Professional Documents
Culture Documents
As for respondents’ claim that they have been WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
receiving shares from the produce of the land, it was decision of the Court of Appeals
correctly discredited by the trial court. is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the June 30,
1999 decision of the trial court is REINSTATED.
[P]laintiffs’ claim that Flores Restar gave them five to
eight gantas each as their shares in the produce No pronouncement as to costs.
cannot be sustained. A few gantas cannot be
considered one-eight share of sixty (60) cavans of SO ORDERED.
palay produced per cropping. One eight of sixty
cavans would be at least six cavans, not merely CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
gantas after excluding expenses for cultivation and
production. If plaintiffs were to be believed, their
Associate Justice
whole 7/8 share of the produce would total two
cavans, six gantas only at the usual rate of 25 gantas
per cavan.28 WE CONCUR:
11
Associate Justice Id. at 128-130.
12
ATTESTATION Exhibit "1" - Policarpio Restar
, vide Records at 131-132 (the List of Exhibits
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision prepared by the RTC Clerk of Court identifies
were reached in consultation before the case was the deed as such Exhibit "1" but the deed on
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s pages 131-132 bears no such marking.
Division.
13
Records at 129.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
14
RTC Decision, Records at 161-171.
Associate Justice
15
Chairman Records at 170. The records disclose,
however, that Esmenia Restar signed as
CERTIFICATION "Esmenia" in the deed of sale whereas she
always signed as "Esmeña."
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution,
16
and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby Records at 161-171.
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
17
were reached in consultation before the case was CA Rollo at 158-165.
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
18
Id at 163.
HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.
19
Ibid.
Chief Justice
20
Rollo at 17.
21
Bargayo v. Camumot, 40 Phil 857, 868
(1920).
Footnotes
22
Heirs of Segunda Maningding v. Court of
1
Records at 8. Appeals, 276 SCRA 601, 608 (1997).
23
2
Id. at 7. Ferrer v. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 302,
305 (1993).
3
As eventually determined by court appointed
24
Commissioner Crispulo M. Vega, Id. at 100- De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA
102. 307, 321 (1993).
25
4
Id. at 9. Records at 168-169.
26
5
Id. at 1-6. Heirs of Segunda Maningding v. Court of
Appeals, 276 SCRA 601, 606 (1997).
6
Id. at 31-36.
27
Cequeña v. Bolante, 330 SCRA 216, 226-
7
Id at 32-33. 227 (2000).
28
8
Ibid. Records at 170.
9
Exhibits Folder – Exhibit 20.
Page 5 of 5