos. 223475,
366219 and 86389 all refer to one and the same property. Concluding that
the subject matter of the mortgage and foreclosure in question was the
designated open space of Sunnyside Heights Subdivision,15 it ruled that the
said open space, originally covered by TCT No. 366219, and now registered
in the name of PCIB, can neither be mortgaged nor foreclosed, being
inalienable, non-buildable and beyond the commerce of man. The HLURB
Board of Commissioners thus ordered, as follows:

11
Id. at 150-151.
12
Id. at 181-187.
13
Id. at 186.
14
Id. at 153-157.
15
Id. at 155.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 198745

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Office below dated August 28,

1995 is hereby SET ASIDE and a new decision entered as follows:

1. Declaring subject mortgage and for[e]closure as null

and void;

2. Declaring Block 7 of Phase I, Sunnyside Heights,

Batasan Hills, Quezon City as the designated open
space of the aforesaid project;

3. Ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to

cancel TCT No. 8638[9] in the name of respondent
PCIB and to issue a new title in the name of respondent
Mover;

4. Ordering respondent Mover to comply with Section 31

of P.D. 957 as amended by Section 2 of P.D. 1216; and

5. Ordering respondent Mover to pay back the amount of

P1,700,000.00 to respondent PCIB.

Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Register of Deeds of

Quezon City for his/her guidance and appropriate action.

SO ORDERED.16

Appeal to the Office of the President

After its motion for reconsideration was denied, PCIB appealed to the
OP. Mover did not appeal.17 In the Decision18 dated November 22, 2007,
the OP found no merit in the appeal, ruling that the HLURB has jurisdiction
over matters related to or connected with the complaint for annulment of
mortgage, as in this case.

Meanwhile, in 2000 PCIB merged with Equitable Banking

Corporation to become the Equitable PCIBank. In May 2001, it merged
with Banco de Oro Universal Bank and became the Banco de Oro-EPCI,
Inc.; now it is known as Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc. (BDO).

Petition for Review to the CA

In the petition for review filed with the CA,19 Banco de Oro-EPCI,
Inc. alleged that:

16
Id. at 156-157.
17
Id. at 139.
18
Id. at 139-142.
19
Id. at 121-135.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 198745

THE [OP] SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON

THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:

I. THE [HLURB] HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER

ACTIONS FOR ANNULMENT OF TITLE;

II. PCIB IS A MORTGAGEE IN GOOD FAITH,

THEREFORE, ITS TITLE OVER THE SAID PROPERTY
CANNOT BE ANNULLED;

III. NEW EVIDENCE CANNOT BE ADMITTED ON

APPEAL, OTHERWISE IT VIOLATES THE RULE ON
DUE PROCESS OF LAW; and

IV. OBLIGATION OF [MOVER] THAT IS SECURED BY

THE REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE IS MORE THAN THE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF Php1,700,000.00.20

Banco de Oro-EPCI, Inc. alleged in the main that the HLURB has no
jurisdiction over SHHA’s letter-complaint to annul the mortgage between
Mover and PCIB. In the event that the nullification of the mortgage is
affirmed, it conceded that it was but fair that the mortgagor be also adjudged
to pay interest on the principal loan plus costs incurred.21

On March 11, 2011, the CA rendered the assailed judgment ruling that
“[t]he jurisdiction of the HLURB to regulate the real estate trade is broad
enough to include jurisdiction over complaints for annulment of
mortgage.”22 The CA further noted Banco de Oro-EPCI, Inc.’s argument
that Mover’s obligation was more than the principal amount of
₱1,700,000.00. While the CA could not give credence to Banco de
Oro-EPCI, Inc.’s allegations of expenses it incurred, it acknowledged that
Mover was indebted to Banco de Oro-EPCI, Inc. in the amount of
₱1,700,000.00 as pointed out in the decision of the HLURB Board of
Commissioners. Inasmuch as the amount represents a loan, Mover must also
be held liable for the payment of interest at the rate stipulated in the
mortgage contract. In the absence thereof, the legal rate of 12% per annum
in accordance with Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. CA23 shall be imposed.24

Accordingly, the fallo reads as follows:

20
Id. at 125.
21
Id. at 133.
22
Id. at 12, citing The Manila Banking Corp. v. Spouses Rabina, et al., 594 Phil. 422, 433 (2008).
23
G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78.
24
Rollo, p. 21.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 198745

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision, dated

November 22, 2007, of the Office of the President in O.P. Case No.
97-E-8033 is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that Mover
Enterprises, Inc. is held liable to pay the corresponding interest o[n] its
mortgage indebtedness to Petitioner Banco de Oro-EPCI Inc., in addition
to its payment of the principal amount of Php1,700,000.00 to Banco de
Oro-EPCI Inc.

SO ORDERED.25

Banco de Oro-EPCI, Inc. moved for reconsideration,26 but the same

was denied on September 23, 2011.27

Petition for Review to the Supreme Court

Now in this petition, BDO raises the following grounds, to wit:

I.

THE [CA] HAS SO FAR DEPARTED FROM THE USUAL

COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITS
QUESTIONED DECISION AND RESOLUTION WHEN IT
AFFIRMED THE DECISIONS OF THE [OP] AND HLURB
BOARD DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE
LATTER WAS BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE RAISED FOR
THE FIRST TIME BY [SHHA] ON APPEAL IN VIOLATION
OF THE RIGHT OF [BDO] TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

II.

THE [CA] COMMITTED SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE

ERROR AND DECIDED A MATTER OF SUBSTANCE IN A
WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE LAW AND WITH
APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE HONORABLE COURT
WHEN IT DID NOT HOLD THAT [BDO] IS A
MORTGAGEE IN GOOD FAITH AS IT HAD THE RIGHT
TO RELY ON THE TITLE PRESENTED TO IT; THUS, ITS
TITLE OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CANNOT BE
ANNULLED.

25
Id.
26
Id. at 23-43.
27
Id. at 46-48.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 198745

III.

THE [CA] HAS SO FAR DEPARTED FROM THE USUAL

COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WHEN ITS
QUESTIONED DECISION AND RESOLUTION DENIED
[BDO’S] PETITION FOR REVIEW DESPITE THE FACT
THAT THE HLURB DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION
OVER THE INSTANT CASE.28

The Court finds no merit in the petition.

Importantly, BDO has interposed a continuing objection concerning

the HLURB’s jurisdiction over what it claims to be the exclusive province of
the regular courts. Corollarily, BDO insists that no evidence was presented
before the HLURB Arbiter to establish that the property covered by TCT
No. 223475, claimed by SHHA as a subdivision open space, is in any way
related to TCT No. 366219 registered in the name of Mover and now
covered by TCT No. 86389 in the name of BDO (then PCIB).

Section 3 of P.D. No. 95729 granted to the National Housing Authority

(NHA) exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business in
order to curb swindling and fraudulent manipulations by unscrupulous
subdivision and condominium sellers and operators, such as failure to
deliver titles to the buyers or titles free from liens and encumbrances, or to
pay real estate taxes, and fraudulent sales of the same subdivision lots to
different innocent purchasers for value. P.D. No. 1344 in turn expanded the
jurisdiction of the NHA to include the following:

SECTION 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate

trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for in
Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature:

a) Unsound real estate business practices;

b) Claims involving refund and any other claims filed

by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the
project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and

c) Cases involving specific performance of contractual

and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot
or condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer,
broker or salesman.

28
Id. at 58-59.
29
REGULATING THE SALE OF SUBDIVISION LOTS AND CONDOMINIUMS, PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF. Issued on July 12, 1976:
Section 3. National Housing Authority. The National Housing Authority shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business in accordance with the provisions of this Decree.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 198745

Under Executive Order (E.O.) No. 648, which reorganized the

Human Settlements Regulatory Commission in 1981, the regulatory
and quasi-judicial functions of the NHA were transferred to the
Human Settlements Regulatory Commission, later renamed as HLURB
under E.O. No. 90.30 In the cases reaching this Court, the consistent ruling
has been that the HLURB has jurisdiction over complaints arising from
contracts between the subdivision developer and the lot buyer, or those
aimed at compelling the developer to comply with its contractual and
statutory obligations.31

SHHA’s letter-complaint puts in issue the validity of the mortgage

over Block 10, now renamed as Block 7, of Sunnyside Heights Subdivision,
and the detriment and prejudice to the residents and the violation by Mover
of its obligation to maintain its open space under P.D. No. 121632 are all too
plain, as the following “whereas” clauses of P.D. No. 1216 underscore:

WHEREAS, there is a compelling need to create and maintain a healthy

environment in human settlements by providing open spaces, roads, alleys
and sidewalks as may be deemed suitable to enhance the quality of life of
the residents therein;

WHEREAS, such open spaces, roads, alleys and sidewalks in residential

subdivision are for public use and are, therefore, beyond the commerce of
men[.]

Section 1 of P.D. No. 1216 defines “open space” as an area in

the subdivision reserved exclusively for parks, playgrounds,
recreational uses, schools, roads, places of worship, hospitals, health
centers, barangay centers and other similar facilities and amenities.
Section 2 thereof further provides that these reserved areas are
non-alienable and non-buildable. The SHHA was correct to seek the
annulment of the mortgage between Mover and PCIB before the
HLURB, in view of its exclusive jurisdiction over “any claims filed
by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project
owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and cases involving
specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by
buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit against the owner or
developer.”

30
IDENTIFYING THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ESSENTIAL FOR THE NATIONAL
SHELTER PROGRAM AND DEFINING THEIR MANDATES, CREATING THE HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COORDINATING COUNCIL, RATIONALIZING FUNDING SOURCES
AND LENDING MECHANISMS FOR HOME MORTGAGES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Issued
on December 17, 1986.
31
Cadimas v. Carrion, et al., 588 Phil. 408, 416 (2008).
32
DEFINING “OPEN SPACE” IN RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS AND AMENDING SECTION
31 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 957 REQUIRING SUBDIVISION OWNERS TO PROVIDE
ROADS, ALLEYS, SIDEWALKS AND RESERVE OPEN SPACE FOR PARKS OR RECREATIONAL
USE. Issued on October 14, 1977.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 198745

As for the claim that SHHA violated BDO’s right to due process when
on appeal it “belatedly” presented a certification to the HLURB Board of
Commissioners that in May 1987 an approved alteration of the subdivision
plan renamed Block 10 of Sunnyside Heights Subdivision as Block 7 but
retained it as open space, let it suffice that in view of BDO’s continuing
objection to HLURB’s jurisdiction, it cannot now complain that additional
documentary proof has been adduced confirming its jurisdiction. As the
agency tasked to oversee the specific compliance by developers with their
contractual and statutory obligations, such as maintaining the open space as
non-alienable and non-buildable, there is no doubt that the HLURB is
empowered to annul the subject mortgage. For if a party may continually
interpose the HLURB’s lack of jurisdiction, even raising the same for the
first time on appeal, since jurisdictional issues cannot be waived, then BDO
is estopped to complain that on appeal SHHA is finally able to present proof
of HLURB’s jurisdiction over the present action.33

The Court has long recognized and upheld the rationale behind P.D.
No. 957, which is to protect innocent lot buyers from scheming developers,34
buyers who are by law entitled to the enjoyment of an open space within the
subdivision. Thus, this Court has broadly construed HLURB’s jurisdiction to
include complaints to annul mortgages of condominium or subdivision
units.35 In The Manila Banking Corp. v. Spouses Rabina, et al.,36 the Court
said:

The jurisdiction of the HLURB to regulate the real estate trade is

broad enough to include jurisdiction over complaints for annulment of
mortgage. To disassociate the issue of nullity of mortgage and lodge it
separately with the liquidation court would only cause inconvenience to
the parties and would not serve the ends of speedy and inexpensive
administration of justice as mandated by the laws vesting quasi-judicial
powers in the agency.37 (Citations omitted)

Coming now to Mover’s liability, the Court agrees with the

observation of the HLURB Board of Commissioners that it would be
unjust enrichment on the part of Mover not to acknowledge its
indebtedness to BDO in the amount of ₱1,700,000.00 in view of the
nullity of the mortgage.38 It should have known that its mortgage
security was invalid considering the alteration in its subdivision plan
33
Boston Equity Resources, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173946, June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 16,
30-31.
34
Philippine Bank of Communications v. Pridisons Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 155113, January 9,
2013, 688 SCRA 200, 210.
35
GSIS v. Board of Commissioners, HLURB (Second Division), et al., 634 Phil. 330, 338 (2010); The
Manila Banking Corp. v. Spouses Rabina, et al., supra note 22; Union Bank of the Philippines v. Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board, G.R. No. 95364, June 29, 1992, 210 SCRA 558, 564.
36
594 Phil. 422 (2008).
37
Id. at 433.
38
Rollo, p. 156.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 198745

in May 1987. In equity, it must therefore compensate PCIB for the

loss thereof, reckoned from the filing of SHHA’s letter-complaint on
September 14, 1994. Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc.39 provides, “with regard
particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and
compensatory damages,”40 that the rate of interest, and the accrual thereof,
shall be imposed as follows:

1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of

a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due
should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore,
the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially
demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12%
per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial
demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil
Code.41 (Citations omitted)

Sunga-Chan, et al. v. CA, et al.42 further clarified the above rules:

Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. synthesized the rules on the imposition

of interest, if proper, and the applicable rate, as follows: The 12% per
annum rate under CB Circular No. 416 shall apply only to loans or
forbearance of money, goods, or credits, as well as to judgments involving
such loan or forbearance of money, goods, or credit, while the 6% per
annum under Art. 2209 of the Civil Code applies “when the transaction
involves the payment of indemnities in the concept of damage arising
from the breach or a delay in the performance of obligations in general,”
with the application of both rates reckoned “from the time the complaint
was filed until the [adjudged] amount is fully paid.” In either instance, the
reckoning period for the commencement of the running of the legal
interest shall be subject to the condition “that the courts are vested with
discretion, depending on the equities of each case, on the award of
interest.”43 (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)

Lastly, in view of absence of bad faith by PCIB in the questioned

mortgage loan, the Court agrees that in addition to the loan amount of
₱1,700,000.00, Mover should pay thereon to BDO legal interest at 12% per
annum from the time it is due pursuant to Eastern Shipping Lines, except
that with the effectivity of Monetary Board Circular No. 799, the rate of
interest for the loan shall be reduced to six percent (6%) per annum from
and after July 1, 2013.44

39
Supra note 23.
40
Id. at 95.
41
Id.
42
578 Phil. 262 (2008)
43
Id. at 276-277.
44
S.C. Megaworld Construction and Development Corporation v. Parada, G.R. No. 183804,
September 11, 2013, 705 SCRA 584, 609-610; Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13,
2013, 703 SCRA 439, 456.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 198745

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated

March 11, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 101740 is
AFFIRMED with CLARIFICATION, in that Mover Enterprises, Inc. shall
pay Banco de Oro-EPCI, Inc., now Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc., the amount
of'Pl,700,000.00 plus legal interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum from
September 14, 1994, the date of the letter-complaint of Sunnyside Heights
Homeowners Association, Inc., the said rate to be reduced to six percent
(6o/o) per annum starting July 1, 2013 until finality hereof. Thereafter,
interest as thus computed shall, along with the principal, earn interest at six
percent (6%) per annum until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

~;!#~-111'>'~

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO ,J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice

Associate Justice
Decision 12 GR. No. l 9874.5

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

PRESBITERO ,d. VELASCO, JR.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

~'RlQ13P~
1
v.~
Divi~i~ Clerk of Court
Third Division
FEB D 4 za15