These consolidated petitions involve a parcel of agricultural land over which the 14 tenants-cultivators (petitioners in G.R. No. 108591 and respondents in G.R. Nos. 106615, 109452, 109978 and 139379) valiantly assert their right of redemption.   After more than two (2) decades since the petition for redemption was filed with the trial court, the contending parties are still squabbling for their respective interests in the subject land.   It is thus imperative that we write finis  to  these  cases.

The undisputed facts are:

The land in controversy is an agricultural lot planted to sugarcane, described as Lot No. 3664 of the San Fernando Cadastre, located at Barrio Maimpis, San Fernando, Pampanga.   It was formerly owned by spouses Roberto Wijangco and Asuncion Robles under T.C.T. No.  27507-R of the Registry of Deeds, same province.

On March 16, 1962, the Wijangcos mortgaged Lot No. 3664 and their other lots to the Philippine National Bank (PNB).   Unable to pay their indebtedness, the PNB foreclosed the mortgage contract.   In the auction sale that followed, the lots were awarded to PNB, being the highest bidder. On March 17, 1978, it was issued a Certificate of Sale.   Spouses Wijanngco failed to redeem the lots within the reglementary period, hence, ownership  thereof was consolidated in the name of PNB.  Several Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) were then issued to it by the Register of Deeds.  Among those titles is TCT No. 154516-R covering Lot No. 3664,^[1] which is the subject of this case.

On July 10, 1980, the PNB executed in favor of spouses Eligio and Marcelina Mallari (respondents in G.R. No. 108591 and petitioners in G.R. Nos. 106615, 109452, 109978 and 139379) a Deed of Promise to Sell ^[2] two (2) parcels of land, one of which is Lot No. 3664.   Pursuant to their agreement, the Mallari spouses paid PNB the sum of P473,000.00, or 20% of the purchase price, as down payment.  The balance of P1,892,000.00 was to be paid in three (3) equal yearly installments from 1981 to 1983.  The contract likewise provides that PNB shall retain ownership and title to the lots until the Mallari spouses shall have paid the last installment.

Before the Mallari spouses could pay the first amortization, the tenants of Lot No. 3664 tried to redeem it at P5,000.00 per hectare.   The spouses declined the offer, prompting the tenants to seek the assistance of the then Ministry (now Department) of Agrarian Reform in initiating the redemption with the request that the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) be called to finance the same.^[3]

On July 22, 1981, 27 tenants of Lot No. 3664 instituted Agrarian Case No. 1908 before the then Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR), Branch I at San Fernando, Pampanga.  This case was automatically absorbed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 46, also at San Fernando, Pampanga, upon abolition of the CAR.   The action sought to compel the Wijangco spouses (as the former owners), the PNB (as the mortgagee-transferee and vendor) and the Mallari spouses (as the vendees under the Deed of Promise to Sell) to allow the tenants to redeem their respective landholdings in Lot No. 3664, pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 3844 (The Agricultural Land Reform Code), as amended by Republic Act No. 6389 (The Code of Agrarian Reforms of the Philippines).

During the initial stage of the hearing before the RTC, 10 out of the 27 tenants entered into a compromise agreement with the Mallari spouses.   Subsequently, three (3) more tenants withdrew from the case, thereby leaving only 14 tenants as petitioners, namely:

1. Ignacio Arcega
2. Alfredo de Guzman
3. Ben Garcia
4. Celestino Magat
5. Juanito Vital
6. Percasio Catacutan
7. Torobia Manalo-Serrano
8. Celestina Torno
9. Marieta Jacinto
10. Vicente Mallari
11. Rafael Manalo
12. Juan Pangilinan
13. Lorenzo Manarang
14. Emilio de Mesa ^[4]

Meanwhile, on November 18, 1981, the above-named tenants (hereinafter referred to as Arcega, et al.) filed with the RTC a "Motion To Direct the Land Bank of the Philippines to Issue a Certificate of Availability of Funds" for the purpose of financing the redemption of their respective landholdings.   This motion was denied by the RTC in an Order dated December 24, 1981.^[5] In the said order, Arcega, et al.  were required to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for their failure to make a tender of payment and/or consignation.   Forthwith, they filed a motion for reconsideration.    During the hearing of this motion, they presented a Certification dated January 15, 1982^[6] issued by the LBP signed by its President, Mr. Basilio Estanislao, thus:

"CERTIFICATION TO FINANCE REDEMPTION OF ESTATE  UNDER  R.A. NO. 3844, AS  AMENDED

"This is to certify that the LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES shall finance the acquisition of the landholding situated in Bo. Maimpis, San Fernando, Pampanga, subject matter of a Redemption Case x x x docketed as CAR Case No. 1908-P '81, if found in consonance with the provisions of Section 12, Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, and with the relevant policies and procedures laid down by the Land Bank Board of Directors.

"Corresponding fund shall be set aside upon receipt of the order or directive from the Honorable Court and payment therefor shall be effected upon compliance with the Bank's Guidelines and Policies on the matter.

"Issued at Manila, this 15^th day of January, 1982."

Despite the above Certification, the RTC, in an Order dated January 27, 1982,^[7] denied Arcega, et al.'s motion for reconsideration and dismissed the petition for redemption on the ground that they failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirements of Section 12 of R.A. No. 3844 because (1) the Certification to Finance Redemption issued by the LBP is merely conditional, hence, did not constitute a valid consignation of the redemption price; and (2) the petition for redemption was filed beyond the 180-day reglementary period.

Arcega, et al. interposed an appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals [CA]), docketed therein as CA-G.R. No. SP-13807-CAR.  The CA ruled that it was not necessary for Arcega, et al. to tender payment and/or consign the redemption price as the Certification issued by the Land Bank will suffice; and that the exercise of the right of redemption was made within the 180-day period.^[8] The CA then set aside the assailed Order and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings.

Unsatisfied, the Mallari spouses challenged the CA Decision before this Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. L-61093.^[9] They maintained that the period of redemption had already prescribed and that  Arcega, et al. did not make any valid tender of payment or consignation of the redemption price.  This Court, through former Chief Justice Pedro L. Yap, denied the petition in a Decision dated May 25, 1988, holding that (1) Arcega, et al.'s right of redemption has not yet prescribed  because no notice in writing of the sale was ever given by the vendee upon the tenants as agricultural lessees of the land, as required by law;  and (2) that it is not necessary for the lessee to make a tender of payment and/or consignation of the amount of redemption price since the Certification issued by the Land Bank that it will finance the redemption of the property in question is sufficient compliance with Section 12 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended.   Pursuant to this Decision, the petition for redemption (Agrarian Case No. 1908) was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.

In November of 1989, pending the hearing of the agrarian case, the Mallari spouses filed 14 separate complaints against Arcega, et al. with the Provincial Adjudication Board of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Region III, docketed as DARAB Case Nos. 144-P '89 to 160-P '89.   The complaints sought the dissolution of the tenancy relationship between the Mallari spouses and Arcega, et al. and their payment of annual rentals corresponding to the six (6) agricultural crop years for the period from  1983-1984 to 1988-1989.

On June 18, 1990, the RTC issued an Order^[10]requiring Arcega, et al. to pay the back rentals for the said agricultural years in the aggregate  amount  of P 1,745,777.70.^[11]

On November 8, 1990, the RTC rendered a Decision dismissing for the second time Arcega, et al.'s petition for redemption, in utter disregard of the Decision of this Court in G.R. No. L-61093.

The pertinent portions of the RTC Decision  read:

"By way of resume, the denial of plaintiffs' Petition for Redemption of Lot No. 3664 is justified, both legally and factually, due to the following reasons:

1. In accordance with the existing law and jurisprudence, there was no valid tender of payment and consignation in court of the redemption price since the Land Bank Certification does not satisfy the requirements of Section 12 of Rep. Act No. 3844, as amended by Rep. Act No. 6389, and is not, in legal contemplation, the valid certification that complies with the requirements, policies, guidelines and rules and regulations of the Land Bank of the Philippines as prescribed  under its Circular Letter No. 3, dated February 25, 1980;
   
   
2. There is a dearth of competent and satisfactory evidence on the part of the plaintiffs establishing or fixing the reasonable amount of the redemption price as no evidence to this effect was presented by the plaintiffs during trial of the case and the testimony of plaintiff Rafael Manalo, standing alone, spelled no difference as the case has no leg of support to lean on; and
   
   
3. There exist uncontroverted, convincing and overwhelming evidence that the Petition for Redemption had already prescribed as it was filed beyond the 180-day period provided for under Section 12 of Rep. Act No. 3844, as amended by Rep. Act No. 6389.

"WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing premises and finding the Petition for Redemption filed by the plaintiffs over Lot No. 3664 of the San Fernando Cadastre, San Fernando, Pampanga to be without legal or factual merit, the said petition is hereby dismissed accordingly."^[12]

In due time, Arcega, et al. appealed the RTC Decision to the CA, docketed therein as CA-G.R. SP CAR 25209.   On June 9, 1992, the CA rendered a Decision  reversing the RTC Decision, thus:

"x x x questions regarding appellants' (Arcega, et al.) compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of Section 12, Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, were already passed upon by the Supreme Court (in the 1988 Mallari case) when it affirmed the CA's ruling which set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case to the court a quo for further proceedings.   What the RTC should have done, upon receipt of the record of the case, was to have resolved the question on the reasonable amount of the redemption price, nothing more."

x x x                                         x x x                                  x x x

"The RTC committed reversible error when it held appellants (Arcega, et al.) liable for back rentals of their respective landholdings for the period covered from agricultural crop years 1982-1983 up to 1989-1990.  Considering that they had validly and promptly exercised their right of redemption according to law, the Mallaris' claim for rentals must perforce fail.   Appellants cannot be compelled to pay rentals for the use of the landholdings in question of which they are deemed the cultivators-owners thereof from the time the Land Bank Certification was presented, which is equivalent to consignation or tender of payment in court.

x x x                                         x x x                                  x x x

"WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 08 November 1990, of the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Branch XLVI, San Fernando, Pampanga, is hereby SET ASIDE.  The record of the case is hereby REMANDED to the trial court only for the purpose of determining the price and consideration to be paid by plaintiffs-appellants for redeeming their respective landholdings, there being no convincing evidence in the record on the matter.  Let the Land Bank of the Philippines be impleaded as a party defendant."^[13]

On September 25, 1992, spouses Mallari filed with this Court the present petition for review on certiorari challenging the CA Decision, docketed as G.R. No. 106615.    They submit the same issue passed upon by this Court in G.R. No. L-61093, i. e., whether or not Arcega, et al. complied with the jurisdictional requirements of Section 12 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by R.A. No. 6389, on valid tender of payment and consignation and on the timely exercise of their right of redemption.

On February 4, 1993, pending our resolution of G.R. No. 106615, Arcega, et al. filed directly with this Court a special civil action for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary mandatory injunction, docketed as G.R. No. 108591.^[14] The petition assails the following orders of the trial court:

1. Order dated November 3, 1992 granting the Mallari spouses' "Motion to Turn Over/Deliver Funds in Sheriff's Custody";
   
   
2. Order dated November 12, 1992 granting the said spouses' "Motion to Guard Sugar Cane Production in the Disputed Landholdings";
   
   
3. Order dated December 2, 1992 denying Arcega, et al.'s motion for reconsideration of the October 22, 1992 order which directed Sheriff Anastacio C. Dizon to turn over the net proceeds of the sugar cane production for the crop year 1991-1992 to the OIC and Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC; and
   
   
4. Order dated January 14, 1993 denying Arcega, et al.'s motion for reconsideration of the order dated November 12, 1992.

Meanwhile, on June 5, 1991, the Provincial Adjudication Board of the DAR rendered a Decision in DARAB Case Nos. 144-P '89 to 160-P '89 (for dissolution of tenancy relationship between Arcega, et al. and the spouses Mallari) in favor of the spouses Mallari.  Arcega, et al. appealed the said decision to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), docketed as DARAB Case No. 0397.   Eventually, on January 6, 1993, the DARAB rendered a Decision setting aside the June 5, 1991 Decision of the Provincial Adjudication Board and ordering it to hold in abeyance action on the cases until such time that the petition for redemption shall have been finally resolved by this Court.  This DARAB decision was upheld by the CA in a Decision dated March 10, 1993,^[15] which noted that "the holding in abeyance of the DARAB cases is the prudent and proper course to take in the meantime" in view of the pendency of G.R. No. 106615 before this Court.  This prompted spouses Mallari to file with this Court another petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G. R. No. 109452.

On June 2, 1993, the Mallari spouses filed with this Court their third petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 109978, this time challenging the CA Decision dated April 30, 1993.^[16] This CA decision set aside, for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, the RTC a) Order dated February 5, 1992 requiring Arcega, et al. to render an accurate accounting or report on the number of truckloads/tons of sugarcane produced from their landholdings for the crop year 1991-1992;  and,  b) Order dated May 14, 1992 directing them to deliver to spouses Mallari their shares in the sugarcane production by way of annual rentals for the agricultural crop year 1991-1992.

Disregarding the above pending incidents, the RTC, on November 4, 1994, issued an Order^[17] granting the Mallari spouses' motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution of the Order dated June 18, 1990 directing Arcega, et al. to pay the couple P1,745,777.70 as rentals for the agricultural years 1982-1983 to 1989-1990.  Thereupon, Arcega, et al. filed with the CA a petition for certiorari impugning the said November 4, 1994 RTC Order.  On July 9, 1999, the CA rendered a Decision^[18] holding that the issue on the payment of the redemption price is pending resolution by this Court (for the second time) in G.R. No. 106615.   Consequently, spouses Mallari filed with this Court their fourth petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 139379 assailing the said CA Decision.

Following is the enumeration of the present consolidated petitions specifying the issues involved.

In G.R. No. 106615, spouses Mallari question the June 9, 1992 CA Decision reversing the RTC Decision dated November 8, 1990 which dismissed for the second time Arcega, et al.'s petition for redemption in Agrarian Case No. 1908.  The issue here is whether or not the LBP Certification to Finance the Redemption is a sufficient compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of Section 12, R.A. No. 3844, as amended; and whether or not the period to redeem has expired.

In G.R. No. 108591, Arcega, et al. assail the validity of the RTC Orders dated November 3, 1992, November 12, 1992, December 2, 1992 and January 14, 1993 which recognize spouses Mallari's right to demand payment of back rentals for the agricultural crop year 1991-1992.  In effect, the said orders held that Arcega, et al. failed to exercise their right of redemption.

In G.R. No. 109542, spouses Mallari contend that the CA, in its March 10, 1993 Decision, erred in affirming the DARAB Decision suspending the proceedings in DARAB Case Nos. 144-P '89 to 160-P '89.

In G.R. No. 109978, spouses Mallari challenge the April 30, 1993 CA Decision reversing and setting aside the RTC Order dated February 5, 1992 which required Arcega, et al. to render an accounting on the sugarcane produced from their landholdings for the crop year 1991-1992; and the Order dated May 14, 1992 directing them to deliver to the Mallari spouses their shares corresponding to the agricultural crop year 1991-1992.   Both orders are again based on the RTC's finding that Arcega, et al. did not exercise their right of redemption.

In G.R.  No. 139379,  the Mallari spouses assail the validity of the July 9, 1999 CA Decision setting aside the RTC Order of November 4, 1994 which required Arcega, et al. to pay the couple back rentals for the agricultural years 1982-1983 to 1989-1990.

It bears stressing that the resolution of the issues raised in the present  consolidated petitions hinges on the determination of the issue in G.R. No. 106615, i. e., whether or not Arcega, et al. can exercise their right of redemption under Section 12, R.A. No. 3844, as amended.

Thus, we now consider G.R.  No. 106615.

It must be recalled that Arcega, et al.'s petition for redemption in Agrarian Case No. 1908 was first dismissed by the RTC on January 27, 1982, on the grounds that: (1) the Certification issued by the LBP did not constitute a valid consignation of the redemption price; and (2) the petition for redemption was filed beyond the 180-day period as required by law.    This order of dismissal was reversed by the CA which remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings.   However, the Mallari spouses challenged the CA decision before this Court in G.R. No. L-61093, raising the issue of whether or not Arcega, et al. complied with the jurisdictional requirements regarding tender of payment and consignation and their timely exercise of the right of redemption under Section 12 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by R.A. No. 6389.   Section 12 provides:

"SEC. 12.       Lessee's right of redemption. In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided, That where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him.  The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within one hundred eighty days from notice in writing which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform upon the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption.  The redemption price shall be the reasonable price of the land at the time of the sale.

x x x                                         x x x                                  x x x

"The Department of Agrarian Reform shall initiate, while the Land Bank shall finance said redemption as in the case of pre-emption." (Emphasis ours)

This Court, in G.R. No. L-61093, affirmed the CA decision, and resolved the said issue in favor of  Arcega, et al., thus:

"Petitioners' (Mallari spouses) contention is without merit.  If the tenants (the herein private respondents) had the right to redeem the property under the law upon the sale of the property to PNB in 1978, such right of redemption has not yet prescribed because no notice in writing of the sale was ever given by the vendee upon the tenants as agricultural lessees of the land, as required by law.   The PNB was made a party-defendant in the petition for redemption filed by private respondents (tenants) with the Court of Agrarian Relations, and the PNB has not appealed the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court holding that the private respondents had the right to redeem the property as the agricultural lessees thereof.   Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, being the transferee of the land in question by virtue of the unregistered deed of conditional sale, they can not claim that the tenants, as agricultural lessees of the land, have no cause of action against them simply because the deed of conditional sale executed in their favor by the PNB has not yet been registered.

"Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, prescribes the period within which the right of redemption must be exercised by the agricultural lessees, which is one hundred eighty days from written notice from the vendee of the property upon registration of the sale.  But certainly there is nothing in the law which provides that without such written notice, the agricultural lessees can not exercise their right of redemption.

x x x                                         x x x                                  x x x

"The appellate court correctly ruled that it is not necessary for the lessee to make a tender of payment and/or consignation of the amount of redemption price, and that a certification issued by the Land Bank that it will finance the redemption of the property in question is sufficient.  x x x.

"Section 11 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, is a provision on the lessee's right of pre-emption and provides that: 'x x x If the agricultural lessee agrees with the terms and condition of the sale x x x [he] must either tender payment of, or present a certificate from the Land Bank that it shall make payment x x x on the price of the landholding to the agricultural lessor.   If the latter refuses to accept such tender or presentment, he may consign it with the court x x x.'  True, said provision does not appear in Section 12 thereof, which refers to the lessees' right of redemption.    However, there is no doubt that within the context of the Code and in line with this Court's exhortation that a liberal interpretation of the Code's provisions is imperative, to give it full force and effect to its clear intent, the lessee-preemptioner and the lessee-redemptioner have the same rights and are in the same footing and category insofar as the availment of the facilities of the Land Bank and the Ministry of Agrarian Reform are concerned.  Moreover, it is explicitly provided in Section 12 that 'the Department of Agrarian Reform shall initiate while the Land Bank shall finance, said redemption as in the case of pre-emption.'  Hence, it is not necessary for tenants-redemptioners to make a tender of payment and/or consignation of the redemption price. A certification from the Land Bank to finance the redemption when presented will suffice. x x x.

"Accordingly, finding the petition without merit, the same is hereby DISMISSED, with costs against petitioner.

"SO ORDERED."^[19] (Emphasis Ours)

In violation of this Court's ruling, the RTC, through Judge Norberto Ponce, rendered the November 8, 1990 Decision dismissing for the second time Arcega, et al.'s petition for redemption based on the very same grounds which were already passed upon and rejected by this Court in G.R. No. L-61093.

Expectedly, Arcega, et al. again appealed to the CA the RTC Decision, invoking this Court's pronouncement in G.R. No. L-61093.   The CA, in its June 9, 1992 Decision, stressed that the questions relative to  Arcega, et al.'s compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of Section 12, Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, were already passed upon by this Court in G.R. No. L-61093; and that what the RTC should have done upon receipt of the records was to resolve the question on the reasonable amount of the redemption price, nothing more.

The CA is correct.

We are dismayed by RTC Judge Norberto C. Ponce's non-adherence to our ruling in  G.R. No. L-61093.  The instant petition involving the same issues passed upon in G.R. L-61093 should not have reached this Court once more.   A lower court cannot reverse or set aside the decisions or orders of a superior court, especially of this Court, for to do so will nullify the essence of review and negate the principle of hierarchy of courts.   Judge Ponce should know that it is the duty of the lower courts to obey the Decisions of this Court and render obeisance to its status as the apex of hierarchy of courts.    For "there is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts should take their bearings," as eloquently declared by Justice J.B.L. Reyes.^[20]

It appears from the records that the LBP, through a letter dated September 11, 1992, signed by its President, Mr. Jesli A. Lapus, cancelled the LBP Certification of January 15, 1982.   According to the RTC, in its Order dated November 3, 1992, this supervening event brushed aside and laid to rest the claim of Arcega, et al. to the subject landholdings.

The RTC ruling is erroneous.   It should not have dismissed Arcega, et al.'s petition for redemption.  As correctly held by the CA, Arcega, et al. "are deemed the cultivators-owners of their respective landholdings" under R.A. 3844, as amended, from the time the Land Bank Certification dated January 15, 1982 was presented to the RTC on January 20,1982; and that the said Certification "is equivalent to a consignation or tender of payment in court."^[21] Thus, the subsequent cancellation by the LBP of its earlier Certification cannot affect the right already acquired by Arcega, et al. as agricultural lessees under R.A. No. 3844, as amended.  We have sustained such right in our Decision in G.R. No. L-61093 which has acquired the character of res judicata and can no longer be challenged.

The RTC further noted that inasmuch as the LBP was not impleaded as a party in the Agrarian Case No. 1908, no judgment of the court could be "binding and enforceable against the Land Bank," since the court a quo "had never, at any stage of the proceedings, acquired jurisdiction on the Land Bank."

The LBP is the agency of the Government mandated to finance the redemption under Section 12 of R.A. No.  3844, as amended by R.A. No. 6389, hence, should be impleaded in Agrarian Case No. 1908.   Under Section 11, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, the trial court is empowered to drop or add a party to the case, upon motion of any party "or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just."

WHEREFORE:

1. The petitions of spouses Mallari in G.R. Nos. 106615, 109452, 109978 and 139379 are DENIED and the assailed Decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP CAR No. 25209, CA-G.R. SP No. 30085, CA-G.R. SP-No. 30887 and CA-G.R. SP Case No. 36100 are AFFIRMED;
   
   
2. The petition of Arcega, et al. in G.R. No. 108591 is GRANTED and the appealed RTC Orders dated November 3, 1992, November 12, 1992, December 2, 1992 and January 14, 1993 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE;
   
   
3. The RTC is ORDERED to implead the LBP in Agrarian Case No. 1908;
   
   
4. Agrarian Case No. 1908 is REMANDED to the RTC, Branch 46, San Fernando Pampanga for further proceedings with dispatch; and
   
   
5. The RTC is further ORDERED to submit to this Court a progress report of the status of Agrarian Case No. 1908 every 3 months until this Court's Decision is fully implemented.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, (Chairman), Panganiban, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., abroad on official business.

---

^[1] Rollo of G. R. No. 106615, pp. 39-40.

^[2] Ibid., pp. 607-608.

^[3] Ibid., p. 40.

^[4] Ibid., pp. 103-143.

^[5] RTC Records, Volume I, pp. 178-181.

^[6] Rollo of G.R. No. 106615, p. 82.

^[7] RTC Records, Vol. I, pp. 227-232.

^[8] Rollo of G.R. No. 106615, p. 41.

^[9] Mallari vs. Court of Appeals, 161 SCRA 503 (1988).

^[10] RTC Records, Vol. IV, pp. 1004-1009.

^[11] Broken down as follows:

1.  Ignacio Arcega	P  81,095.65
2.  Percasio Catacutan	165,057.54
3.  Ben Garcia	74,259.25
4.  Alfredo de Guzman	91,035.52
5.  Marieta Jacinto	152,116.31
6.  Celestino Magat	102,475.46
7.  Vicente Mallari	94,309.28
8.  Rafael Manalo	158,971.47
9.  Lorenzo Manarang	140,662.02
10. Emilio de Mesa	133,508.11
11. Juan Pangilinan	118,601.04
12. Torobia Serrano	94,949.14
13. Celestina Torno	170,031.80
14. Juanito Vital	168,705.23
	____________
Total	P 1,745,777.70

^[12] Rollo of G.R. No. 106615, pp. 142-143.

^[13] Ibid., pp. 49-51.

^[14] Rollo of G.R. No. 108591, pp. 2-18.

^[15] Rollo of G.R. No. 109452, pp.-29-34.

^[16] Rollo of G.R. No. 109978, pp. 25-34.

^[17] Rollo of G.R. No. 139379, pp.36-37.

^[18] Ibid., pp. 32-35.

^[19] Mallari vs. Court of Appeals, supra, pp. 508-510.

^[20] Albert vs. Court of First Instance of Manila, 23 SCRA 948 (1968).

^[21] Rollo of G.R. No. 106615, p. 50, citing Baltazar vs. Court of Appeals, 104 SCRA 619 (1981).