III h.1 Baranda

7/29/2019 III h.1 Baranda

1/29

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 81163 September 26, 1988

EDUARDO S. BARANDA and ALFONSOHITALIA, petitioners,

vs.HONORABLE JUDGE TITO GUSTILO,ACTING REGISTER OF DEEDS AVITOSACLAUSO, HONORABLE COURT OFAPPEALS, and ATTY. HECTOR P.TEODOSIO, respondents.

Eduardo S. Baranda for petitioners.

Rico & Associates for private respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia werethe petitioners in G.R. No. 64432 and theprivate respondents in G.R. No. 62042. Thesubject matter of these two (2) cases and theinstant case is the same a parcel of land


2/29

designated as Lot No. 4517 of the CadastralSurvey of Sta. Barbara, Iloilo covered byOriginal Certificate of Title No. 6406.

The present petition arose from the samefacts and events which triggered the filing ofthe earlier petitions. These facts and eventsare cited in our resolution dated December 29,1983 in G.R. No. 64432, as follows:

. . . This case has its origins in apetition for reconstitution of title filedwith the Court of First Instance of Iloiloinvolving a parcel of land known asLot No. 4517 of the Sta. BarbaraCadastre covered by Original

Certificate of Title No. 6406 in thename of Romana Hitalia. Eventually,Original Certificate of Title No. 6406was cancelled and Transfer Certificateof Title No. 106098 was issued in thenames of Alfonso Hitalia and EduardoS. Baranda The Court issued a writ ofpossession which Gregorio Perez,Maria P. Gotera and Susana Silaorefused to honor on the ground thatthey also have TCT No. 25772 over


3/29

the same Lot No. 4517. The Court,after considering the privaterespondents' opposition and finding

TCT No. 25772 fraudulently acquired,ordered that the writ of possession becarried out. A motion forreconsideration having been denied, awrit of demolition was issued onMarch 29, 1982. Perez and Gotera

filed a petition for certiorari andprohibition with the Court of Appeals.On August 6, 1982, the Court ofAppeals denied the petition. Perezand Gotera filed the petition for reviewon certiorari denominated as G.R. No.62042 before the Supreme Court. Asearlier stated the petition was deniedin a resolution dated January 7,1983.The motion for reconsideration wasdenied in another resolution datedMarch 25, 1983, which also stated thatthe denial is final. This decision in

G.R. No. 62042, in accordance withthe entry of judgment, became final onMarch 25, 1983. The petitioners in theinstant case G.R. No. 64432--contend


4/29

that the writs of possession anddemolition issued in the respondentcourt should now be implemented;

that Civil Case No. 00827 before theIntermediate Appellate Court was filedonly to delay the implementation of thewrit; that counsel for the respondentshould be held in contempt of court forengaging in a concerted but futile

effort to delay the execution of thewrits of possession and demolitionand that petitioners are entitled todamages because of prejudice causedby the filing of this petition before theIntermediate Appellate Court. OnSeptember 26, 1983, this Court issueda Temporary Restraining Order ' tomaintain the status quo, both in theIntermediate Appellate Court and inthe Regional Trial Court of Iloilo.Considering that (l)there is merit in theinstant petition for indeed the issues

discussed in G.R. No. 64432 as raisedin Civil Case No. 00827 before therespondent court have already beenpassed upon in G.R. No. 62042; and


5/29

(2) the Temporary Restraining Orderissued by the Intermediate AppellateCourt was only intended not to render

the petition moot and academicpending the Court's consideration ofthe issues, the Court RESOLVED toDIRECT the respondent IntermediateAppellate Court not to takecognizance of issues already resolved

by this Court and accordinglyDISMISS the petition in Civil Case No.00827. Immediate implementation ofthe writs of possession and demolitionis likewise ordered. (pp. 107-108,Rollo G.R. No. 64432)

On May 9, 1984, the Court issued a resolutiondenying with finality a motion forreconsideration of the December 29, 1983resolution in G.R. No. 64432. On this samedate, another resolution was issued, this timein G.R. No. 62042, referring to the Regional

Trial Court of Iloilo the ex-parte motion of theprivate respondents (Baranda and Hitalia) forexecution of the judgment in the resolutionsdated January 7, 1983 and March 9, 1983. Inthe meantime, the then Intermediate Appellate


6/29

Court issued a resolution dated February 10,1984, dismissing Civil Case No. 00827 whichcovered the same subject matter as the

Resolutions above cited pursuant to ourResolution dated December 29, 1983. Theresolution dated December 29, 1983 in G.R.No. 64432 became final on May 20, 1984.

Upon motions of the petitioners, the RegionalTrial Court of Iloilo, Branch 23 presided byJudge Tito G. Gustilo issued the followingorder:

Submitted are the following motionsfiled by movants Eduardo S. Barandaand Alfonso Hitalia through counsel

dated August 28, 1984:(a) Reiterating Motion for Execution ofJudgment of Resolutions datedJanuary 7, 1983 and March 9, 1983Promulgated by Honorable SupremeCourt (First Division) in G.R. No.

62042;

(b) Motion for Execution of Judgmentof Resolution dated December 29,1983 Promulgated by Honorable


7/29

Supreme Court (First Division) in G.R.No. 64432;

(c) The Duties of the Register ofDeeds are purely ministerial under Act496, therefore she must register allorders, judgment, resolutions of thisCourt and that of Honorable SupremeCourt.

Finding the said motions meritoriousand there being no opposition thereto,the same is hereby GRANTED.

WHEREFORE, Transfer Certificate ofTitle No. T-25772 is hereby declarednull and void and Transfer Certificate

of Title No. T-106098 is herebydeclared valid and subsisting titleconcerning the ownership of EduardoS. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia, all ofSta. Barbara Cadastre.

The Acting Register of Deeds of Iloilois further ordered to register theSubdivision Agreement of Eduardo S.Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia as prayedfor." (p. 466, Rollo--G.R. No. 64432)


8/29

The above order was set aside on October 8,1984 upon a motion for reconsideration andmanifestation filed by the Acting Registrar of

Deeds of Iloilo, Atty. Helen P. Sornito, on theground that there was a pending case beforethis Court, an Action for Mandamus,Prohibition, Injunction under G.R. No. 67661filed by Atty. Eduardo Baranda, against theformer which remained unresolved.

In view of this development, the petitionersfiled in G.R. No. 62042 and G.R. No. 64432ex-parte motions for issuance of an orderdirecting the Regional Trial Court and ActingRegister of Deeds to execute and implementthe judgments of this Court. They prayed that

an order be issued:

1. Ordering both the Regional TrialCourt of Iloilo Branch XXIII, underHon. Judge Tito G. Gustilo and theacting Register of Deeds Helen P.Sornito to register the Order datedSeptember 5, 1984 of the lower court;

2. To cancel No.T-25772. Likewise tocancel No.T-106098 and oncecancelled to issue new certificates of


9/29

title to each of Eduardo S. Barandaand Alfonso Hitalia;

Plus other relief and remediesequitable under the premises. (p. 473,64432 Rollo)

Acting on these motions, we issued onSeptember 17,1986 a Resolution in G.R. No.62042 and G.R. No. 64432 granting the

motions as prayed for. Acting on anothermotion of the same nature filed by thepetitioners, we issued another Resolutiondated October 8, 1986 referring the same tothe Court Administrator for implementation bythe judge below.

In compliance with our resolutions, theRegional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 23presided by Judge Tito G. Gustilo issued two(2) orders dated November 6,1986 andJanuary 6,1987 respectively, to wit:

O R D E R

This is an Ex-parte Motion andManifestation submitted by themovants through counsel on October


10/29

20, 1986; the Manifestation of Atty.Helen Sornito, Register of Deeds ofthe City of Iloilo, and formerly acting

register of deeds for the Province ofIloilo dated October 23, 1986 and theManifestation of Atty. Avito S.Saclauso, Acting Register of Deeds,Province of Iloilo dated November 5,1986.

Considering that the motion ofmovants Atty. Eduardo S. Barandaand Alfonso Hitalia dated August 12,1986 seeking the full implementationof the writ of possession was grantedby the Honorable Supreme Court,

Second Division per its Resolutiondated September 17,1986, the presentmotion is hereby GRANTED.

WHEREFORE, the Acting Register ofDeeds, Province of Iloilo, is herebyordered to register the Order of thisCourt dated September 5, 1984 asprayed for.

xxx xxx xxx


11/29

O R D E R

This is a Manifestation and Urgent

Petition for the Surrender of TransferCertificate of Title No. T-25772submitted by the petitioners Atty.Eduardo S. Baranda and AlfonsoHitalia on December 2, 1986, incompliance with the order of this Courtdated November 25, 1 986, a Motionfor Extension of Time to FileOpposition filed by Maria ProvidoGotera through counsel on December4, 1986 which was granted by theCourt pursuant to its order datedDecember 15, 1986. Considering that

no Opposition was filed within thethirty (30) days period granted by theCourt finding the petition tenable, thesame is hereby GRANTED.

WHEREFORE, Maria Provido Goterais hereby ordered to surrenderTransfer Certificate of Title No. T-25772 to this Court within ten (10)days from the date of this order, afterwhich period, Transfer Certificate of


12/29

Title No. T-25772 is hereby declaredannulled and the Register of Deeds ofIloilo is ordered to issue a new

Certificate of Title in lieu thereof in thename of petitioners Atty. Eduardo S.Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia, whichcertificate shall contain amemorandum of the annulment of theoutstanding duplicate. (pp. 286-287,

Rollo 64432)

On February 9, 1987, Atty. Hector Teodosio,the counsel of Gregorio Perez, privaterespondent in G.R. No. 64432 and petitionerin G.R. No. 62042, filed a motion forexplanation in relation to the resolution dated

September 17, 1986 and manifestation askingfor clarification on the following points:

a. As to the prayer of Atty. EduardoBaranda for the cancellation of TCT T-25772, should the same be referred tothe Court of Appeals (as mentioned inthe Resolution of November 27, 1985)or is it already deemed granted byimplication (by virtue of the Resolutiondated September 17, 1986)?


13/29

b. Does the Resolution datedSeptember 17, 1986 include not onlythe implementation of the writ of

possession but also the cancellation ofTCT T-25772 and the subdivision ofLot 4517? (p. 536, Rollo 4432)

Acting on this motion and the other motionsfiled by the parties, we issued a resolutiondated May 25, 1987 noting all these motionsand stating therein:

xxx xxx xxx

Since entry of judgment in G.R. No.62042 was made on January 7, 1983and in G.R. No. 64432 on May 30,

1984, and all that remains is theimplementation of our resolutions, thisCOURT RESOLVED to refer thematters concerning the execution ofthe decisions to the Regional TrialCourt of Iloilo City for appropriate

action and to apply disciplinarysanctions upon whoever attempts totrifle with the implementation of theresolutions of this Court. No furthermotions in these cases will be


14/29

entertained by this Court. (p. 615,Rollo-64432)

In the meantime, in compliance with theRegional Trial Court's orders dated November6, 1986 and January 6, 1987, Acting Registerof Deeds AvitoSaclauso annotated the orderdeclaring Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-25772 as null and void, cancelled the sameand issued new certificates of titles numbersT-111560, T-111561 and T-111562 in thename of petitioners Eduardo S. Baranda andAlfonso Hitalia in lieu of Transfer Certificate ofTItle No. T-106098.

However, a notice oflis pendens "on account

of or by reason of a separate case (Civil CaseNo. 15871) still pending in the Court ofAppeals" was carried out and annotated in thenew certificates of titles issued to thepetitioners. This was upheld by the trial courtafter setting aside its earlier order datedFebruary 12, 1987 ordering the cancellationoflis pendens.

This prompted the petitioners to file anothermotion in G.R, No. 62042 and G.R. No. 64432to order the trial court to reinstate its order


15/29

dated February 12, 1987 directing the ActingRegister of Deeds to cancel the notice oflispendensin the new certificates of titles.

In a resolution dated August 17, 1987, weresolved to refer the said motion to theRegional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 23for appropriate action.

Since respondent Judge Tito Gustilo of the

Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 23denied the petitioners' motion to reinstate theFebruary 12, 1987 order in another orderdated September 17, 1987, the petitionersfiled this petition for certiorari, prohibition andmandamus with preliminary injunction to

compel the respondent judge to reinstate hisorder dated February l2, 1987 directing theActing Register of Deeds to cancel the noticeoflis pendens annotated in the newcertificates of titles issued in the name of thepetitioners.

The records show that after the ActingRegister of Deeds annotated a notice ofispendens on the new certificates of titlesissued in the name of the petitioners, thepetitioners filed in the reconstitution case an


16/29

urgent ex-parte motion to immediately cancelnotice of lis pendens annotated thereon.

In his order dated February 12, 1987,respondent Judge Gustilo granted the motionand directed the Acting Register of Deeds ofIloilo to cancel the lis pendens found onTransfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-106098; T-111560; T-111561 and T-111562.

Respondent Acting Register of Deeds AvitoSaclauso filed a motion for reconsideration ofthe February 12, 1987 order stating therein:

That the undersigned hereby asks fora reconsideration of the said orderbased on the second paragraph of

Section 77 of P.D. 1529, to wit:

"At any time after finaljudgment in favor of thedefendant or other dispositionof the action such as toterminate finally all rights ofthe plaintiff in and to the landand/or buildings involved, inany case in which amemorandum or notice ofLis


17/29

Pendens has been registeredas provided in the precedingsection, the notice ofLis

Pendens shall be deemedcancelled upon the registrationof a certificate of the clerk ofcourt in which the action orproceeding was pendingstating the manner of disposal

thereof."

That the lis pendens under Entry No.427183 was annotated on T-106098,T-111560, T-111561 and T-111562 byvirtue of a case docketed as CivilCase No. 15871, now pending with

the Intermediate Court of Appeals,entitled, "Calixta Provido, RicardoProvido, Sr., Maria Provido andPerfecto Provido, Plaintiffs, versusEduardo Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia,Respondents."

That under the above-quotedprovisions of P.D. 152, thecancellation of subject Notice of LisPendens can only be made or


18/29

deemed cancelled upon theregistration of the certificate of theClerk of Court in which the action or

proceeding was pending, stating themanner of disposal thereof.

Considering that Civil Case No. 1587,upon which the Notice of Lis Pendenswas based is still pending with theIntermediate Court of Appeals, onlythe Intermediate Court of Appeals andnot this Honorable Court in a merecadastral proceedings can order thecancellation of the Notice of LisPendens. (pp. 68-69, Rollo)

Adopting these arguments and on the groundthat some if not all of the plaintiffs in CivilCase No. 15871 were not privies to the caseaffected by the Supreme Court resolutions,respondent Judge Tito Gustilo set aside hisFebruary 12, 1987 order and granted theActing Register of Deeds' motion forreconsideration.

The issue hinges on whether or not thependency of the appeal in Civil Case No.15871 with the Court of Appeals prevents the


19/29

court from cancelling the notice oflispendens in the certificates of titles of thepetitioners which were earlier declared valid

and subsisting by this Court in G.R. No. 62042and G.R. No. 64432. A corollary issue is onthe nature of the duty of a Register of Deedsto annotate or annul a notice oflis pendens ina torrens certificate of title.

Civil Case No. 15871 was a complaint to seekrecovery of Lot No. 4517 of Sta. BarbaraCadastre Iloilo, (the same subject matter ofG.R. No 62042 and G.R. No. 64432) frompetitioners Baranda and Hitalia filed by CalixtaProvido, Ricardo Provido, Maxima Providoand Perfecta Provido before the Regional Trial

Court of Iloilo, Branch 23. At the instance ofAtty. Hector P. Teodosio, the Provides'counsel, a notice of is pendens was annotatedon petitioners' Certificate of Title No. T-106098 covering Lot No. 4517, Sta. BarbaraCadastre.

Acting on a motion to dismiss filed by thepetitioners, the court issued an order datedOctober 24, 1984 dismissing Civil Case No.15871.


20/29

The order was then appealed to the Court ofAppeals. This appeal is the reason whyrespondent Judge Gustilo recalled the

February 12, 1987 order directing the ActingRegister of Deeds to cancel the notice of lispendens annotated on the certificates of titlesof the petitioners.

This petition is impressed with merit.

Maria Provido Gotera was one of thepetitioners in G.R. No. 62042. AlthoughCalixta Provido, Ricardo Provido, MaximaProvido and Perfecta Provido, the plaintiffs inCivil Case No. 15871 were not impleaded asparties, it is very clear in the petition that

Maria Provido was acting on behalf of theProvidos who allegedly are her co-owners inLot No. 4517, Sta. Barbara Cadastre asshown by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-25772 issued in her name and the names ofthe plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15871, amongothers. (Annex "E" G.R. No. 62042, p. 51,Rollo) In fact, one of the issues raised bypetitioners Maria Provido Gotera and GregoriaPerez in G.R. No. 62042 was as follows:

xxx xxx xxx


21/29

2. Whether or not, in the samereconstitution proceedings,respondent Judge Midpantao L. Adil

had the authority to declare as nulland void the transfer certificate of titlein the name of petitionerMariaProvido Gotera and her other co-owners. (p. 3, Rollo; Emphasissupplied)

It thus appears that the plaintiffs in Civil CaseNo. 15871 were privies to G.R. No. 62042contrary to the trial court's findings that theywere not.

G.R. No. 62042 affirmed the order of the then

Court of First Instance of Iloilo in thereconstitution proceedings declaring TCT No.25772 in the name of Providos over Lot No.4517, Sta. Barbara Cadastre null and void forbeing fraudulently obtained and declaring TCTNo. 106098 over the same parcel Lot No.4517, Sta. Barbara Cadastre in the name ofpetitioners Eduardo Baranda and AlfonsoHitalia valid and subsisting.


22/29

The decision in G.R. No. 62042 became finaland executory on March 25,1983 long beforeCivil Case No. 15871 was filed.

Under these circumstances, it is crystal clearthat the Providos, private respondents herein,in filing Civil Case No. 15871 were trying todelay the full implementation of the finaldecisions in G.R. No. 62042 as well as G.R.No. 64432 wherein this Court orderedimmediate implementation of the writs ofpossession and demolition in thereconstitution proceedings involving Lot No.4517, Sta. Barbara Cadastre.

The purpose of a notice oflis pendens is

defined in the following manner:Lis pendens has been conceived toprotect the real rights of the partycausing the registration thereof Withthe lis pendens duly recorded, hecould rest secure that he would not

lose the property or any part of it. For,notice of lis pendens serves as awarning to a prospective purchaser orincumbrancer that the particularproperty is in litigation; and that he


23/29

should keep his hands off the same,unless of course he intends to gambleon the results of the litigation. (Section

24, Rule 14, RuIes of Court; Jamora v.Duran, et al., 69 Phil. 3, 11; I Martin,Rules of Court, p. 415, footnote 3,citing cases.) (Natanov. Esteban, 18SCRA 481, 485-486)

The private respondents are not entitled tothis protection. The facts obtaining in this casenecessitate the application of the ruleenunciated in the cases of Victoriano v. Rovila(55 Phil. 1000), Municipal Council ofParanaque v. Court of First Instance ofRizal(70 Phil., 363) and Sarmiento v. Ortiz

(10 SCRA 158), to the effect that:

We have once held that whileordinarily a notice of pendency whichhas been filed in a proper case,cannot be cancelled while the action ispending and undetermined, the propercourt has the discretionary power tocancel it under peculiarcircumstances, as for instance, wherethe evidence so far presented by the


24/29

plaintiff does not bear out the mainallegations of his complaint, andwhere the continuances of the trial, for

which the plaintiff is responsible, areunnecessarily delaying thedetermination of the case to theprejudice of the defendant. (Victorianov. Rovira, supra; The MunicipalCouncil of Paranaque v. Court of First

Instance of Rizal, supra)

The facts of this case in relation to the earliercases brought all the way to the SupremeCourt illustrate how the private respondentstried to block but unsuccessfuly the alreadyfinal decisions in G.R. No. 62042 and G.R.

No. 64432.

Parenthetically, respondent Judge Tito Gustiloabused his discretion in sustaining therespondent Acting Register of Deeds' standthat, the notice oflis pendens in thecertificates of titles of the petitioners over LotNo. 4571, Barbara Cadastre cannot becancelled on the ground of pendency of CivilCase No. 15871 with the Court of Appeals. Inupholding the position of the Acting Register


25/29

of Deeds based on Section 77 of PresidentialDecree No. 1529, he conveniently forgot thefirst paragraph thereof which provides:

Cancellation of lis pendens. Beforefinal judgment, a notice oflispendens may be cancelled uponOrder of the Court after propershowing that the notice is for thepurpose of molesting the adverseparty, or that it is not necessary toprotect the rights of the party whocaused it to be registered. It may alsobe cancelled by the Register of Deedsupon verified petition of the party whocaused the registration thereof.

This Court cannot understand howrespondent Judge Gustilo could have beenmisled by the respondent Acting Register ofDeeds on this matter when in fact he was thesame Judge who issued the order dismissingCivil Case No. 15871 prompting the privaterespondents to appeal said order datedOctober 10, 1984 to the Court of Appeals. Therecords of the main case are still with thecourt below but based on the order, it can be


26/29

safely assumed that the various pleadingsfiled by the parties subsequent to the motionto dismiss filed by the petitioners (the

defendants therein) touched on the issue ofthe validity of TCT No. 25772 in the name ofthe Providos over Lot Number 4571, Sta.Barbara Cadastre in the light of the finaldecisions in G.R. No. 62042 and G.R. No.64432.

The next question to be determined is on thenature of the duty of the Register of Deeds toannotate and/or cancel the notice oflispendensin a torrens certificate of title.

Section 10, Presidential Decree No. 1529

states that "It shall be the duty of the Registerof Deeds to immediately register aninstrument presented for registration dealingwith real or personal property which complieswith all the requisites for registration. ... . If theinstrument is not registrable, he shall forthwithdeny registration thereof and inform thepresentor of such denial in writing, stating theground or reasons therefore, and advising himof his right to appeal by consulta inaccordance with Section 117 of this Decree."


27/29

Section 117 provides that "When the Registerof Deeds is in doubt with regard to the properstep to be taken or memoranda to be made in

pursuance of any deed, mortgage or otherinstrument presented to him for registration orwhere any party in interest does not agreewith the action taken by the Register of Deedswith reference to any such instrument, thequestion shall be submitted to the

Commission of Land Registration by theRegister of Deeds, or by the party in interestthru the Register of Deeds. ... ."

The elementary rule in statutory constructionis that when the words and phrases of thestatute are clear and unequivocal, their

meaning must be determined from thelanguage employed and the statute must betaken to mean exactly what it says. (Aparri v.Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 231; InsularBank of Asia and America Employees' Union[IBAAEU] v. Inciong, 132 SCRA 663) The

statute concerning the function of the Registerof Deeds to register instruments in a torrenscertificate of title is clear and leaves no roomfor construction. According to Webster's ThirdInternational Dictionary of the English


28/29

Language the word shallmeans "ought to,must, ...obligation used to express acommand or exhortation, used in laws,

regulations or directives to express what ismandatory." Hence, the function of a Registerof Deeds with reference to the registration ofdeeds encumbrances, instruments and thelike is ministerial in nature. The respondentActing Register of Deeds did not have any

legal standing to file a motion forreconsideration of the respondent Judge'sOrder directing him to cancel the notice oflispendensannotated in the certificates of titlesof the petitioners over the subject parcel ofland. In case of doubt as to the proper step tobe taken in pursuance of any deed ... orotherinstrumentpresented to him, he should haveasked the opinion of the Commissioner ofLand Registration now, the Administrator ofthe National Land Title and DeedsRegistration Administration in accordance withSection 117 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

In the ultimate analysis, however, theresponsibility for the delays in the fullimplementation of this Court's already finalresolutions in G.R. No. 62042 and G.R. No.


29/29

64432 which includes the cancellation of thenotice oflis pendensannotated in thecertificates of titles of the petitioners over Lot

No. 4517 of the Sta. Barbara Cadastre falls onthe respondent Judge. He should never haveallowed himself to become part of dilatorytactics, giving as excuse the wrong impressionthat Civil Case No. 15871 filed by the privaterespondents involves another set of parties

claiming Lot No. 4517 under their own TorrensCertificate of Title.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition isGRANTED. The February 12, 1987 order ofthe Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 23 isREINSTATED. All subsequent orders issued

by the trial court which annulled the February12, 1987 order are SET ASIDE. Costs againstthe private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ.,

concur.

III h.1 Baranda

Documents

Transcript of III h.1 Baranda