cause of the damage or injury was a fortuitous event.

When the
effect is found to be partly the result of the participation of man—
whether it be from active intervention, or neglect, or failure to act—
the whole occurrence is hereby humanized, and removed from the
rules applicable to acts of God.

22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

_______________
ANNOTATED
* THIRD DIVISION.
Southeastern College, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals
423
*
G.R. No. 126389. July 10, 1998.
VOL. 292, JULY 10, 1998 423
SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE, INC., petitioner,  vs.  COURT
OF APPEALS, JUANITA DE JESUS VDA. DE DIMAANO, Southeastern College, Inc. vs. Court of
EMERITA DIMAANO, REMEDIOS DIMAANO, Appeals
CONSOLACION DIMAANO and MILAGROS DIMAANO,
respondents.
Same;  Same;  Typhoons;  Words and Phrases;  “Negligence,”
Explained; There is no question that a typhoon or storm is a
Obligations and Contracts;  Fortuitous Events;  Words and fortuitous event, a natural occurrence which may be foreseen but is
Phrases; The antecedent of fortuitous event or caso fortuito is found unavoidable despite any amount of foresight, diligence or care.—
in the Partidas which defines it as “an event which takes place by There is no question that a typhoon or storm is a fortuitous event, a
accident and could not have been foreseen.”—The antecedent of natural occurrence which may be foreseen but is unavoidable
fortuitous event or  caso fortuito  is found in the  Partidas  which despite any amount of foresight, diligence or care. In order to be
defines it as “an event which takes place by accident and could not exempt from liability arising from any adverse consequence
have been foreseen.” Escriche elaborates it as “an unexpected event engendered thereby, there should have been no human
or act of God which could neither be foreseen nor resisted.” Civilist participation amounting to a negligent act. In other words, the
Arturo M. Tolentino adds that “[f]ortuitous events may be produced person seeking exoneration from liability must not be guilty of
by two general causes:  (1)by nature, such as earthquakes, storms, negligence. Negligence, as commonly understood, is conduct which
floods, epidemics, fires, etc. and  (2)  by the act of man, such as an naturally or reasonably creates undue risk or harm to others. It
armed invasion, attack by bandits, governmental prohibitions, may be the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution, and
robbery, etc.” vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, or the omission to
do something which a prudent and reasonable man, guided by
Same; Same; An act of God cannot be invoked for the protection considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human
of a person who has been guilty of gross negligence in not trying to affairs, would do. From these premises, we proceed to determine
forestall its possible adverse consequences.—In order that a whether petitioner was negligent, such that if it were not, the
fortuitous event may exempt a person from liability, it is necessary damage caused to private respondents’ house could have been
that he be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by avoided?
reason of which the loss may have been occasioned. An act of God
cannot be invoked for the protection of a person who has been guilty Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  Ocular Inspections;  Damages;  A
of gross negligence in not trying to forestall its possible adverse person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the
consequences. When a person’s negligence concurs with an act of burden of proving the existence of fault or negligence causative of his
God in producing damage or injury to another, such person is not injury or loss; As the term imparts, an ocular inspection is one by
exempt from liability by showing that the immediate or proximate means of actual sight or viewing—what is visual to the eye though,
is not always reflective of the real cause behind.—At the outset, it Moreover, the city building official, who has been in the city
bears emphasizing that a person claiming damages for the government service since 1974, admitted in open court that no
negligence of another has the burden of proving the existence of complaint regarding any defect on the same structure has ever been
fault or negligence causative of his injury or loss. The facts lodged before his office prior to the institution of the case at bench.
constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively established by It is a matter of judicial notice that typhoons are common
competent evidence, not merely by presumptions and conclusions occurrences in this country. If subject school building’s roofing was
without basis in fact. Private respondents, in establishing the not firmly anchored to its trusses, obviously, it could not have
culpability of petitioner, merely relied on the aforementioned report withstood long years and several typhoons even stronger than
submitted by a team which made an ocularinspection of petitioner’s “Saling.”
school building after the typhoon. As the term imparts,
an  ocular  inspection is one by means of actual sight or viewing. Same;  Same;  Damages;  It is not enough that the damage be
What is visual to the eye though, is not always reflective of the real capable of proof but must be actually proved with a reasonable
cause behind. For instance, one who hears a gunshot and then sees degree of certainty, pointing out specific facts that afford a basis for
a wounded person, cannot always definitely conclude that a third measuring whatever compensatory damages are borne.—Private
person shot the victim. It could have been self-inflicted or caused respondents failed to adduce adequate and competent proof of the
accidentally by a stray bullet. The relationship of cause and effect pecuniary loss they actually incurred. It is not enough that the
must be clearly shown. damage be capable of proof but must be actually proved with a
reasonable degree of certainty, pointing out specific facts that afford
a basis for measuring whatever compensatory damages are borne.
424
Private respondents merely submitted an estimated amount needed
for the repair of the roof of their subject building. What is more,
whether the “necessary repairs” were caused ONLY by petitioner’s
424 SUPREME COURT alleged negligence in the maintenance of its school building, or
REPORTS ANNOTATED included the ordinary wear and tear of the house itself, is an
essential question that remains indeterminable.
Southeastern College, Inc. vs. Court of
425
Appeals

VOL. 292, JULY 10, 1998 425

Same;  Same;  Same;  Building Permits;  Having obtained both
building permit and certificate of occupancy, these are, at the very Southeastern College, Inc. vs. Court of
least, prima facie evidence of the regular and proper construction of
Appeals
a building.—On the other hand, petitioner elicited from one of the
witnesses of private respondents, city building official Jesus Reyna,
that the original plans and design of petitioner’s school building PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court
were approved prior to its construction. Engr. Reyna admitted that of Appeals.
it was a legal requirement before the construction of any building to
obtain a permit from the city building official (city engineer, prior to The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
the passage of the Building Act of 1977). In like manner, after      Eladio B. Samson for petitioner.
construction of the building, a certification must be secured from      Galileo P. Brion for private respondents.
the same official attesting to the readiness for occupancy of the
edifice. Having obtained both building permit and certificate of PURISIMA, J.:
occupancy, these are, at the very least,  prima facieevidence of the
regular and proper construction of subject school building. Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
1
seeking to set aside 2 the Decision promulgated on July 31,
Same;  Same;  Same;  Judicial Notice;  It is a matter of judicial 1996, and Resolution dated September 12, 1996 of the Court
notice that typhoons are common occurrences in this country.—
3
 3
of Appeals  in CA-G.R. No. 41422, entitled “Juanita de Jesus Hence, there are portions of the roofing, those located
vda. de Dimaano, et al. vs. Southeastern College, Inc.,” which on both ends of the building, which remained intact
reduced the moral damages 4
awarded below from after the storm.
P1,000,000.00 to P200,000.00.  The Resolution under attack 6. Another factor and perhaps the most likely reason for
denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. the dislodging of the roofings structural trusses is the
Private respondents are owners of a house at 326 College improper anchorage of the said trusses to the roof
Road, Pasay City, while petitioner owns a four-storey school beams. The 1/2” diameter steel bars embedded on the
building along the same College Road. On October 11, 1989, concrete roof beams which serve as truss anchorage
at about 6:30 in the morning, a powerful typhoon “Saling” hit are not bolted nor nailed to the trusses. Still, there
Metro Manila. Buffeted by very strong winds, the roof of are other steel bars which were not even bent to the
petitioner’s building was partly ripped off and blown away, trusses, thus, those trusses are not anchored at all to
landing on and destroying portions of the roofing of private the roof beams.”
respondents’ house. After the typhoon had passed, an ocular
inspection of the destroyed buildings was conducted by a It then recommended that “to avoid any further loss and
team of engineers headed by the city buildings official, Engr. damage to lives, limbs and property of persons living in the
Jesus 5 L. Reyna. Pertinent aspects of the latter’s vicinity,” the fourth floor of subject school building be
Report  dated October 18, 1989 stated, as follows: declared as a “structural hazard.”
6
In their Complaint   before the Regional Trial Court of
_______________ Pasay City, Branch 117, for damages based on  culpa
1 Rollo,pp. 28-41.
aquiliana, private respondents alleged that the damage to
2 Ibid.,p. 42. their house rendered the same uninhabitable, forcing them
3  Seventh Division, composed of  J. Jose de la Rama,  ponente; with  JJ.
to stay temporarily in other’s houses. And so they sought to
Emeterio C. Cui (chairman) and Eduardo G. Montenegro, concurring. recover from petitioner P117,116.00, as actual damages,
4 CA Decision, p. 13; Rollo, p. 40.
5 Records, pp. 127-128. P1,000,000.00, as moral damages, P300,000.00, as exemplary
damages and P100,000.00, for and as attorney’s fees; plus
426 costs.
In its Answer, petitioner averred that subject school
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS building had withstood several devastating typhoons and
ANNOTATED other calamities in the past, without its roofing or any
portion thereof giving way; that it has not been remiss in its
Southeastern College, Inc. vs. Court of responsibility to see to it that said school building, which
Appeals houses school children, faculty members, and employees, is
“in tip-top condition”; and furthermore, typhoon “Saling” was
“an act of
“5. One of the factors that may have led to this
calamitous event is the formation of the buildings in
the area and the general direction of the wind. _______________
Situated in the peripheral lot is an almost U-shaped 6 Ibid., pp. 1-3.
formation of 4-storey building. Thus, with the strong
427
winds having a westerly direction, the general
formation of the buildings becomes a big funnel-like
structure, the one situated along College Road, VOL. 292, JULY 10, 1998 427
receiving the heaviest impact of the strong winds.
Southeastern College, Inc. vs. Court of
 Appeals 428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
God and therefore beyond human control” such that Southeastern College, Inc. vs. Court of
petitioner cannot be answerable for the damages wrought Appeals
thereby, absent any negligence on its part.
The trial court, giving credence to the ocular inspection
report to the effect that subject school building had a II
“defective roofing structure,” found that, while typhoon THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT “THE
“Saling” was accompanied by strong winds, the damage to CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROOF OF DEFENDANT’S SCHOOL
private respondents’ house “could have been avoided if the BUILDING WAS FAULTY” NOTWITHSTANDING THE
construction of the roof of [petitioner’s] building was not ADMISSION THAT THERE WERE TYPHOONS BEFORE BUT
faulty.” 7 The dispositive portion of the lower court’s NOT AS GRAVE AS TYPHOON “SALING” WHICH IS THE
decision reads, thus: DIRECT AND PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INCIDENT.

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court renders III

judgment (sic) in favor of the plaintiff (sic) and against the
defendants, (sic) ordering the latter to pay jointly and severally the THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING ACTUAL AND
former as follows: MORAL DAMAGES AS WELL AS ATTORNEY’S FEES AND
LITIGATION EXPENSES AND COSTS OF SUIT TO DIMAANOS
a) P117,116.00 as actual damages, plus litigation expenses; WHEN THEY HAVE NOT INCURRED ACTUAL DAMAGES AT
b) P1,000,000.00 as moral damages; ALL AS DIMAANOS HAVE ALREADY SOLD THEIR PROPERTY,
AN INTERVENING EVENT THAT RENDERS THIS CASE MOOT
c) P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees;
AND ACADEMIC.
d) Costs of the instant suit.
IV
The claim for exemplary damages is denied for the reason that
the defendants (sic) did not act in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE ISSUANCE
oppressive or malevolent manner.” OF THE WRIT OF EXECUTION INSPITE OF THE PERFECTION
OF SOUTHEASTERN’S APPEAL WHEN THERE IS NO
In its appeal
8
to the Court of Appeals, petitioner assigned as COMPELLING REASON FOR THE ISSUANCE THERETO.
errors,  that:
As mentioned earlier, respondent Court of Appeals affirmed
I with modification the trial court’s disposition by reducing the
award of moral damages from P1,000,000.00 to P200,000.00.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TYPHOON
Hence, petitioner’s resort to this Court, raising for resolution
“SALING,” AS AN ACT OF GOD, IS NOT “THE SOLE AND
the issues of:
ABSOLUTE REASON” FOR THE RIPPING-OFF OF THE SMALL
PORTION OF THE ROOF OF SOUTHEASTERN’S FOUR (4)
“1. Whether or not the award of actual damage [sic] to
STOREY SCHOOL BUILDING.
respondent Dimaanos on the basis of speculation or
conjecture, without proof or receipts of actual
_______________
damage, [sic] legally feasible or justified.
7 CA rollo, pp. 63-69. 2. Whether or not the award of moral damages to
8 Rollo, pp. 20-21.
respondent Dimaanos, without the latter having
428 suffered, actual damage has legal basis.
 3. Whether or not respondent Dimaanos who are no elaborates it as “an unexpected event or 10
act of God which
longer the owner of the property, subject matter of could neither be foreseen nor resisted.”   Civilist Arturo M.
the case, during its Tolentino adds that “[f]ortuitous events may be produced by
two general causes:  (1)  by nature, such as earthquakes,
429 storms, floods, epidemics, fires, etc. and (2) by the act of man,

VOL. 292, JULY 10, 1998 429 _______________

9 Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, 1991 ed., Vol. IV, p. 126.
Southeastern College, Inc. vs. Court of 10 Ibid.
Appeals
430

pendency, has the right to pursue their complaint

against petitioner when the case was already rendered 430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
moot and academic by the sale of the property to third ANNOTATED
party.
4. Whether or not the award of attorney’s fees when the Southeastern College, Inc. vs. Court of
case was already moot and academic [sic] legally Appeals
justified.
5. Whether or not petitioner is liable for damage caused such as an armed invasion, 11
attack by bandits, governmental
to others by typhoon “Saling” being an act of God. prohibitions, robbery, etc.”
6. Whether or not the issuance of a writ of execution In order that a fortuitous event may exempt a person from
pending appeal, ex-parte or without hearing, has liability, it is necessary that he be free from any previous
support in law.” negligence or misconduct12
by reason of which the loss may
have been occasioned.  An act of God cannot be invoked for
The pivot of inquiry here, determinative of the other issues, the protection of a person who has been guilty of gross
is whether the damage on the roof of the building of private negligence in not trying to forestall its possible adverse
respondents resulting from the impact of the falling portions consequences. When a person’s negligence concurs with an
of the school building’s roof ripped off by the strong winds of act of God in producing damage or injury to another, such
typhoon “Saling,” was, within legal contemplation, due to person is not exempt from liability by showing that the
fortuitous event? If so, petitioner cannot be held liable for the immediate or proximate cause of the damage or injury was a
damages suffered by the private respondents. This fortuitous event. When the effect is found to be partly the
conclusion finds support in Article 1174 of the Civil Code, result of the participation of man—whether it be from active
which provides: intervention, or neglect, or failure to act—the whole
occurrence is hereby humanized,
13
and removed from the rules
“Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when applicable to acts of God.
it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the In the case under consideration, the lower court accorded
obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be full credence to the finding of the investigating team that
responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, subject school building’s roofing had “no sufficient anchorage
though foreseen, were inevitable.” to hold it in position especially when battered by strong
winds.” Based on such finding, the trial court imputed
The antecedent of fortuitous event or caso fortuito is found in
negligence to petitioner and adjudged it liable for damages to
the Partidas which defines it as “an event which takes place
9
private respondents.
by accident and could not have been foreseen.”   Escriche
 After a thorough study and evaluation of the evidence on At the outset, it bears emphasizing that a person claiming
record, this Court believes otherwise, notwithstanding the damages for the negligence of another has the burden of
general rule that factual findings by the trial court,
especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding _______________
and conclu- 14  Fuentes vs. Court of Appeals,  268 SCRA 703, February 26,
1997;  Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. vs. Court of
_______________ Appeals, 247 SCRA 606, August 23, 1995; Acebedo Optical Co., Inc. vs. Court
of Appeals, 250 SCRA 409, November 29, 1995.
11 Ibid. 15 Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals, supra, p. 606, citing 1 CJS 1174.
12  Ibid., p. 130, citing  Tan Chiong vs. Inchausti,  22 Phil. 152, 16  Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Intermediate Appellate
1912.  Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals,  144 SCRA 596, 607, October 3, Court, 167 SCRA 379, 386, November 14, 1988.
1986. See also  Metal Forming Corporation vs. Office of the President,  247 17  Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals,  253 SCRA 303, February 7, 1996.
SCRA 731, 738-739, August 28, 1995. Cf. Quibal vs. Sandiganbayan, 244 SCRA 224, May 22, 1995; Citibank, NA
13 Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals, Ibid., pp. 606-607. See also  Ilocos
vs. Gatchalian, 240 SCRA 212, January 18, 1995.
Norte Electric Co. vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 5, 15, November 6, 1989. 18  Layugan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,  167 SCRA 363, 372-373,

November 14, 1988; Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Court of Appeals, GR

431 No. 97626, March 14, 1997.

432
VOL. 292, JULY 10, 1998 431
Southeastern College, Inc. vs. Court of 432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Appeals ANNOTATED
14 Southeastern College, Inc. vs. Court of
sive upon this Court.  After a careful scrutiny of the records
Appeals
and the pleadings submitted by the parties, we find
exception to this rule and hold that the lower courts
misappreciated the evidence proffered. proving the existence of fault or negligence causative of his
There is no question that a typhoon or storm is a injury or loss. The facts constitutive of negligence
19
must be
fortuitous event, a natural occurrence which may be foreseen affirmatively established by competent evidence,  not merely
but is unavoidable despite any amount of foresight, diligence by presumptions and conclusions without basis in fact.
15
or care.   In order to be exempt from liability arising from Private respondents, in establishing the culpability of
any adverse consequence engendered thereby, there should petitioner, merely relied on the aforementioned report
have been no human participation amounting to a negligent submitted by a team which made an  ocular  inspection of
16
act.   In other words, the person seeking exoneration from petitioner’s school building after the typhoon. As the term
liability must not be guilty of negligence. Negligence, as imparts, an ocular inspection
20
is one by means of actual sight
commonly understood, is conduct which naturally or or viewing.  What is visual to the eye though, is not always
reasonably creates undue risk or harm to others. It may be reflective of the real cause behind. For instance, one who
the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution, and hears a gunshot and then sees a wounded person, cannot
17
vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,   or the always definitely conclude that a third person shot the
omission to do something which a prudent and reasonable victim. It could have been self-inflicted or caused accidentally
man, guided by considerations which18ordinarily regulate the by a stray bullet. The relationship of cause and effect must
conduct of human affairs, would do.  From these premises, be clearly shown.
we proceed to determine whether petitioner was negligent, In the present case, other than the said ocular inspection,
such that if it were not, the damage caused to private no investigation was conducted to determine the real cause
respondents’ house could have been avoided? of the partial unroofing of petitioner’s school building.
Private respondents did not even show that the plans, “structurally defective.” Having given his unqualified
specifications and design of said school building were imprimatur, the city building 23
official is presumed to have
deficient and defective. Neither did they prove any properly performed his duties  in connection therewith.
substantial deviation from the approved plans and In addition, petitioner presented its vice president for
specifications. Nor did they conclusively establish21
that the finance and administration who testified that an annual
construction of such building was basically flawed. maintenance inspection and repair of subject school building
On the other hand, petitioner elicited from one of the were regularly undertaken. Petitioner was even willing to
witnesses of private respondents, city building official Jesus present its maintenance supervisor to attest to the extent of
Reyna, that the original plans and design of petitioner’s such regular inspection but private respondents agreed to
school building were approved prior to its construction. Engr. dispense with his testimony and simply stipulated that it
would be corroborative of the vice president’s narration.
_______________ Moreover, the city building official, who has been in the
19 Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 178
city government service since 1974, admitted in open court
SCRA 94, 106, September 29, 1989, citing  Barcelo vs. Manila Electric
that no complaint regarding any defect on the same
Railroad & Light Co., 29 Phil. 351, January 28, 1915. structure has ever been lodged before his office prior to the
20  Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1971 ed.; institution of the case at bench. It is a matter of judicial
Moreno, Philippine Law Dictionary, 2nd ed. notice that typhoons are common occurrences in this country.
21 CF. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals, supra. See also  Quisumbing,

Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, 189 SCRA 605, September 14, 1990.

If subject school

433
_______________
22 Cf. Yap Kim Chuan vs. Tiaoqui, 31 Phil. 433, September 18, 1915.
VOL. 292, JULY 10, 1998 433 23 Tatad vs. Garcia, Jr.,  243 SCRA 436, April 6, 1995;  People vs.
Figueroa, 248 SCRA 679, October 2, 1995.
Southeastern College, Inc. vs. Court of
434
Appeals

Reyna admitted that it was a legal requirement before the 434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
construction of any building to obtain a permit from the city ANNOTATED
building official (city engineer, prior to the passage of the
Southeastern College, Inc. vs. Court of
Building Act of 1977). In like manner, after construction of
the building, a certification must be secured from the same
Appeals
official attesting to the readiness for occupancy of the edifice.
Having obtained both building permit and certificate of building’s roofing was not firmly anchored to its trusses,
occupancy, these are, at the very least, prima facie evidence obviously, it could not have withstood long years and several
of the regular
22
and proper construction of subject school typhoons even stronger than “Saling.”
building. In light of the foregoing, we find no clear and convincing
Furthermore, when part of its roof needed repairs of the evidence to sustain the judgment of the appellate court. We
damage inflicted by typhoon “Saling,” the same city official thus hold that petitioner has not been shown negligent or at
gave the go-signal for such repairs—without any deviation fault regarding the construction and maintenance of its
from the original design—and subsequently, authorized the school building in question and that typhoon “Saling” was
use of the entire fourth floor of the same building. These only the proximate cause of the damage suffered by private
prove that subject building suffers from no structural defect, respondents’ house.
contrary to the report that its “U-shaped” form was
 With this disposition on the pivotal issue, private WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the
respondents’ claim for actual24
and moral damages as well as challenged Decision is REVERSED. The complaint of private
attorney’s fees must fail. Petitioner25 cannot be made to respondents in Civil Case No. 7314 before the trial court  a
answer for a purely fortuitous event.   More so because no quo is ordered DISMISSED and the writ of execution issued
bad faith or willful act to cause damage was alleged and on April 1, 1993 in said case is SET ASIDE. Accordingly,
proven to warrant moral damages. private respondents are ORDERED to return to petitioner
Private respondents failed to adduce adequate and any amount or property received by them by virtue of said
competent 26
proof of the pecuniary loss they actually writ. Costs against the private respondents.
incurred.   It is not enough that the damage be capable of SO ORDERED.
proof but must be actually proved with a reasonable degree
of certainty, pointing out specific facts that afford a basis for           Narvasa  (C.J., Chairman),  Romero  and  Kapunan,
measuring whatever compensatory damages are JJ., concur.
27
borne.  Private respondents merely submitted an estimated
amount needed for the repair of the roof of their subject Petition granted, judgment reversed.
building. What is more, whether the “necessary repairs”
Notes.—Considering the weather situation in the country
were caused ONLY by petitioner’s alleged negligence in the
where storms and typhoons are not a rare or unusual
maintenance of its school building, or included the ordinary
occurrence, these terms ought to, as they should only be,
wear and tear of the house itself, is an essential question
understood as comprehending and referring practically to the
that remains indeterminable.
same thing, at least insofar as the jural effects of petitioner’s
misrepresentations are concerned. (Metal Forming
_______________ Corporation vs. Office of the President, 247 SCRA 731 [1995])
24  Toyota Shaw, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,  244 SCRA 320, May 23, It is within a judge’s right to conduct an ocular inspection
1995;  Custodio vs. Court of Appeals,  253 SCRA 483, February 9, since it is an exercise of his judicial prerogative. (Webb vs.
1996; Syquia vs. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 624, January 27, 1993. People, 276 SCRA 243 [1997])
25 Itan Chiong vs. Inchausti, supra.
26  Baliwag Transit, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,  256 SCRA 746, May 15,

1996. ——o0o——
27 Del Mundo vs. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 348, January 20, 1995.
436
435

VOL. 292, JULY 10, 1998 435

Southeastern College, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Court deems unnecessary to resolve the other issues
posed by petitioner.
As regards the sixth issue, however, the writ of execution
issued on April 1, 1993 by the trial court is hereby nullified
and set aside. Private respondents are ordered to reimburse
any amount or return to petitioner any property which they
may have received by virtue of the enforcement of said writ.