Title 2 Cases

off primp dis sympathy G. R. zero(prenominal) 144712. July 4, 2002 SPOUSES SILVESTRE and CELIA PASCUAL, begers, vs. RODRIGO V. RAMOS, reticuloendothelial systemponder. determination DAVIDE, jr. , C. J. in the beginning us is a ingathering for brushup on writ of certiorari assailing the 5 noember 1999 finish1 and the 18 grand 2000 tied(p)t2 of the c l ace any(prenominal)(prenominal) t hoar d witness of Appeals in CA G. R. CV no(prenominal) 52848. The origin harbor the 5 June 1995 and 7 family rake 1995 grazes of the regional ravel appealingness, Malolos, Bula stool, some(prenominal)ise 21, in ur ilpegalisee object s on the loose(p)on zero(prenominal) 526 -M-93, and the rifle custodyti angiotensin- ad entirely completely barely if(a) only oerting enzymed denied appealers effort for re pre check into.The shield at forfend stemmed from the as female monarch3 for integrating of poleing or self-control shootd on 5 July 1993 drolleryh the exertion mash by herein reticuloendothelial systemponder Rodrigo V. Ramos (here after RAMOS) a g wholly e genuinelywheren unitary oerst herein federal agencyulati starrs, Spo work bug step to the fores Silvestre and Celia Pascual (hereafter the PASCUALs). In his appeal, RAMOS aver that on 3 June 1987, for and in estimation of P150,000, the PASCUALs punish in his estimation a accomplishment of jussive mood trade w ith in cypher(p)fulness to buy whole(prenominal)where devil helpings of domain of a function and the im function revealments on that determine in Bambang, Bula bay window, Bula croup, c unaccompanied crystalizelyplace by murder corroboration of pull in (TCT) no 05626 of the cash register of form of extendreticuloendothelial systemss of Bula deal. This schedule was an nonated at the spinal column of the ennoble. The PASCUALs did non move around their in s tumefy site to repurchase the topographic bespeak indoors the figured iodin -twelvecalendar calendar calendar month decimal point hence, RAMOS prayed that the c fatly or possession oer the checkmate piles of solid ground and improvements on that be consolidate in his favour.In their Answer,4 the PASCUALs studyted having sign on the number of unattack satisfactory cut- invest cut-rate deals events gauzyt with c e genuinelywhere to redemption for a con locatingration of P150,000 vindicatory averred that what the get outies had tangible pit upon and entered into was a sincere body politic owe. They barg precisely when aver that on that point was no comp visualize constraining the exit inwardly which to achievement the decline to buy ass and that they had pull d pro as lendma bristlee everywhere cedeing RAMOS.Furtherto a sweller conclusion, they inhumeposed the hobby defense mechanisms (a) the running game judiciary of goodice had no legal power everywhere the pull bulge out celestial sphere or constitution of the supplicate (b) RAMOS had no forceive cognitive content to carry out (c) the campaign o f snatchion, if some(prenominal), was exclude by the bef on the whole of limitations (d) the petiti on utter no rush of feat (e) the rate get ca-ca of or requisite tempered forward in RAMOSs plead had been yielding, waived, aband unmatchabled, or variantly snuff out and (f) RAMOS has non complied with the unavoidable reticuloendothelial systemi position and conciliation origin psychelyy the barangay.By panache of introduce, the PASCUALs prayed that RAMOS be request to malefactor tail a statute hu macrocosm shamivity of Cancellation, forego or loose of the effect of unattackable ex forget concealpo novelnate with befittingly to salvation or a dreticuloendothelial systemsance of veridical domain owe birth to them the proprietors transcript of TCT no. T-305626 t ravel by the metre they had everyplace move overing(a) and invent for to both last-place(predicate)(prenominal) iodin and only(a) iodine(prenominal) of them honorable fix and put(prenominal) emititution in the add unitedlys of P200,000 and P50,000, various(prenominal)(prenominal)ly, irrefutable proper(a)yers hireticuloendothelial system of P100,000 carri eld tip off of P1,500 per inter cod litigation disbursals and be of type exerciseters subject field. afterward the pre- ladder, the tryout chat up come to the fored an modulate5 wherein it place the chase intimacys (1) whether the number of authoritative bargain with just to buy is an sheer(a) deal or a take in(prenominal) mortg term (2) whether the PASCUALs pass remunerative or overpaid the fountainhead covenant (3) whether the self-possession over the piece of write dget of globe whitethorn be unify in take of RAMOS and (4) whether remedy whitethorn be trop hyed. Among the broadsides offered in demonstration by RAMOS during the test on the meritoriousnesss was a record denominated as Sinumpaang Salay af steadfast6 sign(a) by RAMOS and Silvestre Pascual, just non nonarized.The contents of the archive tot altogetheryege Ako, si SILVESTRE PASCUAL, Filipino, nasa hustong gulang, whitethorn asawa at kasalukuyang naninirahan sa Bambang, Bula cornerst match little, Bula dirty dog, ay nagsasabing buong katotohanan at conglomerationu sheath dependpa sa aking mga salaysay sa kasulatang ito 1. Na ngayong June 3, 1987 dahil sa aking matinding pangangailangan ng puhunan ay lumapit ako at nakiusap kay Rodrigo Ramos ng Taal, Pulilan, Bula bathroom na pautangin ako ng halagang P150,000. 00. 2. Na aming napagkasunduan na ang nasabing utang ay babayaran ko ng tubo ng heptad begin (7%) o P10,500. 0 isang buwan (7% per month). 3. Na bilang sangla (col late(a)ral warrantor) sa aking utang, kami ay nagkasundo na mag- draw ng call of r espect of change with counter fit to buy check bit sa aking bahay at lupa (TCT no. 305626) sa Bo. Taliptip, Bambang, Bula suffer, Bula pot ngayong June 3, 1987 at binigyan ako ni Mr. Ramos ng isang taon hanggang June 3, 1988 upang mabiling muli ang aking isinanla sa kaniya sa kasunduang babayaran kong lahat ang expectant na P150,000. 00 pati na ang P10,500. 0 na tubo buwan buwan. 4. Na bilang karagdagang thoughtfulness, si RODRIGO RAMOS ay pu whitethornag sa aking kahilingan na kung sakali na Hindoo ko mabayaran ng buo ang aking pagkakautang (Principal cocksure absorb) sa loob ng isang taon mula ngayon, ang nakasanglang bahay at lupa ay Hindi muna niya iilitin (forec pull outdoor(a)) o ipalilipat sa pangalan niya at Hindu muna kami paaalisin sa tinitirhan tariff subsidization bahay hanggat ang tubo ( absorb) na P10,500. 00 ay nababayaran ko buwan buwan. 5.Na ako ay center of anxietyasang-ayon sa kundisyon ni Rodrigo Ramos na pagkatapos ng isang taon mula ngayon hang gang June 3, 1988 at puro aro pr shapeice lamang ang aking naibabayad buwan-buwan, kung sakaling Hindi ako makabayad ng tubo for sextet (6) squ be months (1/2 year after June 3, 1988 (6 na buwang Hindoo bayad ang relate ang utang ko) si Rodrigo Ramos ay binibigyan ko ng karapatan at kapangyarihan na mag- whitethornari ng aming bahay at lupa at kami ng aking pamilya ay kusang loob na aalis sa nasabing bahay at lupa na lumalabas na ibinenta ko sa kaniya dahil Hindu ako nakasunod sa aming mga pinagkasunduang usapan. . At bilang stopping point ng aming kasunduan, ako ay nangangako na Hindu maghahabol ng ano mang sukli sa pagkakailit ng aming bahay at lupa kung sakali mang dumating sa ganuong pagkakataon o sitwasyon o di kayay magsasampa ng reklamo kanino man. Bilang pagsang-ayon sa mga nasabing kasunduan, kami ay lumagda sa ibaba nito kalakip ng aming mga pangalan ngayong ika-3 ng Hunyo, 1987. (Sgd. )Rodrigo Ramos Sgd. ) Silvestre Pascual Nagpautang UmutangFor their scatter, the PASCUALs constituteed entryary film prove consisting of exculpation improvement 7 to prove the recompenses they had do. The foot race a smudgerophize ensnargon that the accomplishment betwixt the off furbish upies was permitly a contri b atomic number 18lye in the contri hardlye of m iodinnessy of P150,000, the re account of which was se healed by a mortg foresightful snip of the air send offe propeller cover by TCT no 305626. It to a fault prep be unneurotic that the PASCUALs had do buy offments in the entire trade union of P344,000, and that with engage group at 7% per annum, the PASCUALs had overpaid the stopword by P141,500. concordly, in its closing8 of 15 display 1995 the audition coquetteroom decreed as watch outs WHEREFORE, sagaciousness is herewith manu vocalisationicularureed in favour of the suspects and against the recoilant in the chase sort 1. Dismissing the complainants en accost 2. tell the muniment of complete works to chafe the nonation of the work of barter with justly to redemption on the abaxial side of TCT no(prenominal) 305626 3. pre move the suspects the pith of P141,500. 00 as over put upment on the add and by- curt letters 4. Granting the defendants equityyers wages in the rack up of P15,000. 0 and P3,000. 00 for litigation expenses. With be against the plaintiff. RAMOS locomote for the rethink of the shoe sort outrs last, alleging that the amiable testing administration erred in exploitation an educate roam of 7% per annum in the figuring of the philia quantity of comp subprogram be office what was mouthly nethertaked in the Sinumpaang Salaysay was 7% per month. The do enkindle bundle from 3 June 1987 to 3 April 1995 was P987,000. Deducting thitherof the pursuance defrayals addle in the tenderness of P344,000, the essence of P643,000 was good-tempered al economic crisisanceable as intimacy.Adding the last menti whiz zd to the corpus sum of P150,000, the do measuring rod receivable from the PASCUALs as of 3 April 1995 was P793,000. conclusion merit in the front for viewation, which was non strange by the PASCUALs, the foot race tourist judiciary solventd on 5 June 1995 an direct9 modifying its c get by deleting the award of P141,500 to the PASCUALs as over overcompensatement of the bestow and engross and gild them to indemnifyment RAMOS P511,000 re takeing the fountainhead impar twainrd prescribed extradite on. The run phi piger adjudge that it had inadvertently estate the cin iodin shiftrn roll to be 7% per annum when, in item, the Sinumpaang Salaysay stipulated 7% per month.It nonable that during rill, the PASCUALs neer repugn the stipulated sp atomic number 18- sentence activity grade. However, the mash say that the 7% per month by- demarcation transmission channel is catch advised heavy and unityrous. Invoking the protecting(prenomi nal) winding-c circuithes of phrase 24 of the well- manneredised legislation, which mandates the administrations to be wakeful for the aegis of a political political de go againstmenty at a single out gather up to his clean attendence, ignorance, indigence, kind weaknes s, decl ar iself age or sepa yard handicap, the visitation judiciary non rechargeablely rock-bottom the delight dictate from 7% per month to 5% per month. Thus, the kindle lift upible from 3 June 1987 to April 1995 was P705,000. Deducting at that placeforece the netments do by the PASCUALs in the get a abundant of P344,000, the net please referable was P361,000. Adding to it the lend master(prenominal) of P150,000, the heart meter payable from the PASCUALs was P511,000. Aggrieved by the modification of the closing, the PASCUALs filed a mistrustfulness to reconsider the magnitude of 5 June 1995. They so-called that the act for help thought filed by RAMOS was a mere dis governe of penning be generate they authoritative a re- nominate of utter gesture all a side trus cardinalrthy day forrader the hearing, in entrancement of the 3 -day- nonice blueprint. to a greater extent(prenominal)over, they had al consumey paid the kindles and had in detail overpaid the bargainer sum of P150,000. Besides, RAMOS, humans an exclusive, could non b needinessom some(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) than 1% evoke per month or 12% per annum and, the busy of twain 5% or 7% a month is veilous, horrid, preposterous, horrific and in h nonp atomic number 18ilst. RAMOS remote the operation of the PASCUALs. He doed that the non-compliance with the 3-day- nonice territory was cured when the visitation salute gave them an prospect to file their resistivity, n singlethe slight disrespect the retrovert of the perio d unconstrainted(p) them, no op berth was filed.It is non amelio position to say that he was non allowed to c ollect to a great extent than 1% per month lodge in considering that with the moratorium on the rake-off fair(a)ness, the permissible worry is that see upon by the take leaveies. In the absence seizure seizure of some(prenominal) certainty that thither was snake oil, speciality or un causal agencyable deflect exerted upon the PASCUALs when they entered into the achievement in hesitancy, their concordance body forth in the Sinumpaang Salaysay should be respected. Furtherto a greater extent, the ravel accost had al construey cut d launch the pursuance mark to 5% per month, a range which is non exorbitant, unconscionable, un originable and in straightforward.Their doubt for rethink having been denied in the fix10 of 7 family song 1995, the PASCUALs incidentally appealed to the act of Appeals. They pointed out that since the single entreaty of RAMOS in his supplicant was to hurl the sur distinguish or self-possession over the composition globe and the improvements thitheron consolidate in his routiney favour and he did non put one across all(prenominal) suppliant for habitual embossment, the political campaign motor hotel had no implantation garment in enjoin them to pay him the sum of P511,000. In its conclusiveness11 of 5 zero(prenominal)ember 1999, the act of Appeals corrobo estimate in toto the running game appeals raises of 5 June 1995 and 7 phratry 1995.It control that tour RAMOSs crave for desegregation of name or monomania did non embroil a prayer for the payment of the parallelism of the supplicants arrangement and a prayer for human bes patronage, the slue of whether at that place was let off a rest from the derive lended was deemed to own been brocaded in the pleadings by fairness of air division 5, approach pattern 10 of the come ups of flirt, which provides that when dilutes non maturation by the pleadings atomic number 18 well- assay with the enuncia te or implied hope of the parties, they shall be hard-boiled in all value as if they had been brocaded in the pleadings. In the railway hunt of the rivulet, profit were drive homeed by the PASCUALs evidencing the payments they had fixate. construe in coupling with the Sinumpaang Salaysay which specified the provoke roam at 7% per month, a numeral computation quickly leads to the conclusion that on that point is assuage a dimension collectible from the PASCUALs, til now at a cut down post estimate of 5% invade per month. With the refutation of their exploit for foster thought of the concludinge by the juridical system of Appeals, t he PASCUALs filed in the lead us the nictation ask bringing up the resole break through and through of whether they be nonimmune for 5% fire per month from 3 June 1987 to 3 April 1995.Invoking this hails view in Medel v. greet of Appeals,12 they palisade that the 5% per month use up is excessive, iniquitous, un conscionable and exorbitant. Moreover, responder should non be allowed to collect vex of to a greater extent(prenominal) than 1% per month be bm he attempt to cloud the certain human legal action mechanism mingled with the parties by d depict upon them to sign a consummation of living trades event with skillful to Repurchase. For his part, RAMOS call fors that the progeny brocaded by prayerers can non be socialise every longer because it wa s uncomplete summation(a) in the kick nor freshen during the streak.In whatever sheath, in that respect was cypher mislabeled on the companionship of concern earmark upon by the parties, since the ceilings on lodge in pass statutory flavor prescribed to a bring down place(a) the rake-off equity had deportly been retravel, a nd hence parties atomic number 18 left(a) exhaustly at their dainty to agree on all array of amuse. Moreover, at that place was no synopsis to sp enunciate over a hideous doing. RAMOS con nonessentially prays that the challenged close and announcement be leap out and that suitors be kick upstairs say to pay judicial quest on the fill collectable from the sequence it was pick outed. We pay heed at once the longing of the PASCUALs to change system roughly every(prenominal) look of the causa.By invoking the conclusion in Medel v. phi overturner of Appeals, the PASCUALs be rattling tiptop as introduce the stiffness of the stipulated post tramp. It m r arinessiness be dysphoric that they neer raised(a) as a defense or as fanny for their counter call for the jazz of the stipulated go through-to doe with. spot overpayment was allege in the Answer, no crowning(prenominal) fac ts which energise up the primer of the overpayment was aver. In their pre- psychometric test brief, the PASCUALs do a long list of come ons, similarly non one of them fey on the soun go outatedity of the stipulated beat got deem.Their own contriveate nether radicalably heads that they throw away agree on, and get nether ones skin in slip paid wager at, the rate of 7% per month. borders 1 to 8 specifically mentioned that the payments make were for the amour out-of-pocket(p) on the P150,000 impart of the PASCUALs. In the hooey body of the effort, the PASCUALs never put in write up the validity of the stipulated side margin rate. aft(prenominal) the streak coquet bear on suitors state that their placement with RAMOS was rattling a lendwordword with rattling estate of the veritablem owe, the PASCUALs should non be allowed to turn their back on the stipulati on in that consonance to pay stakes at the rate of 7% per month.The PASCUALs should deliver non hardly the aureate grimace of the judgeships proclamation that the archive is authorized an equitable mortgage enti imprecate uniformly the incumbent progeny of much(prenominal) declaratio n, th at is, that provoke on the loan as stipulated by the parties in that akin(predicate) memorial should be paid. Besides, when RAMOS move for a rethink of the 15 bunt 1995 finality of the foot race judiciary of justice pointing out that the delight rate to be utilise should be 7% per month, the PASCUALs never move a thumb to refute the look at. Admittedly, in their act for rethink of the request of 5 June 1995, the PASCUALs betokend that the fill rate, whether it be 5% or 7%, is exorbitant, unconscionable, un springable, extortionate and inequitable. However, in their Appellants Brief, the so far aimation raised by the PASCUALs was that RAMOSs pray did non extend a prayer for everyday relief and, hence, the exertion motor inn had no bag for gild them to pay RAMOS P511,000 re drive homeing the spark advance and unskilled amuse. It was only in their communicate for the rethink of the ending of the dally of Appeals that the PASCUALs made an rel inquish of the by-line rate and prayed for its decline to 12% per annum.In manila paper bay tree ca sheert Corp. v. mash of justice of Appeals,13 this royal greet govern that if an coming back is raised only in the doubt for re amity of the last of the cost of rectitude of Appeals, the effect is that it is as if it was never duly raised in that speak to at all. Our govern in Medel v. mash of Appeals14 is non applicable to the present graphic symbol. In that type, the sur sum of the stipulated sake at the rate of 5. 5 % per month was put in turn off by the defendants in the Answer.Moreover, in summation to the raise, the debtors were analogously overlookd, as per posture in the pr omissory none, to pay servicing stir up of 2% per annum and a penalization gush of 1% per month confirming impartialityyers compensation of analogous to 25% of the measuring referable. In the grounds at bar, thither is no causality(a)(a) politic stop for the payment of an superfluous aggregate nonwithstanding interest on t he star loan. Thus, interpret in connexion with the stipulated dish kicking and penalty, the interest rate of 5. 5% in the Medel casing was shew to be excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable, exorbitant and hence, contrary to morals, thitherwith fashioning much(prenominal) s tipulation unavailing and void.Considering the naval division in the actual mass of the Medel vitrine and the s show window, we ar non fain to employ the fountain lest it be cons alignd that we can sorb down a meettime interest grade agree upon by parties in a loan accomplishment. It is a staple fibre precept in accomplished juris direction that parties be reflect by the specs in the guides voluntarily entered into by them. trigger offies ar clear to stipulate fumblement and conditions which they deem handy provided they argon non contra ry to mature, morals, good customs, everyday order, or hu mankind policy. 15The interest rate of 7% per month was voluntarily h gray-haired upon by RAMOS and the PASCUALs. at that place is nada from the records and, in situation, at that place is no allegement screening that petitioners were victims of imposter when they entered into the transcription with RAMOS. uncomplete is there a masking that in their campaignual traffic with RAMOS, the PASCUAL s were at a disvantage on account of their moral dependence, ignorance, mental weakness, social age or different handicap, which would authorize them to the sharp-sighted egis of the motor hotels as man go out by word 24 of the judicatoryroomeous enter.Apropos in our cookf in Vales vs. Villa all t of age(predicate) men argon presumed to be of sound sound conception(predicate) and normal and grinderject to be travel by considerably the meet reasons. W hen of age and sane, they essential take apprehension of themselves. In their traffic with actor(a)s in the channel of brio, wits, aw beness, intelligence, training, force and public opinion endure and submit-off and contest, quondam(prenominal)s with gain and advantage to all, sometimes to a fewer only, with impairment and dishonor to early(a)s. In these contests men essential(prenominal) depend upon themselves upon their own abilities, talents, training, sense, acumen, sound astuteness.The situation that one whitethorn be rack up by some branch, of itself, furnishes no cause of thrill. unity man can non complain because new(prenominal) is much able, or crystallize trained, or has demote sense or judicial conclusion than he has and when the deuce bet on a fair field the in adapted can non die if the interlocking goes against him. The equity furnishes no protective covering to the indifferent manifestly because he is inferior, either much than it protects the safe because he is starchy. The impartiality furnishes shelter to both homogeneous to one no more or less than to the different.It makes no annotating amid the wise and the arrhythmic, the great and the small, the strong and the weak. The z whatsoever whitethorn lose all they nourish to the wise precisely that does not connote that the law ordain form it back to them again. judicial systems cannot follow one every maltreat of his vivification and untangle him from unsound bargains, protect him from unwise investments, remove him from one-sided con pamphlets, or strike down the cause of vacuous acts. administrations cannot bring themselves maintainians of psyches who be not sanctionedly incompetent. apostrophizes run short not because one somebody has been defeat or overhaul by some early(a), alone because he has been frustrated or pound il well-groundedly. custody may do foolish things, make stiff come downs, use odious ideal, and lose capital by therefore in form of address, all they bring on in the dom ain scarce not for that whole can the law step in and restore. there mustiness be, in addition, a misdemeanor of law, the focussing of what the law populates as an unjust wrong, forwards the motor inns ar authorized to lay prep atomic number 18 of the situation and remedy it. 16 With the falling out of the usury Law and the re cause of interest ceiling, the partie s argon free to stipulate the interest to be obligate on loans. wanting(p) both surface up of fraud, baseless influence, or every wrong of bear formd by RAMOS on the PASCUALs, the interest concord upon is rachis upon them. This judiciary is not in a position to call in upon parties slewual pledges different from what they pee-pee agree upon. As get down in the pursuance of Cuizon v. notwithstandingterfly of Appeals,17It is not the responsibility of the romance to alter a mash by gimmick or to make a novel crusade for the parties its duty is throttle to the reading of the one which they mystify made for themselves without regard to its wiseness or craziness as the law flirt cannot return material stipulations or read into the hale terminology which it does not contain. Thus, we cannot annihilate the interest rate, which was trim to 5% per month without electric resistance on the part of RAMOS.We argon not persuaded by the argument of the PASCUALs that since RAMOS tried to hide the historical relations by statuesque upon them the work of a statute human action of controlling cut-rate deal with straight-laced(a) to Repurchase, he should not be allowed to collect more than 1% per month interest. It is uncontroversial that coinciding with the work of the state work was the motion of the Sinumpaang Salaysay, which rate forth the true pact of the parties. The PASCUALs cannot hence adduce that they did not k direct the real transaction.RAMOSs look at that the interest due should take in legal i nterest cannot be acted upon favourab ly because he did not appeal from the install of the exertion run solicit of 5 June 1995, which obviously lucid the payment by the PASCUALs of the sum up of P511,000 without interest thereon. nonerelief can be portion outn(p) a ships company who does not appeal. 18 in that locationfore, the order of the trial motor hotel should stand. Incidentally, we find that in the tale filed by RAMOS, the govern in Vales v. Valle was reproduced by his propose without the proper citation. much(prenominal) act invents plagiarism. Atty. Felimon B.Mangahas is herewith warned that a repeating of much(prenominal)(prenominal) act shall be dealt with accordingly. WHEREFORE, in view of all the forward, the petition is DENIED. The assailed conclusion of the tap of Appeals in CA G. R. CV no(prenominal) 52848 is support in toto. be against petitioners. SO ORDERED. Vitug, Kapunan, Yn ars-capital of Chile, and Austria-Martinez, JJ. , concur. counterbalance theatrical role SP S. EDGAR AND DINAH OMENGAN, supplicanters, G. R. zero(prenominal) 161319 pay PUNO, C. J. , SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, works Chair individual, gloriole, AZCUNA and GARCIA, JJ. versus PHILIPPPINE field of study BANK, atomic number 1 M. MONTALVO AND MANUEL S. ACIERTO,* responders. exclaim January 23, 2007 x -x decisiveness CORONA, J. This petition for analyze on certiorari1 seeks a fall over and heterotaxy of the motor lodge of Appeals (CA) stopping point 2 and scatterr3 in CA-G. R. CV nary(prenominal) 71302. In October 1996, the Filipino guinea pig argot (PNB) Tabuk (Kalinga) arm authorize petitioners- teammates occupation for a revolving confidence line of P3 trillion. The loan was limitd by dickens residential slews in Tabuk, Kalinga-Apayao cover by communicate corroboration of sur number (TCT) no(prenominal). 2954 and 12112. The security systems of name, thingd by the registry of whole kit and caboodle o f the res publica of KalingaApayao, were in the pull in of Edgar4 Omengan wed to Dinah Omengan. The outset P2. 5 zillion was emancipated by outgrowth acquitor score heat Montalvo on lead illuminate dates. The pass of the net fractional cardinal was, however, withheld by Montalvobecause of a earn asseverately sent by Edgars sisters. It read A ppas, Tabuk Kalinga 7 noneember 1996 The coach Philippine interior(a) bevel Tabuk branchinging Poblacion, Tabuk Kalinga SirThis refers to the beneathcoat at Appas, Tabuk in the detect of our br different, Edgar Omengan, which was mortgage to the money box in the standard of tercet one cardinal one thousand thousand Pesos (P3,000,000. 00), the sum of P2. 5 Million had already been freeingd and genuine by our br different, Edgar. In this connection, it is put across that the stay suppressed balance of one-half a million pesos be held in abatement unfinished an concord by the rest of the br another(preno minal)s and sisters of Edgar. ravish be conscious that the piazza owe, date in the name of Edgar Omengan, is own in co-proprietorship by all the children of the late Roberto and Elnora Omengan.The at disuniteey who drafted the catalogue registering the plain seat to a lower place(a) Edgars name can constitute to this detail. We had a forward placement with Edgar in allowing him to make use of the blank space as substantiative, and he refuses to keep an eye on with much(prenominal) arrangement. Hence, this letter. (emphasis ours) really truly yours, (Sgd. ) Shirley O. Gamon (Sgd. ) Imogene O. Bangao (Sgd. ) Carolean O. Salicob (Sgd. ) Alice O. Claver5 Montalvo was finally re determined as branch motorcoach by Manuel Acierto who beatd the remain half million pesos to petitioners on may 2, 1997.Acierto play off recommended the grace of a P2 million join on in their commendation line to the Cagayan vale worry nitty-gritty assign charge in Santiag o city. The ac quotation citizens committee O.K. the make up of petitioners belief line (from P3 million to P5 million), provided Edgars sisters gave their obligingness. Acierto app turn outd petitioners of the qualified grace of their reference line. only when petitioners plumped to secure the hold of Edgars sisters hence, PNB put on hold the let go of of the superfluous P2 million. On October 7, 1998, Edgar Omengan demanded the beat of the P2 million.He claimed that the condition for its ignition was not part of his reference point line liability with PNB because it was added without his coincide. PNB denied his request. On blemish 3, 1999, petitioners filed a disorder for spite of con tract and indemnification against PNB with the regional essay move (RTC), assort 25 in Tabuk, Kalinga. after on trial, the court of justice checkd in opt of petitioners. Accordingly, creative thinker is herewith rendered conclusion in estimate of petitione rs. PNB is tell 1) To unfreeze without agree in raise of petitioners the measuring of P2,000,000. 00 to complete the P5,000,000. 00 assign line treaty ) To pay petitioners the measuring of P2,760,000. 00 representing the losings and/or anticipate income of the petitioners for reciprocal chord eld 3) To pay legal interest, until the amount afore verbalise(prenominal) on carve ups 1 and 2 higher up atomic number 18 fully paid and 4) To pay the costs. SO ORDERED. 6 The CA, however, on June 18, 2003, reverse and set deflexion the RTC stopping point dated April 21, 2001. 7 call forers now compete that the CA erred when it did not sustain the finding of appall of start by the RTC. 8 The dwellence of severance of drive bridge is a pointual payoff not ballparkly freshen uped in a petition filed at a lower place Rule 45. b bely since the RTC and the CA had impertinent findings, we be constrain to govern on this anaesthetize. Was there a break in o f cartel? thither was none. fracture of squash is be as follows It is the ill fortune without legal reason to acquiesce with the hurt of a incur. It is excessively delimit as the failure, with out legal excuse, to perform some(prenominal) squall which forms the whole or part of the nip. 9 In this caseful, the parties concur on a P3 million deferred payment line. This sum was easy layly paper bagd to petitioners who succeedingly utilise10 for an add-on in their source line.This was conditionally sanction by PNBs reference work committee. For all uses and personas, petitioners sought-after(a) an special loan. The condition link to the increment in recognize line requiring petitioners to take for dish outed the conformity of Edgars sisters was never ac acquaintance and veritable by petitioners. Thus, as to the surplus loan, no group meeting of the minds truly occurred and no gaolbreak of take away could be propd to PNB. on that point was no p erfect contract over the increase in character line. The argument of a depone is one touch on with public interest, for which reason the lodge should guard against evil due to oversight or lousy faith.In favorable reception the loan of an applicant, the avow concerns itself with proper culture regarding its debtors. 11 whatever(prenominal) probe antecedently toped on the piazza offered by petitioners as verificatory did not eliminate PNB from considering tonic tuition on the similar lieu as security for a sub sequent loan. The confidence and blank space investigation for the current loan of P3 million did not cause PNB to deliver and release whatsoever redundant loan. At the time the original P3 million credit line was ap turn up, the name to the retention egressed to perta in exclusively to petitioners.By the time the screening for an increase was considered, however, PNB already had reason to shadowed petitioners claim of exclusive self-posses sion. A mortgage bearer can trust on what appears on the au whereforetication of call p resented by the mortgager and an higher upboard mortgage holder is not judge to engineer an pure(a) investigation on the history of the mortgagors ennoble. This prevail is strictly applied to ban king institutions. thirty wedges, in denomination of respect, should exercise more occupy and forethought in dealing even with registered let downs, than clannish soulfulnesss, as their parentage is one touch on with public interest. xx Thus, this judicial system excellent that the happen that psyches dealing wit h registered farmings can rely only when on the certification of epithet does not turn over to banks. 12 (emphasis supplied) Here, PNB had acquired information sufficient to crap a moderately wise person to ask into the status of the title over the line of business piazza. rather of defend their position, petitioners still avowed that credence on the gri mace of the corroboration of title (in their name) was sufficient. This t one by oneing, as already mentioned, was not applicable to financial institutions like PNB.In truth, petitioners had every chance to turn the situation in their favor if, as they verbalise, they rightfully possess the put in p roperty alone, to the expulsion of any other possessor(s). Unfortunately, all they offered were bare defence forces of the co - monomania claimed by Edgars sisters. PNB exercised just prudence in requiring the preceding(prenominal)-named condition for the release of the redundant loan. If the condition proved unsufferable to petitioners, the parties could beget discussed other impairment quite of making an immovable and forthwith demand for the release of the extra amount.If the so-called co- self-control in circumstance had no leg to stand on, petitioners could generate introduced narrate other than a mere(a)(a) denial of its macrocosm. Since PNB did not b reak any contract and since it exercised the decimal point of industriousness judge of it, it cannot be held nonimmune for damages. WHEREFORE, the conclusion and solving of the judicatory of Appeals in CA-G. R. CV nary(prenominal) 71302 are herewith AFFIRMED. cost against petitioners. SO ORDERED. RENATO C. CORONA participator evaluator WE jibe REYNATO S. PUNO headsman rightness ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ class jurist workings ChairpersonADOLFO S. AZCUNA associate rightness CANCIO C. GARCIA lad arbiter hallmark consistent to air division 13, condition eighter from Decatur of the Constitution, I second that the conclusions in the preceding(prenominal) conclusiveness had been make water ed in source in advance the case was delegate to the generator of the opinion of the courts course. REYNATO S. PUNO header justness send-off-class honours degree voice G. R. nary(prenominal) 126713. July 27, 1998 ADORACION E. CRUZ, THELMA DEBBIE E. CRUZ and GERRY E . CRUZ, petitioners, vs. coquette OF APPEALS and SPOUSES ELISEO and VIRGINIA MALOLOS, responders. decisiveness PANGANIBAN, J. Contracts constitute the law amongst the parties. They must be read together and interpreted in an manner that reconciles and spread outs vitality to all of them. The mark of the parties, as shown by the nominate phraseology utilize, wallows over post situationo explanations that find no support from the linguistic communication industrious by the parties of from their coetaneous and later(prenominal) acts video display their apprehension of much(prenominal)(prenominal) contracts, Furthermore, a consequent agreement cannot novate or change by price reduction a preliminary one, unless old and overbold contracts are, on every point, antipathetical with all(prenominal) other.Finally, confirmative details may be admitted in depict when a keen-witted pro dowery of reason exists in the midst of the conditions tolerant rise to the fac t offered and the raft environ the issue or fact to be proved. The deterrent example in fronthand us is a petition for review on certiorari pursuit to subjugate the address of Appeals (CA) determination1 in CA- GR CV 33566, declare July 15, 1996, which reversed the regional running game tap (RTC) of Antipolo, Rizal and CA announcement 2 of October 1, 1996, which denied petitioners work for reconsideration.Petitioners Adoracion, Thelma Debbie, Gerry and Arnel (all surnamed Cruz) filed an action for zone against the one-on-one answerers, Spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos. On January 28, 1991, the trial court rendered a determination which addicted as follows3 WHEREFORE, fancy is hereby rendered for the plaintiffs and against the defendants -spouses 1. orderliness the relegate of the septette parcels of wreak totalling 1,912 sq. m. among the 4 (4) plaintiffs and the defendants-spouses as follows a. b. c. d. e. Adoracion E. Cruz (1/5) Thelma Debbie Cruz (1/5 ) Gerry E. Cruz (1/5) Arnel E. Cruz (1/5)Spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos (1/5) 382 sq. m. 382 sq. m. 382 sq. m. 382 sq. m. 382 sq. m. to whom muss zero(prenominal) 1-C-2-B-2-B-4-L-1-A with an heavens of 276 sq. m. cover by TCT no 502603 and a portion of plentitude no(prenominal) 1-C2-B-2-B-4-L-1-B cover by TCT no(prenominal) 502604 to the extent of 106 sq. m. neighboring TCT no(prenominal) 502603. 2. club the parties herein to execute a throw up of part in accordance of rights with this decision indicating the segmentation of the viisome (7) parcels of trim down in spite of appearance 15 (15) days upon notice of this judgment. 3. say defendants-spouses to pay plaintiffs herein P5,000. 00 as and for attorneys tip offs 4. address of suit. On appeal, answerer motor inn reversed the trial court thusce4 WHEREFORE, finding the appeal to be meritorious, we reversion the appealed decision and render judgment DISMISSING the unhealthiness without damage howev er to the claim of plaintiff -appellees for their get bys in the return of the vendue off barter of the sevener (7) parcels of stain in fountainhead against Nerissa Cruz Tamayo pursuant(predicate) to the memorial symmetricalness. comprise against the plaintiff-appellees. As sooner stated, reconsideration was denied through the appellant courts challenged reticuloendothelial systemolution 5 WHEREFORE, for wishing of merit, the cause for Reconsideration in DENIED. . The cause Facts The facts of this case are un repugn. The assailed Decision relates them as follows6 Delfin I. Cruz and Adoracion Cruz were spouses and their children were Thelma, Nerissa, Arnel and Gerry Cruz. Upon the wipeout of Delfin I. Cruz, his living(a) spouse and children kill on direful 22, 1977 a notarized accomplishment of uncomplete section (Exhibit 2) by truth of which for all(prenominal) one one of them was acquaintn a contend of some(prenominal) parcels of registered conveys all situat ed in Taytay, Rizal.The pursual day, high-flown 23, 1977, the like take and children punish a entry harmony (Exhibit H) which provided That the parties hereto are cat valium co- possessors pro-indiviso in adaptedise parcel of filths of the pursuance registered real properties, all find out at Taytay, Rizal, Philippines, x x x. thirty That sometime on rarified 22, 1977, a title of uncomplete separate was kill among us to begin with Atty. Virgilio J. Tamayo, notary public human race on and for the down of Rizal, per Doc. no. 1776 varlet no 14 of his nonearial establish none XLIX, series of 1977 thirtyThat as a progeny of distill uncomplete(p) tone splitter, the properties affect were genuinely air divisioned and the several(prenominal)(prenominal) apportions of ea ch party, adjudicated to him/her That scorn the instruction accomplishment of this title of respect of overtone sectionalization and the eventu al tendency or cha nges agreement of their single manages, the contract parties herein covenanted and concord among themselves and by these presents do hereby vex themselves to one some other that they shall deal homogeneous and standard equal distri savees from the take of the trade of any administer or piles attraction to and adjudicated in their soulfulness label by truth of this exertion of fond(p) tone division. That this placement shall come on to be valid and enforceable among the spying parties herein up to and until the last gage cover by the proceeding of Partial Partition above adverted to shall possess been lock in of or transmit and the product so evenly split up up and their several(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) constituents get by all(prenominal) of them. This stocktaking arrangement was registered and annotated in the titles of the pull downs cover by the instruction transaction of fond(p) divider. Subsequently, the very(prenominal ) parties ca apply the integrating and sections of the go throughs they on an soul bottom get from the late Delfin I.Cruz per consummation of overtone part. by and by that, they registered the execution of partial derivative section and discussion section plans and titles were issued in their label. In the case of Nerissa Cruz Tamayo, the nethermentioned titles were issued to her in her name TCT no. 502603 (Exhibit A), TCT none 502604, (Exhibit B), TCT none 502605 (Exhibit C), TCT nary(prenominal) 502606 (Exhibit D), TCT nary(prenominal) 502608 (Exhibit E), TCT no. 502609 (Exhibit F), TCT none 502610 (Exhibit G), hereunder called the de government agency in psyche. Naturally, the bill pertaining to the schedule accordance was carried in each of verbalise seven (7) titles and annotated in each of them.Mean mend, the spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos filed courteous show window no 31231 against the spouses Nerissa Cruz -Tamayo and Nelson Tamayo fo r a sum of money. The dally of jump instance of Rizal, complexify cardinal (Quezon city) rendered a decision of June 1, 1981 in favor of Eliseo and Virginia decry the spouses Nerissa and Nelson Tamayo to pay them P126,529. 00 with 12% interest per annum from the register of the complaint plus P5,000. 00 attorneys fee. After the conclusiveness of that decision, a writ of execution (Exhibit J) was issued on zero(prenominal)ember 20, 1981. Enforcing say writ, the sheriff of the court levied upon the reposes in head word.On June 29, 1983, these properties were sell in an execution exchange to the highest bidders, the spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos. Accordingly, the sheriff put to death a security of cut-rate change (Exhibit K) over all the rights, claims, interests, titles, constituents, and participations of defendant spouses Nerissa Tamayo and Ne lson Tamayo.. Nerissa Cruz Tamayo failed to exercise her right of redemption at bottom the statutory outcome and so the final exertion of cut-rate cut-rate barter was penalise by the sheriff transport the earthly concerns in gesture to spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos.The Malolos correspond asked Nerissa Cruz Tamayo to give them the proprietors supernumerary transcript of the seven (7) titles of the visits in marvel scarcely she ref utilise. The mates moved the court to compel her to gloam tell titles to the demonstrate of whole kit and caboodle of Rizal for avoidlation. This was tending(p) on kinsfolk 7, 1984. But Nerissa was adamant. She did not keep up with the Order of the court and so the Malolos meet asked the court to declare state titles as idle and void.At this point, Adoracion Cruz, Thelma Cruz, Gerry Cruz and Arnel Cruz entered the deliver by register is state lower court a motion for leave to deputize and play off the Maloloses motion. The Cruzes alleged that they were co- possessors of Nerissa Cruz Tamayo over the solid grounds in distrust. On Januar y 18, 1985, verbalize court issued an Order modifying the Order of folk 7, 1984 by directional the leave of the owners duplication copies of the titles of the lands in unbelief to the memorialize of industrial plant not for cancellation exclusively for the bank bill of the rights, interest acquired by the Maloloses over verbalize lands.On February 17, 1987, Adoracion, Thelma, Gerry and Arnel Cruz filed civil gaffe No. 961-A for divider of square estate of the realm against spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos over the lands in head teacher. As already stated in the kickoff paragraph of this Decision, the court a quo rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs from which the defendants appealed to this court, x x x x . govern of the dally of Appeals For answerer romance, the cardinal issue was Did the entry of accordance MOA (Exhibit H)7 revoke, cancel or interchange the proceeding of fond(p) sectionalizationing DPP (Exhibit 2)? 8 If so, accordingly petitioners and Spouses Tamayo were co-owners of the land in issue, and partition should follow upon motion of the originator if not, then the last mentioned are its positive owners and to partition should be made. answerer judicial system firm the above question in the banish for the future(a) reasons scratch line, the DPP was not materially and well belieory with the MOA. The DPP conferred downright self-command of the parcels of land in issue on Nerissa Cruz Tamayo, term the MOA that created an agreement on her part to take with the petitioners the exit of the deal of express properties. trice, the fact that hush-hush responder registered the DPP was variable with the allegement that they intend to put away it. Indeed, had they meant to abandon it, they would lead simply self-collected the copies of utter enrolment and then torn of burn down them. leash, petitioners were estopped from claiming co- ownership over the broild properties because, as classical owners, they either owe or exchange the other properties adjudicated to them by sexual morality of the DPP. Hence, this petition. 9 engagement of ErrorsIn their enumeration,10 petitioners pick out the next assignment of mistakes A. answerer court of law erred in judgment that the memorandum of capital of New Hampshire (Exhibit H) does not prevail over the routine of partial(p) air division (Exhibit 2). B. sale. C. answering act erred in control that petitioners can only claim their right to the result of the auction answering motor hotel erred in notion that petitioners are in estoppel by deed. D. answering court of law erred in impression that the adaptation of the deed of partial partition precluded the petitioners from abrogating it. E. answering motor hotel erred when it whole disregard the finality of the order of the regional trial run court of Quezon metropolis, appendage l thirtyvi as bodied in the decision of the regional running hail of Antipolo, Rizal, branch 71. In fine, the resolution of this petition hinges of the following issues (1) whether DPP was scratch or novated by the MOA (2) whether the MOA established, mingled with petitioners and the judgment debtor, a co -ownership of the much in question (3) whether petitioners are forbid by estoppel from claiming co-ownership of the seven parcels of land and (4) whether res judicata has set in.The judgeships thought The petition is grieving of merit. It fails to demonstrate any reversible faulting on the part of the appeal of Appeals. First cater No Novation or Cancellation In their Memorandum, petitioners insist that the MOA categorically and unmistakably named and covenanted them as co owners of the parcels in issue and novated their preceding(prenominal) agreement, the operation of fond(p) Part ition. Petitioners claim that the MOA intelligibly manifested their aim to create a co -ownership. This is especially transparent in Exhibit 1-B, which provides That disdain the execution of this doing of partial section and eventual(prenominal)(prenominal) governing or sale of their respective make outs, the detection parties herein covenanted and concord among themselves and by these presents do hereby accommodate themselves to one other(prenominal) that they shall fortune and put one across equal plow plough addresss from the outcome of the sale of any upsurge or much allot to and adjudicated in their individual names by chastity of this deed of partial partition. The administration disagrees. The previous formulation in the MOA does not novate, much less cancel, the to begin with DPP.Novation, one of the modes of extinguish an stipulation, requires the congruity of the following (1) there is a previous valid debt pecker (2) the parties touch agree to a radical contract (3) the old contract is do away with and (4) there is a valid wise contract. 11Novation may be express or implied. vex 1292 of the canon provides In order that an indebtedness may be eliminate by another(prenominal)(prenominal) which substitutes the homogeneous, it is imperative that it be so declared in unequivocal foothold express novation,12 or that the old and parvenue stipulations be on every point contrary with each other implied novation. tried against the forego standards, petitioners stance is shattered to pieces. The stipulation that the petitioners and Spouses Tamayo were co-owners was still the forward part of the MOA, and it reads13 That the parties are gross co-owners pro-indiviso in equal conducts of the following registered real properties, all set at Taytay, Rizal, Philippines. thirty thirty xxx xxx That sometime in prideful 22, 1977, a work of incomplete cleavage was put to death among us in fronthand Atty. Virgilio J.Tamayo, notary normal in and for the country of Rizal, per Doc. No. 1796 rascal No. 14 of his Notarial evince No. XLIX, serial publicati on of 1977 avocation the above-quoted stipulation is a asseveration that the sketch parcels of land had in fact been partitioned, but that the former co-owner think to care with petitioners the bribe of any sale of express land,14 viz That as a result of verbalize partial partition, the properties abnormal were in truth partitioned and the respe ctive shares of each party, adjudicated to him/herThat despite the execution of this turn of partial(p) Partition and the eventual electric pig or sale of their respective shares, th e contract parties herein covenanted and agree among themselves and to one another that they shall do sic hereby bind themselves to one another that they shall share alike and capture equal shares from the proceed of the sale of any lot or scores distribute to and adjudicated in their individual names by virtue of this deed of p artial partition That this accordance shall hatch to be valid and enforceable among the spotting parties herein up to and until the last lot cover by the deed or partial partition above adverted to shall turn out been given of or change and the procee ds hence every bit divided and their respective shares sure by each of them. xxx xxx xxxThe MOA waterfall short of producing a novation, because it does not express a unobjectionable int ent to dissolve the old promise as a consideration for the offspring of the parvenu one. 15 Likewise, petitioners fail to show that the DPP and the MOA are materially and easily antipathetical with each other. Petitioners admit that, under the MOA, they and the Tamayo spouses concur to as share in the replication of the sale of the dozens. 16 Indeed, the DPP apt(p) title to the hemorrhoid in question to the co-owner to whom they were assigned, and the MOA created an obligation on the part of such co -owner to share with the others the output of the sale of such parcels. in that respect is no inconsistency betwixt these two contracts. Verily, th e MOA cannot be construed as a renouncement of the former DPP.Both documents can exist together and must be so interpreted as to give life to both. answering court of law aptly explained17 The exploit of Partition conferred upon Nerissa Cruz Tamayo imperious ownership over the lands in question. The Memorandum of Agreement except created an obligation on the part of commanding owner Nerissa Cruz Tamayo to share with the appellees with sic the product of the sale of give tongue to properties. The obligation of the owner of a piece of land to share with somebody with sic its fruits or the carry on of its sale does not inescapably impair his formula over the property much less make the benefactive role his co -owner so. all in all in all, the elementary regulation underlying this sentiment is simple when t he textual matter of a contract is graphic and leaves no doubt as to its heading, the court may not read into it any object that would contradict its plain i mport. 18 The hornbook normal on commentary of contracts gives primacy to the objective of the parties, which is the law among them. Ultimately, their intention is to be decipher not from the colored post facto assertions of one of the parties, but from the lecture employ in the contract. And when the hurt of the agreement, as denotative in such row, are unaccented, they are to be still literally, just as they appear on the face of the contract. Indeed, the legal effects of a contract are determined by extracting the intention of the parties from the style they employ and from their modern-day and subsequent acts. 19 This principle gains more force when ordinal parties are concerned. To require such persons to go beyond what is all the way written in the document is unfair and unjust. They cannot perchance flip into the undertake parties minds and shady that something is amiss, when the language of th e instrument appears clear and unequivocal. turn materia lisation No Co-ownership in the MOA Petitioners contend that they reborn their separate and individual ownership over the lands in battle into a co ownership by their execution of the MOA and the short letter thereof on the separate titles. The court of law is not convinced. The very edible of the MOA belie the macrocosm of a co -ownership.First, it retains the partition of the properties, which petitioners purportedly placed in co -ownership and, second, it vests in the registered owner the power to qualify of the land adjudicated to him or her under the DPP. These are different to the petitioners rock. In a co-ownership, an exclusive thing or right belongs to two or more persons. 20 clothe differently, several persons hold common linguistic order over a religious (or ideal) part of a thing, which is not physically divided. 21 In the present case, however, the parcels of land in the MOA absorb all been partitioned and entitle under separate and individual names. Mor e important, the MOA stipulated that the registered owner could sell the land without the consent of the other parties to the MOA.Jus disponendi is an attribute of ownership, and only the owner can dispose of a property. 22 obstinate to petitioners claim, the short letter of the MOA in the certificate of title did not engender any co -ownership. W ell colonized is the doctrine that fitting solely confirms, but does not confer, title. 23 It does not give the holder any ameliorate title than what he actually has. As in the beginning observed, the MOA did not make petitioners co-owners of the contend parcels of land. Hence, the annotation of this document in the separate certificates of title did not grant them a greater right over the homogeneous property. Third recognise Estoppel by numberanswerer judicature found that several whole kit and caboodle of sale and real estate mortgage, which petitioners penalize when they exchange or mortgaged some parcels adjudicated to th em under the DPP, contained the tilt that the vendor/mortgagor was the overbearing owner of the parcel of residential land and that he or she equal it as free from liens and encumbrances. On the basis of these pieces of establish, answerer judicial system held that petitioners were estopped from claiming that there was a co-ownership over the repugn parcels of land which were in any case cover by the DPP. Petitioners contend that answerer administration , in so sentiment violated the res inter alios acta rule. Petitioners inclinations is untenable.Res inter alios acta, as a usual rule, prohibits the admission of attest that tends to show that what a person has do at one time is significant of the contention that he has do a similar as act at another time. 24 manifest of similar acts or occurrences compels the hooked to meet allegation s that are not mentioned in the complaint, confuses him in his defense, raises a build of irrelevant issues, and diverts the a ttention of the court from th e issues nowadays anterior it. Hence, this evidentiary rule guards against the practical inconven ience of assay confirmative issues and protracting the trial and prevents impress or other outrage prejudicious to litigants. 25 The rule, however, is not without riddance.W hile impermissible in general, collateral facts may be sure as state under prodigious luck, as when there is a thinking(prenominal) analogy or similitude amongst the conditions gift rise to the fact offered and the circumstances environ the issue or fact to be proved. 26 endorse of similar acts may oft conk relevant, especially in actions found on fraud and pretense , because it sheds light on the state of mind or knowledge of a persons it provides acumen into such persons motive or intent it uncovers a scheme, use or plan or it reveals a mistake. 27 In this case, petitioners lay out that legal proceeding relating to the other parcels of land they entered into, in the design of dogmatic owners, are impermissible as induction to show that the parcels in issue are not co -own.The court is not persuaded. bear witness of such legal proceeding locomote under the exception to the rule on the res inter alios acta. much(prenominal) secernate is admissible because it is relevant to an issue in the case and confirming of enjoin already bugger offd. 28 The relevance of such transactions is quickly apparent. The reputation of ownership of say property should be the aforementioned(prenominal) as that of the oodles on question since they are all master to the MOA. If the parcels of land were held and given up by petitioners in fee simple, in the judgment of autocratic owners, then the lots in question should withal be tough as abruptly possess in fee simple by the Tamayo spouses.Unmistakably, the evidence in dispute manifests petitioners common purpose and design to treat all the parcels of land cover by the DPP as shor t owned and not type to co -ownership. 29 at a lower place the principle of estoppel, petitioners are debar from claiming co-ownership of the lands in issue. In estoppel, a person, who by his deed or conduct has introduced another to act in a particular(a) m anner, is barred from adopting an dissonant position, location or words of conduct that thereby causes discharge or imperfection to another. 30 It foster interdict him from recalling the truth of a fact which has, in the reflexion of law, experience settled by the acts and minutes of judicial or legislative officers or by the act of the party himself, either by unoriginal opus or by representations, express or im plied or in pairs. 31In their transaction with others, petitioners have declared that the other lands cover by the aforesaid(prenominal) MOA are dead owned, without indicating the existence of a co-ownership over such properties. Thus, they are estopped from claiming differently because, by their v ery own acts and representations as prove by the kit and caboodle of mortgage and of sale, they have denied such co-ownership. 32 after part ISSUES No Res Judicata On Co-ownership Petitioners argue that the Order (Exhibit J)33 dated January 18, 1985, issued by the RTC of Quezon city, ramification 86, which had long deform final and executory, sustain their co-ownership. Thus, they claim that answerer courtrooms reversal of the ruling of the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, is a violation of the rule on res judicata. This contention is evenly untenable.The elements of res judicata are (1) the former judgment was final (2) the court which rendered it had legal power over the worst matter and the parties(3) the judgment was on the merits and (4) the parties, subject matters and causes of action in the graduation exercise and second actions are identical. 34 The RTC of Quezon City had no jurisdiction to decide on the merits of the present case or to entertain questions regarding the ex istence of co-ownership over the parcels in dispute, because the suit pending forwards it was only for the appeal of a sum of money. Its harangue on co-ownership was only when for the impose and the execution of the properties of the Tamayo spouses, in comfort of their judgment debt to the clandestine respondents. perchance more overt is the miss of identity mingled with the two actions.The first action onwards the RTC of Quezon City was for the allurement of money, while the second before the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, was for partition. There being no harmony of the elements of res judicata in this case, the dally finds no hallucination in Respondent dallys ruling. No get on preaching is involve to show the tangible expiration amid the two controversies. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision is Affirmed. greet against petitioners. SO ORDERED. Davide, jr. , (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug, and Quisumbing, JJ. , concur. one-thirds ome course of study G. R. No. 134559. celestial latitude 9, 1999 ANTONIA TORRES, aid by her husband, ANGELO TORRES and EMETERIA BARING, petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and MANUEL TORRES,respondents. close PANGANIBAN, J. homages may not disengage parties from the necessity consequences of their acts. That the terms of a contract turn out to be financially inopportune to them impart not relieve them of their obligations therein. The need of an inventory of real property leave not ipso facto release the spotting mates from their respective obligations to each other arising from acts execute in accordance with their agreement. The causal agent The Petition for surveil on writ of certiorari before us assails the contact 5, 1998 Decision 1 Second Division of the Court of Appeals2 (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 2378 and its June 25, 1998 root denying reconsideration. The assailed Decision affirm the ruling of the regional running play Court (RTC) of Cebu City in civilized rac ing shell No. R -21208, which given up as follows WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing considerations, the Court, finding for the defendant and against the plaintiffs, orders the bagging of the plaintiffs complaint. The counterclaims of the defendant are in any case ordered push aside. No say-so as to costs. 3 The Facts Sisters Antonia Torres and Emeteria Baring, herein petitioners, entered into a pronounce approximate agreement with Respondent Manuel Torres for the increment of a parcel of land into a plane section.Pursuant to the contract, they put to death a Deed of bargain covering the said parcel of land in favor of respondent, who then had it registered in his name. By mortgaging the property, respondent obtained from true Bank a loan ofP40,000 which, under the articulatio menace Agreement, was to be used for the teaching of the element. 4 entirely three of them in any case concur to share the harvesting from the sale of the subdivided lots. The nominate did n ot push button through, and the land was afterward foreclosed by the bank. According to petitioners, the throw up failed because of respondents lack of cash in hand or means and skills. They add that respondent used the loan not for the festering of the portion, but in publicity of his own company, widely distributed Umbrell a Company.On the other hand, respondent alleged that he used the loan to follow through the Agreement. With the said amount, he was able to effect the examine and the subdivision of the lots. He secured the Lapu Lapu City Councils approbation of the subdivision advise which he publicise in a topical anaesthetic newspaper. He likewise caused the verbal expression of roads, curbs and gutters. Likewise, he entered into a contract with an applied science firm for the make of lx low -cost living accommodations units and actually even set up a model signboard on one of the subdivision lots. He did all of these for a total expense of P85,000. Resp ondent claimed that the subdivision run into failed, however, because petitioners and their relatives had separately cause d the annotations of dverse claims on the title to the land, which ultimately shake away likely buyers. disdain his requests, petitioners refused to cause the modify of the claims, thereby forcing him to give up on the project. 5 Subsequently, petitioners filed a cruel case for estafa against respondent and his wife, who were however acquitted. Thereafter, they filed the present civil case which, upon respondents motion, was later dismissed by the trial court in an Order dated family 6, 1982. On appeal, however, the appellate court remanded the case for kick upstairs proceedings. Thereafter, the RTC issued its assailed Decision, which, as earlier stated, was substantiate by the CA. Hence, this Petition. 6 view of the Court of AppealsIn affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that petitioners and respondent had organise a confederation f or the growth of the subdivision. Thus, they must bear the loss suffered by the union in the selfsame(prenominal) equalizer as their share in the win stipulated in the contract. Disagreeing with the trial courts potency that losings as well as moolah in a spliff gamble should be distributed equally,7 the CA invoked member 1797 of the polished Code which provides hold 1797 The losings and acquire shall be distributed in conformity with the agreement. If only the share of each spouse in the dough has been hold upon, the share of each in the losings shall be in the same similitude. The CA elucidated save In the absence of stipulation, the share of each render in th e meshwork and losses shall be in similitude to what he may have contributed, but the industrial attendant shall not be conjectural for the losses. As for the network, the industrial partner shall drive such share as may be just and equitable under the circumstances. If besides his serve he has co ntributed capital, he shall likewise receive a share in the profits in proportion to his capital. The wages Petitioners portion to the Court of Appeals the following error x x x The Court of Appeals erred in conclud ing that the transaction x x x among the petitioners and respondent was that of a vocalise infer/ coalition, ignoring unqualified the formulation of bind 1769, and other link up aliment of the civic Code of the Philippines. 8 The Courts RulingThe Petition is grieving of merit. master(prenominal) trim initiation of a confederacy Petitioners deny having form a partnership with respondent.