TO: THE LAW FIRM OF OCAMPO ARCIAGA-SANTOS NUEZ LOMANGAYA & RIBAO SUBJECT: LEGAL ANALYSIS / CASE BRIEFING

ON THE POSSIBLE SUIT BY SPOUSES CRUZ AGAINST THE ABC BANK. DATE: January 21, 2005 I. THE FACTS (WITH ANNOTATIONS)
1. Maria Cruz (Maria for short), married to Juan Cruz (Juan for short), was the owner

of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 1234 (lot A for short), located at Barangay Dilaw, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, covering a total area of 10,000 square meters, more or less.
2. On October 16, 1981, Maria, with the consent of her husband, Juan, and for the purpose

of assisting Pedro Diaz (Pedro for short), of Puerto Princesa, Palawan, to whose grandmother Juan owes a debt of gratitude, executed a Special Power of Attorney, appointing Pedro as her attorney-in-fact, empowering him to mortgage lot A to any person.
3. Accordingly, Pedro obtained a loan in the amount of P300,000.00 from the Puerto

Princesa Branch of ABC Bank, a government owned and controlled corporation. As security for the loan, Pedro mortgaged lot A. A Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, embodied in an ABC Bank pro-forma deed, consisting of two pages, respectively dated October 21 and 26, 1981, was then executed by and between ABC Puerto Princesa (ABCPP for short), as mortgagee, and Spouses Pedro and Ana Diaz (Ana for short) and Spouses Juan and Maria Cruz, all as mortgagors.
4. After these transactions, the Spouses Cruz did not give ample attention to said property

and the mortgage contract covering it due to the trust they reposed in Pedro and due to other more significant business matters requiring their priority attention in Manila, including some other active court cases.
5. Sometime in 2001, Juan, through his friend Justice Gomez of the Court of Appeals,

came upon a copy of an ABCPP officers radio message, dated July 27, 1992, indicating that the mortgage secured by lot 4 was already foreclosed and the collateral property therefor already sold. The radio message, according to Justice Gomez, was handed to him by his nephew Alberto, who used to be the Chief of the Legal Division of ABCPP. The radio message reads as follows: PD TRANSPORT CO., OWNED BY PEDRO DIAZ WAS GRANTED SEVERAL LOAN ACCOMMODATIONS BY THIS BRANCH MAINLY TO

FINANCE ACQUISITION OF BUS UNITS. LAST ACCOUNT AVAILED OF WAS FULLY PAID ON JULY 23, 1984 WITH SATISFACTORY CREDIT HANDLING AND REPAYMENT. MR. DIAZ HAS ALSO AVAILED OF A P300,000.00 WORKING CAPITAL LOAN ON DECEMBER 1981 SECURED BY THE PROPERTY OWNED BY JUAN CRUZ. FIRST AVAILMENT PROCEEDS WAS USED BY MR. DIAZ AND FULLY PAID ON MAY 29, 1982. SECOND AVAILMENT PROCEEDS WAS USED BY ACCOMMODATING MORTGAGOR WHICH WAS NOT PAID ON DUE DATE AND THE ACCOUNT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FORECLOSED. THE LOT COLLATERAL HAS ALREADY BEEN BIDDED AND SOLD IN 1986. (Emphasis supplied)
6. The last paragraph of the radio message completely shocked Juan as it implies an

availment of a second loan by him and his wife as accommodation mortgagors, nonpayment of which apparently caused the foreclosure of the property, when in fact, for several years, he had not heard about the developments on the loan of Diaz that they secured by mortgaging, for only once, lot A.
7. Motivated by the puzzling developments of their property, Juan, on July 8, 2001, wrote

ABCPP, requesting to be furnished with certified true copies of documents relevant to the Diaz Cruz-ABC transactions.
8. On January 16, 2002, in reply to the aforecited letter, Ms Salazar, acting branch head of

ABCPP, sent, certified true copies of the following documents to Cruzs counsel (enumerated hereunder with our observations): A. MORTGAGE CONTRACT DATED OCTOBER 26, 1981 The Deed of Mortgage appears to consist of two pages, possibly back to back, unlike Juans observation that it was only on one page when he and his wife signed it in Manila. The first page is captioned MORTGAGE while the second is captioned LIST OF PROPERTIES MORTGAGED. In these documents, the following are worthy of note:
1. The first page was executed in Manila, on October 26, 1981, purportedly

signed by both Spouses Cruz and Diaz as mortgagors, and acknowledged at such place only by the Spouses Cruz before Notary Public Atty. Arcanghel on the same date;
2. The second page was executed in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, on

October 21, 1981, purportedly signed by both the Spouses Cruz and Diaz, and acknowledged in said place only by the Spouses Diaz before Notary Public Atty. Antonio on the same date. The purported signatures of the Spouses Cruz, however, appear in the space for the witnesses;
3. No signature of any ABCPP representative appears on any page of the

document.

Page 1, captioned MORTGAGE, is the only document recognized by the Spouses Cruz as authentic and containing their genuine signatures. The authenticity of Page 2, captioned LIST OF PROPERTIES MORTGAGED, however, is refuted by the Spouses Cruz on the ground that it appears to have been executed, signed and acknowledged in Puerto Princesa, Palawan, when, in fact, Maria has never been to Palawan up to now and could not possibly have executed said document. B. PROMISSORY NOTE DATED OCTOBER 21, 1981 The Promissory Note is under the letterhead ABC Bank dated October 21, 1981, labeled Operating Capital Loan, promising payment of the amount of P300,000.00 on or before April 29, 1982, which appears to have been signed by Pedro and Ana Diaz, and Juan and Maria Cruz and four unknown witnesses. In said document, the following are worthy of note:
1. The signatures of the Spouses Cruz appear below the inscriptions

Manila and Oct. 26, 1981, while there are no stated place and date of the signing by the Spouses Diaz. It is therefore a subsisting question whether the Spouses Diaz went to Manila merely to sign said promissory note; 2. Below the signatures of the Spouses Diaz appears the note: Please issue the check/s covering the proceeds of this note in the name of Pedro Diaz and/or Ana Diaz only. The Spouses Cruz deny having knowledge of, and having signed, this document and maintain that their signatures appearing thereon are forgeries. The genuineness of the note, taking into account the congested presentation of the entries therein, unusual in bank documents, is doubtful. C. AMENDMENT OF MORTGAGE DATED JUNE 22, 1982 The Spouses Cruz have never seen this document before, nor have they entered into an amendment of the original mortgage. Neither did they authorize Diaz to renew the same. The Spouses Cruzs signatures appearing on the document are forgeries. Also questionable is the form of the note, which, taking into account the congested presentation of the entries therein, is unusual in bank documents. Worthy of attention in this amended mortgage is that the Spouses Juan and Maria, together with the Spouses Diaz, are all parties to the transaction in their common capacity as MORTGAGORS. Equally significant is the observation that, similar to the Mortgage Deed and the List of Properties Mortgaged, the Amendment of Mortgage referred to herein bears two acknowledgments. The first was in Manila, dated June 22, 1982, before Notary Public Atty. Sanchez, and acknowledged by Pedro Diaz, Juan and Maria. (There is no indication, much less proof, that Pedro Diaz went to Manila from Palawan solely for this purpose). The second acknowledgment was done by ABC Puerto Princesa Manager Ricky Cheng and Ana Diaz in Puerto Princesa City, dated June 28, 1982, before Notary Public Atty. Antonio. D. REGISTRY RETURN CARD DATED JUNE 14, 1983 FOR THE NOTICE TO MORTGAGORS OF THE EXTRA-JUDICIAL SALE ADDRESSED TO THE SPOUSES CRUZ

The address to where this notice was sent has been abandoned by the Spouses Cruz since 1982 and it is impossible for said letter to have reached them. Moreover, the identity of the one who appears to have received the letter in their behalf, as indicated in the return card, in the name of Rose Ibaez, is not known to the Spouses Cruz. E. PROMISSORY NOTE DATED JUNE 28, 1982 The Spouses Cruzs signatures appearing on this note are forgeries. Also questionable is the form of this note, which, taking into account the congested presentation of the entries therein, is unusual in bank documents. There appears no data as to when and where this note was executed and signed. It is therefore also a subsisting question whether the Spouses Diaz went to Manila, or the Spouses Cruz went to Palawan solely to sign said promissory note. F. DEMAND LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 18, 1983 G. REGISTRY RETURN CARD DATED NOVEMBER 26, 1983 RE NOTICE TO COMORTGAGORS The address to where this Notice was sent has been abandoned by the Spouses Cruz since 1982 and it is impossible for said letter to have reached them. Moreover, the identity of the one who appears to have received the letter in their behalf, in the name of Lina Rafael, is unknown to the Spouses Cruz. H. APPLICATION FOR FORECLOSURE DATED DECEMBER 8, 1983, and I. THE REGISTRY RETURN CARD DATED JANUARY 16, 1984, CORRESPONDING TO THE APPLICATION FOR FORECLOSURE DATED DECEMBER 8, 1983 ABOVE The address to where these documents were sent has been abandoned by the Spouses Cruz since 1982 and it is impossible for said documents to have reached them. Moreover, the identity of the one who appears to have received the letter in their behalf, in the name which may be read as Moralidad, is unknown to the Spouses Cruz. J. NOTICE OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL SALE J. SHERIFFS LETTER TO PEOPLES COURIER DATED APRIL 17, 1984 K. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION DATED JUNE 7, 1984 The inconsistencies in the publication, specifically between the date of execution of the Notice of Extra-judicial Sale by one Sheriff Abella, which is April 17, 1981, and the date of the public auction, June 22, 1984, is glaring. Additionally, the affidavit refers to a case entitled ABC vs. Diaz, without mention of the involvement of the Spouses Cruz. More significantly, no Notice of the Extra-judicial Sale was furnished to the Spouses Co, despite the provision in the Mortgage Contract (Par. 11) 1 that in the event of foreclosure, correspondence and notices should be sent to mortgagors address (Valenzuela, Bulacan). The notices presented by ABC are all addressed to Glover Subdivision, which, not only has it long been abandoned by the Spouses Cruz but which is not their address indicated in the mortgage contract. M. CERTIFICATE OF SALE DATED JUNE 22, 1984 The procedure in the auction sale is fatally defective, as reflected in this certificate, there being no indication that the property was bidded upon. It only shows that ABC was the purchaser, but

not the highest bidder, assuming that there were other bidders. The minutes of the auction sale were not shown. Additionally, the purchase price, P176,000.00, was unconscionably way below the real value of the land, buttressing the suspicion that the sale was simulated or fictitious. N. DEED OF SALE DATED JULY 8, 1985 This deed, transferring ownership of lot 4 to ABC, is the fruit of illegitimate and unlawful transactions. It has no legal effect whatsoever and has not validly transferred the title to ABC. O. NOTICE OF EXPIRY OF REDEMPTION PERIOD DATED JUNE 5, 1985 The same communication was addressed to the Spouses Cruzs Glover Subdivision residence that they have abandoned since 1982 so that receipt thereof was impossible. Moreover, no Registry Return Card was presented by ABC. 9. The following requested documents were not produced by ABC allegedly because they could not be located:
A. Copy of the radio message dated July 27, 1992 mentioned above; B. Copy of the records of payment of Pedro Diaz; C. Copy of the records of the second availment of the loan as stated in the radio

message; and D. Proof of the highest bidder in the auction sale.

10. On September 2, 2002, the Spouses Cruz, through counsel, wrote another letter, this time

to the ABC Main Office in Manila (ABCM for short), requesting confirmation of the authenticity and genuineness of the radio message dated July 27, 1992, as well as clarification of its contents.
11. Consequently, ABCM, through Senior Vice President Araneta, through a letter 2 dated

September 26, 2002, replied in the following manner:

A. Based on their verification with their Palawan Branch Office, the radio

communication cannot be located despite diligent search; thus, they cannot confirm nor deny, much less attest to its genuineness.
B. Assuming the document exists, the same is confidential. C. Upon perusal of available records, the following were confirmed: 1. The Spouses Diaz were granted by ABC Palawan a P300,000.00 loan on

October 16, 1981 secured by an 11,0814 hectare piece of land registered in

the name of Maria.

2. The loan was fully paid sometime in 1982. 3. An Amended Mortgage and the corresponding Promissory Notes were

executed by the Spouses Diaz on June 28, 1982 and the same documents were signed by the Spouses Cruz on June 22, 1982 (six days earlier?).
4. The loan proceeds were availed of on June 28, 1982. 5. Due to non-payment, the account was foreclosed and the mortgaged

property was sold at public auction on June 22, 1984.

6. Both the Spouses Cruz and the Spouses Diaz were duly notified of the

foreclosure, the sale, and the expiration of the period of redemption.

7. On September 27, 1985, the title over the property was consolidated in the

name of ABC.
8. In 1986, the property was sold to one, Mr. Florante.

9. ABC records did not show who actually received and used the loan proceeds in both loans.
12. Sometime in July 2003, Juan came upon Alberto, then already seated as Commissioner

of Audit of Manila, who confirmed to the former the following:

A. That he was the head of the Office of the Legal Counsel of ABC Main Office

from February 3, 1990 to June 15, 1994; and B. That sometime in July 1992, a copy of a radio message from ABC Palawan Branch to ABC Main Office at Manila was furnished the Office of the Legal Counsel.
13. Albertos statements were reduced into an affidavit, to which is attached the subject radio

message. A careful perusal of the attachment reveals that such radio message is essentially the same as the radio message acquired by Juan dated July 27, 1992 that came into the possession of Juan. II. THE APPARENT INCONSISTENCIES AND IRREGULARITIES IN THE ACTS, PROCEEDINGS AND DOCUMENTS OF ABC BANK

14. There are glaring inconsistencies in the contents of the ABC documents pertinent to this

case. More particularly, they are those found in: 1) the two Promissory Notes executed by the Spouses Cruz and Spouses Diaz; 2) the Amendment to the Mortgage Contract; 3) the Radio Message dated July 27, 1992; and 4) the letter from ABC Senior Vice President Araneta, dated September 26, 2002.
15. At the outset, it should be borne in mind that the loan proceeds were to be delivered to

the Spouses Diaz exclusively. This is evident from the provisions in the Promissory Note dated October 21, 1981, corresponding to the first real estate mortgage entered into by the Spouses Diaz, secured by the property of the Spouses Cruz, which provides as follows: Please issue the check/s covering the proceeds of this note in the name of Pedro Diaz and/or Ana Diaz only.
16. In the Amendment of Mortgage dated June 22, 1982, it was expressly stated that, as of

such date, the first loan was still outstanding and, therefore, the amendment to the mortgage is purportedly a renewal of the mortgage contract. Said Amended Mortgage Contract states that: WHEREAS, the MORTGAGEE has granted an Operating Capital Loan of Three Hundred Thousand and 00/100 (P300,000.00) Philippine Currency, in favor of the MORTGAGORS purposely an operating capital for his existing transportation business, secured by a first mortgage on a parcel of land located at Puerto Princesa City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1234 of the Land Records of the City of Puerto Princesa, as evidenced by the mortgage contract executed by the Mortgagors at Puerto Princesas City on October 21, 1981, and on October 26, 1981, duly registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Pueto Princesa City, under Act No. 496 as Entry No. 18019 and which is still outstanding in the principal sum of P300,000.00: . . . . .(Emphasis supplied) WHEREAS, the MORTGAGEE, upon the request of the MORTGAGORS has approved the renewal of the loan of P300, 000.00 in favor of the MORTGAGORS to be used exclusively as Operating Capital for their existing business(Emphasis supplied)
17. The foregoing clearly purports and shows that on June 22, 1982, the first loan, secured by

the Spouses Cruzs property by virtue of the Original Mortgage Contract dated October 21 and 26, 1981, had not yet been paid.
18. Despite the amendment/renewal of the mortgage contract, the promissory note

corresponding to such second mortgage still mandates that the proceeds of the second loan should be delivered to the Spouses Diaz. This is settled in the provision in the Promissory Note dated June 28, 1982, which provides in part as follows:

Please issue the check/s covering the proceeds of this note in the name of Pedro Diaz and/or Ana Diaz.
19. The irregularity on the matter is buttressed by the contents of the radio message dated

July 27, 1992. Said message confirms that SEVERAL, not only two, loan accommodations were granted by ABC to PD TRANSPORT CO. (possibly in its juridical capacity), not to Diaz. Purportedly, the last account availed of by PD TRANSPORT CO. was fully paid on July 23, 1984 with satisfactory credit handling and repayment. This goes to show that the debtor in these loan accommodations had been religious in its payments. The radio message dated July 27, 1992 reads as follows: PD TRANSPORT CO., OWNED BY PEDRO DIAZ WAS GRANTED SEVERAL LOAN ACCOMMODATIONS BY THIS BRANCH MAINLY TO FINANCE ACQUISITION OF BUS UNITS. LAST ACCOUNT AVAILED OF WAS FULLY PAID ON JULY 23, 1984 WITH SATISFACTORY CREDIT HANDLING AND REPAYMENT. MR. DIAZ HAS ALSO AVAILED OF A P300,000.00 WORKING CAPITAL LOAN ON DECEMBER 1981 SECURED BY THE PROPERTY OWNED BY JUAN CRUZ. FIRST AVAILMENT PROCEEDS WAS USED BY MR. DIAZ AND FULLY PAID ON MAY 29, 1982. SECOND AVAILMENT PROCEEDS WAS USED BY ACCOMMODATING MORTGAGOR WHICH WAS NOT PAID ON DUE DATE AND THE ACCOUNT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FORECLOSED. THE LOT COLLATERAL HAS ALREADY BEEN BIDDED AND SOLD IN 1986. (Emphasis supplied)
20. However, in relation to his letter, SVP Araneta has confirmed that The (second) loan

proceeds were availed of on June 28, 1982. Due to non-payment, the account was foreclosed and sold in public auction on June 22, 1984. If the writer of this message was in fact referring to Pedro Diaz, and not to PD TRANSPORT CO., in these first two sentences, there is an utter contradiction. How can there be a foreclosure and public auction on June 22, 1984 when the loan was fully paid on July 23, 1984?
21. In the third sentence of the radio message, the writer appears to refer to a specific Mr.

Diaz as a person distinct from PD TRANSPORT. Thus: MR. DIAZ HAS ALSO AVAILED OF A P300 MILLION [SIC] WORKING CAPITAL LOAN ON DECEMBER 1981 SECURED BY THE PROPERTY OWNED BY Juan Cruz. FIRST AVAILMENT PROCEEDS WAS USED BY MR. Diaz AND FULLY PAID ON MAY 29, 1982. SECOND AVAILMENT PROCEEDS WAS USED BY ACCOMMODATING MORTGAGOR WHICH WAS NOT PAID ON DUE DATE AND THE ACCOUNT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FORECLOSED. THE LOT COLLATERAL HAS ALREADY BEEN BIDDED AND SOLD IN 1986. (Emphasis supplied)

22. Furthermore, the message refers to Juan as the owner of the property mortgaged when it

is apparent that the real owner thereof, as appearing in all the pertinent documents, is Maria.
23. The conflict is made more apparent by the statement here that the first availment

proceeds were used by Mr. Diaz and fully paid on May 29, 1982. This is in complete collision with the statement in the Amended Mortgage that, as of June 22, 1982, the same account was still outstanding.
24. Moreover, to countenance the statement in this message that the second availment

proceeds was used by the accommodation mortgagor is to completely disregard the provision in the promissory corresponding to the Amended Mortgage that the proceeds of said loan should be delivered to the Spouses Diaz.
25. The letter from ABC Senior Vice President Araneta dated September 26, 2002 further

worsens the confusion. First of all, he stated that on October 16, 1981, ABC Palawan granted a P300,000.00 loan to the Spouses Diaz secured by the property of Spouses Cruz. Araneta further stated that The loan was fully paid sometime in 1982 and was subsequently renewed. This may find support in the statements in the radio message that the first availment proceeds were used by Mr. Diaz and fully paid on May 29, 1982. However, this is a clear departure from the statement in the Amended Mortgage that, as of June 22, 1982, the same amount was still outstanding. III. THE CAUSES OF ACTION OF THE SPOUSES CRUZ AGAINST ABC
26. The foregoing facts clearly yield the following principal causes of action of the Spouses

Cruz against ABC and its co-conspirators and/or collaborators: FIRST: that ABC, patently conspiring and collaborating with others, illegally and wantonly deprived the Spouses Cruz of their title and ownership over subject land by:
A. Falsifying the mortgage documents (including the acknowledgments)

covering subject property belonging to the Spouses Cruz to make it appear that they properly and legally executed a second mortgage over the property in favor of ABC that led to the foreclosure, likewise illegal, of the property;
B. Forging the signatures on the documents covering the false second

mortgage transaction in question;

C. Turning a blind eye on the legal infirmities of the questioned mortgage

transaction;

D. Fraudulently preventing the Spouses Cruz from, firstly, avoiding the

foreclosure of subject property and, subsequently, from exercising their right of redemption after subject property was foreclosed;
E. Causing the foreclosure of subject property without observing the legal,

procedural and due process requirements therefor, thereby effectively resulting in the unlawful confiscation of the Spouses Cruzs property; and F. Committing other fraudulent acts that eventually led to the passing of the title to a third party, who appears to be a party to the conspiracy against the Spouses Cruz. Second: that, as a consequence of the unlawful deprivation of their property as described above, the Spouses Cruz suffered actual damages in a gross amount equivalent to the existing market value of the property, plus business opportunity losses and the legal fees and investigation expenses incurred by the spousesin addition to moral and exemplary damages. IV. PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE
27. The provisions of law that will support the case of the Spouses Cruz are primarily the

Civil Code provisions on Contracts and Obligations, particularly Articles 1170, 1171, and 1172, which read as follows: Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. Art. 1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void. Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances. as well as the Civil Code provisions on damages, particularly Articles 2200, 2201, 2205 and 2220, which read as follows: Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. "Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.

In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the nonperformance of the obligation. "Art. 2205. Damages may be recovered:
1. "For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or

permanent personal injury;"

2. "For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit.

Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. The provisions of the Civil Code on Quasi Delict, particularly Art. 2194, quoted below, may also be invoked in those instances where ABC is guilty of fault or negligence by its act or omission which resulted in damage to the Spouses Cruz. Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasidelict is solidary. In addition to the above, the provisions of Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code are also applicable. These read as follows: "Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
3. "Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; 4. "Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or

proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; xxx

5. "Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

xxx
6. "Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which

changes its meaning;

xxx

xxx

x x x"

Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
7. "Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications

enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document; and 8. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article. Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree. V. LEGAL REMEDIES
28. The legal remedies available to the Spouses Cruz in light of the foregoing are as follows: A. A civil suit for damages against ABC and all the government officials and private

persons (possibly including the Diaz spouses) who collaborated with ABC in the questioned transactions based on the abovementioned causes of action. The particular suit is suggested as against recovery of the property because in the latter alternative, it would be more difficult to prove that the present title holder/s of the property were all purchasers in bad faith. However, we are not closing our door to this alternative.
B. A complaint filed with either the Senate or the House of Representatives for

investigation of the questionable operations of ABCPP and the procedures observed by ABC Main office in cases of this nature.
C. Possible graft case/s against the ABC and other government officials and

employees, as well as private parties, involved in the case