ROSARIA LUPITAN PANG-ET vs. CATHERINE MANACNES-DAO-AS, Heir of LEONCIO MANACNES and FLORENTINA MANACNES G.R. No. 16 !

61 Mar"# !, !$$ FACTS% Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Decision of the CA dated 9 Fe !""5, which reversed and set aside the #udg$ent of the R%C, Br &', Bontoc, (ountain Province, and reinstated the Resolution of the (C%C of Besao)*agada, (ountain Province dis$issing herein +etitioner,s action for -nforce$ent of Ar itration Award and Da$ages. %he instant +etition draws its origin fro$ an Action for recover. of +ossession of real +ro+ert. situated in *itio A atan, Barrio Dagdag, *agada filed . +etitioner efore (C%C of Besao)*agada, (ountain Province on 9 /ov 0994, against the *Ps 1eoncio and Florentina (anacnes, the +redecessors)in)interest. 2n !& Fe 0995, during the course of +re)trial, the +arties, through their res+ective counsels, agreed to refer the $atter to Brg. 1u+on of Dagdag, *agada for ar itration in accordance with the +rovisions of the 3atarungang Pa$ aranga. 1aw. Conse4uentl., the +roceedings efore (C%C were sus+ended, and the case was re$anded to 1u+on for resolution. %hereafter, 1u+on issued a Certification to File Action on !' Fe 0995 due to the refusal of the (anacnes *+s to enter into an Agree$ent for Ar itration and their insistence that the case should go to court. 2n 5 (ar 0995, the Certification, as well as the records of the case, were forwarded to the (C%C. An 2rder was issued . the (C%C on 6 A+r 0995, once $ore re$anding the $atter for conciliation . the 1u+on and ordering the 1u+on to render an Ar itration Award 7AA8. According to (C%C, ased on the records of the case, an Agree$ent for Ar itration was e9ecuted . the +arties concerned: however, the 1u+on failed to issue an AA as +rovided under 3atarungang Pa$ aranga. 1aw, so that, the case $ust e returned to the 1u+on until an AA is rendered. ;n co$+liance with (C%C 2rder, the 1u+on rendered an AA on 0" (a. 0995 ordering +et to retrieve the land u+on +a.$ent to the *+s (anacnes of the a$ount of P5,"""."" for i$+rove$ents on the land. Aggrieved, 1eoncio,s widow, Florentina (anacnes, re+udiated the AA ut her re+udiation was re<ected . 1u+on. %hereafter, (C%C was furnished with co+ies of the AA. 2n 0 #une 0995, +etitioner filed with the 1u+on a (otion for -9ecution of the Ar itration Award. 2n the other hand, F. (anacnes filed a (otion with the (C%C for the resu$+tion of the +roceedings in the original case for recover. of +ossession and +ra.ing that the (C%C consider her re+udiation of the Ar itration Award issued . the 1u+on. *u se4uentl., (C%C heard the (otion of F (anacnes notwithstanding the latter,s failure to a++ear efore the court des+ite notice. (C%C denied Mana"ne&' Mo(ion (o re)*dia(e (#e Ar+i(ra(ion A,ard elucidating since the $ovant failed to ta=e an. action within the 0")da. regle$entar. +eriod +rovided for under 3atarungang Pa$ aranga. 1aw, the ar itration award has eco$e final and e9ecutor.. U+on $otion of Pang)et, (C%C issued an 2rder re$anding the records of the case to 1u+on for e9ecution of the AA. 2n &0 Aug 0995, the then incu$ ent Punong Brg. of Dagdag issued a /otice of -9ecution of the Award. *aid /otice of -9ecution was never i$+le$ented. %hus, on 0' 2ct !""0, Pang)et filed with (C%C an action for enforce$ent of Ar itration Award which was sought to e dis$issed . the heir of (anacnes *+s. %he heir of (anacnes *+s argues that the Agree$ent for Ar itration and the AA are void, the Agree$ent for Ar itration not having een +ersonall. signed . the *+s (anacnes, and the Ar itration Award having een written in -nglish > a language not understood . the +arties.

;n its Reso dated !" Aug !""!, MCTC di&-i&&ed (#e Pe(i(ion for Enfor"e-en( of Ar+i(ra(ion A,ard ? 999 Are defendan(& e&(o))ed fro- .*e&(ionin/ (#e )ro"eedin/& +efore (#e L*)on Ta/a)a-a0a)a "on"erned1 %he defendants having +ut in issue the validit. of the +roceedings efore the lu+on concerned and the +roducts thereof, the. are not esto++ed. ;t is a horn oo= rule that a null and void act could alwa.s e 4uestioned at an. ti$e as the action or defense ased u+on it is i$+rescri+ti le. %he second issue? I& (#e a/ree-en( (o Ar+i(ra(e n*22 and 3oid1 1et us +eruse the +ertinent law dealing on this $atter which is *ec 40& of RA 60'" to wit? @ 7a8 %he +arties $a., at an. stage of the +roceedings, agree in writing that the. shall a ide . the ar itration award of the lu+on chair$an or the +ang=at. 9 9 9@ %he foregoing should e ta=en together with *ec 405 of the sa$e code? @*ec 405. A++earance of +arties in +erson. ;n all =atarungang +a$ aranga. +roceedings, the +arties $ust a++ear in +erson without the assistance of counsel or re+resentative, e9ce+t for $inors and inco$+etents who $a. e assisted . their ne9t)of)=in who are not law.ers.@ ;t is ver. clear fro$ the foregoing that +ersonal a++earance of the +arties in conciliation +roceedings efore a 1u+on %aga+a$a.a+a is $andator.. 1i=ewise, the e9ecution of the agree$ent to ar itrate $ust e done +ersonall. . the +arties the$selves so that the. the$selves are $andated to sign the agree$ent. Unfortunatel., in this case, it was not *+s (anacnis who signed the agree$ent to ar itrate as +laintiff herself ad$itted ut another +erson. %hus, it is ver. clear that the $andator. +rovisos of *ec 40& and 405 of RA 60'" are violated. Gran(in/ ar/*endo (#a( i( ,a& Ca(#erine ,#o &i/ned (#e a/ree-en( )er in&(r*"(ion of #er )aren(&, ,i22 i( "*re (#e 3io2a(ion1 %he answer $ust still e in the negative. As +rovided for . the cited in RA 60'", if ever a +art. is entitled to an assistance, it shall e done onl. when the +art. concerned is a $inor or inco$+etent. Aere, there is no showing that the *+s. (anacnis were inco$+etent. Perha+s ver. old ut not inco$+etent. 1i=ewise, what the law +rovides is assistance, not signing of agree$ents or settle$ents. 4*&( &*))o&e (#e S)& Mana"ni& e5e"*(ed a SPA in fa3or of (#eir da*/#(er Ca(#erine (o a((end (#e )ro"eedin/& and (o &i/n (#e a/ree-en( (o ar+i(ra(e1 %he $ore that it is +roscri ed . the 3atarungang Pa$ aranga. 1aw s+ecificall. *ec 405 of RA 60'" which $andates the +ersonal a++earance of the +arties efore the lu+on and li=ewise +rohi its the a++earance of re+resentatives. ;n view of the foregoing, it could now e safel. concluded that the 4uestioned agree$ent to ar itrate is inefficacious for eing violative of the $andator. +rovisions of RA 60'" +articularl. sec 40& and 405 as it was not the *+s (anacnis who signed it. %he third issue? I& (#e Ar+i(ra(ion A,ard no, &o*/#( (o +e enfor"ed effe"(i3e1 (uch to e desired, the natural flow of events $ust follow as a conse4uence. Considering that the agree$ent to ar itrate is inefficacious as earlier declared, it follows that the ar itration award which e$anated fro$ it is also inefficacious. Further, the AA . itself, granting arguendo that agree$ent to ar itrate is valid, will readil. show that it does not also confor$ with the $andate of the 3atarungang Pa$ aranga. 1aw +articularl. *ec 400? For- of Se((2e-en( > All a$ica le settle$ents shall e in writing in a language or dialect =nown to the +arties 999. Bhen the +arties to the dis+ute do not use the sa$e language or dialect, the settle$ent shall e written in the language =nown to the$.@ 1i=ewise, the i$+le$enting rules thereof, +articularl. *ec 0&? For$ of *ettle$ent and Award. > All settle$ents, whether . $ediation, conciliation or ar itration, shall e in writing, in a language or dialect =nown to the +arties. 9 9 9@

;t is of no dis+ute that the +arties concerned elong to and are natives of the scenic and serene co$$unit. of *agada, (t. Province who s+ea= the 3an=anae. language. %hus, the AA should have een written in the 3an=anae. language. Aowever, as shown . the AA, it is written in -nglish language which the +arties do not s+ea= and therefore a further violation of the 3atarungang Pa$ aranga. 1aw. Pan/-e('& MR #a3in/ +een denied, she filed an A++eal efore R%C which reversed and set aside the Reso of the (C%C and re$anded the case to the (C%C for further +roceedings? As it a++ears on its face, the Agree$ent for Ar itration in +oint found on + 50 of the e9+ediente, dated Fe . ', 0995, and attested . the Pang=at Chair$an of the 2ffice of the Baranga. 1u+on of Dagdag, *agada was signed . *+s (anacnis. %he re+resentative of the A++ellee in the instant case assails such Agree$ent clai$ing that the signatures of her aforesaid +redecessors)in)interest therein were not +ersonall. affi9ed . the latter or are falsified)which in effect is an attac= on the validit. of the docu$ent on the ground that the consent of the *+s (anacnis is vitiated . fraud. ;ndulging the A++ellee Aeirs of (anacnis its contention that such indeed is the truth of the $atter, the fact still re$ains as orne out . the circu$stances, that neither did said original defendants nor did an. of such heirs effectivel. re+udiate the Agree$ent in 4uestion in accordance with the +rocedure outlined . the law, within 758 da.s fro$ Fe . ', 0995, on the ground as a ove)stated 7*ecs. 40& 7a8, 405, RA 60'": *ecs. 6, 0&, 3P 1aw: *ec. 0!, Rule ;C, 3P Rules8. As $andated, such failure is dee$ed a waiver on the +art of the *+s (anacnis to challenge the Agree$ent for Ar itration on the ground that their consent thereto is o tained and vitiated . fraud 7*ec. 0!, Par. &, 3P Rules8. A++ellee Aeirs eing +riv. to the now deceased original defendants should have not een +er$itted . the court a 4uo under the e4uita le +rinci+le of esto++el, to raise the $atter in issue for the first ti$e in the +resent case. %he AA relative to Civil Case dated (a. 0", 0995, written in -nglish, attested . the Punong Brg. of Dagdag and found on + 4 of the record is li=ewise assailed . A++ellee as void on the ground that the -nglish language is not =nown . the defendants *+s (anacnis who are ;gorots. *aid A++ellee contends that the docu$ent should have een written in 3an=ana)e., the dialect =nown to the +art. 7*ec. 40& 7 8, RA 60'": *ec. 6, Par. !, 3P law, *ec. 00, 3P Rules8. 2n this score, the court a 4uo +resu$+tuousl. concluded on the asis of the self)serving $ere sa.)so of the re+resentative of the A++ellee that her +redecessors did not s+ea= or understand -nglish. As a $atter of <udicial notice, A$erican -+isco+alian (issionaries had een in *agada, (ountain Province as earl. as 09"! and continuousl. sta.ed in the +lace . turns, co)$ingling with the indigenous +eo+le thereat, instructing and educating the$, and converting $ost to the Christian faith, a$ong other things, until the for$er left a out twent. .ears ago. B. constant association with the white fol=s, the natives too old to go to school so$ehow learned the 3ing,s -nglish . ear and can effectivel. s+ea= and co$$unicate in that language. An. which wa., even granting arguendo that the *+s (anacnis were the e9ce+tions and indeed totall. ignorant of -nglish, no +etition to nullif. the Ar itration award in issue on such ground as advanced was filed . the +art. or an. of the A++ellee Aeirs with the (C%C of Besao)*agada, within ten 70"8 da.s fro$ (a. 0", 0995, the date of the docu$ent. %hus, u+on the e9+iration thereof, the AA ac4uired the force and effect of a final <udg$ent of a court 7*ec. 40', RA 60'": *ec. 00, 3P 1aw: *ec. 0&, 3P Rules8: conclusive u+on the original defendants in Civil Case 5& 7B.C. /o. "68 and the A++ellee Aeirs herein +riv. to said defendants. ;n the light thereof, the collateral attac= of the A++ellee on the Agree$ent for Ar itration and Ar itration Award re Civil Case should not have in the first +lace een given due course . the court a 4uo. ;n which

case, it would not have in the logical flow of things declared oth docu$ents @inefficacious@: without which +ronounce$ents, said court would not have dis$issed the case at ar. Aggrieved . reversal of the R%C, re&)onden( fi2ed a )e(i(ion +efore (#e CA &ee6in/ (o &e( a&ide 7*d/-en(. 2n 9 Fe !""5, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision, to wit? After thoroughl. reviewing through the record, Be find nothing that would show that *+s (anacnes were ever a$ena le to an. co$+ro$ise with res+ondent Pang)et. %hus, Be are at a loss as to the asis of the AA sought to e enforced . Pang)et,s su se4uent action efore (C%C. %here is no dis+ute that the +roceeding in the case was sus+ended and the sa$e re$anded to the 1u+on on account of the Agree$ent to Ar itrate which was allegedl. not signed . the +arties ut agreed u+on . their res+ective counsels during the +re)trial conference. ;n the $eeting efore the 1u+on, it would see$ that the agree$ent to ar itrate was not signed . the *+s (anacnes. (ore i$+ortantl., when the +ang=at chair$an as=ed the *+s (anacnes to sign or affi9 their thu$ $ar=s in the agree$ent, the. refused and insisted that the case should instead go to court. %hus, the 1u+on had no other recourse ut to issue a certificate to file action. Unfortunatel., the case was again re$anded to the 1u+on to @render an ar itration award@. %his ti$e, the 1u+on heard the voice ta+e of the late Ba=et Padona. affir$ing Pang)et,s right to the dis+uted +ro+ert.. Bhile Pang)et offered to +a. P5,"""."" for the i$+rove$ents $ade . the *+s (anacnes, the latter refused to acce+t the sa$e and insisted on their right to the su <ect +ro+ert.. Des+ite this, the 1u+on on (a. 0", 0995 issued an AA which favored Pang)et. Fro$ the ti$e the case was first referred to the 1u+on to the ti$e the sa$e was again re$anded to it, the *+s (anacnes re$ained fir$ in not entering into an. co$+ro$ise with res+ondent Pang)et. %his was $ade clear in oth the $inutes of the Ar itration Aearing on !' Fe 0995 and on 9 A+r 0995. Bith the foregoing, Be find it evident that the *+s (anacnes never intended to su $it the case for ar itration. (oreover, the award itself is riddled with flaws. First of all there is no showing the Pang=at ng %aga+ag=asundo was dul. constituted in accordance with Rule C of the 3P Rules. And after constituting of the Pang=at, Rule C;, thereof the Punong Brg. and the Pang=at $ust +roceed to hear the case. Aowever, according to the $inutes of the hearing efore the lu+on on 9 A+ril 0995, the Pang=at Chair$an and another +ang=at $e$ er were a sent for the hearing. Finall., *ec 0& of the sa$e Rule re4uires that the Punong Brg. or the Pang=at Chair$an should attest that +arties freel. and voluntaril. agreed to the settle$ent arrived at. But how can this e +ossi le when the $inutes of the two hearings show that the *+s (anacnes neither freel. nor voluntaril. agreed to an.thing. Bhile the 1DC and the 3P Rules +rovide for a +eriod to re+udiate the AA, the sa$e is neither a++lica le nor necessar. since the Agree$ent to Ar itrate or the AA were never freel. nor voluntaril. entered into . one of the +arties to the dis+ute. %here is no agree$ent validl. concluded that needs to e re+udiated. Bith all the foregoing, esto++el $a. not e a++lied against +etitioners for an action or defense against a null and void act does not +rescri e. Bith this, Be "anno( +*( a/ree ,i(# (#e MCTC (#a( (#e 3er0 a/ree-en( (o ar+i(ra(e i& n*22 and 3oid. *i$ilarl., the ar itration award which was ut the off shoot of the agree$ent is also void. R%C <udg$ent is R-C-R*-D and *-% A*;D-, (C%C Reso D;*(;**;/D the Case for enforce$ent of Ar itration Award is R-;/*%A%-D.

B2/ CA overloo=ed $aterial facts that resulted in reversi le errors in the assailed Decision. According to +etitioner, CA overloo=ed the fact that the original +arties, as re+resented . their res+ective counsels, $utuall. agreed to su $it the case for ar itration . the 1u+on ng %aga+a$a.a+a of Baranga. Dagdag. B2/ the +arties $ust e ound . the initial agree$ent . their counsels during +re)trial to an a$ica le settle$ent as an. re+resentation $ade . the law.ers are dee$ed $ade with the confor$it. of their clients. ;f indeed the *+s (anacnes did not want to enter into an a$ica le settle$ent, then the. should have raised their o++osition at the first instance, which was at the +re)trial of the case when (C%C ordered that the case e re$anded to the 1u+on ng %aga+a$a.a+a for ar itration. Be do not agree with the +etitioner. First and fore$ost, in order to resolve the case efore us, it is +ivotal to stress that, during the initial hearing efore the 1u+on ng %aga+a$a.a+a, the *+s (anacnes declined to sign the Agree$ent for Ar itration and were ada$ant that the +roceedings efore (C%C $ust continue. As reflected in the (inutes of the Ar itration Aearing held on !' Fe 0995, the legalit. of the signature of Catherine (anacnes, daughter of the *+s (anacnes, who signed the Agree$ent for Ar itration on ehalf of her +arents, was assailed on the ground that it should e *+s (anacnes the$selves who should have signed such agree$ent. %o resolve the issue, the Pang=at Chair$an then as=ed *+s (anacnes that if the. wanted the ar itration +roceedings to continue, the. $ust signif. their intention in the Agree$ent for Ar itration for$. Aowever, as stated earlier, *+s (anacnes did not want to sign such agree$ent and instead insisted that the case go to court. Conse4uentl., the 1u+on issued a Cert to File Action on !' Fe 0995 due to the refusal of *+s (anacnes. ;ndicated in said Certification are the following? 08 that there was +ersonal confrontation etween the +arties efore the Punong Baranga. ut conciliation failed and !8 that the Pang=at ng %aga+ag=asundo was constituted ut the +ersonal confrontation efore the Pang=at failed li=ewise ecause res+ondents do not want to su $it this case for ar itration and insist that said case will go to court. /evertheless, u+on recei+t of said certification and the records of the case, (C%C ordered the case e re$anded to the 1u+on ng and for the latter to render an ar itration award, e9+laining that? Doing over the docu$ents su $itted to the court . the office of the 1u+on, the court o served that an @Agree$ent for Ar itration@ was e9ecuted . the +arties anent the case. Aowever, said 1u+on did not $a=e an. ar itration award as $andated . the 3P 1aw ut instead $ade a finding that the case $a. now e rought to the court. %his is violative of the 3P 1aw, which cannot e sanctioned . the court. At this <uncture, it $ust e stressed the o <ect of the 3P 1aw is the a$ica le settle$ent of dis+utes through conciliation +roceedings voluntaril. and freel. entered into . the +arties. %hrough this $echanis$, the +arties are encouraged to settle their dis+utes without enduring the rigors of court litigation. /onetheless, the dis+uting +arties are not co$+elled to settle their controvers. during the rg. +roceedings efore the 1u+on or the Pang=at, as the. are free to instead find recourse in the courts in the event that no true co$+ro$ise is reached. %he =e. in achieving the o <ectives of an effective a$ica le settle$ent under the 3P 1aw is the free and voluntar. agree$ent of the +arties to su $it the dis+ute for ad<udication either . the 1u+on or the Pang=at, whose award or decision shall e inding u+on the$ with the force and effect of a final <udg$ent of a court. A sent this voluntar. su $ission . the +arties to su $it their dis+ute to ar itration under the

3P 1aw, there cannot e a inding settle$ent arrived at effectivel. resolving the case. Aence, we fail to see wh. (C%C further re$anded the case to the 1u+on and insisted that the ar itration +roceedings continue, des+ite the clear showing that *+s (anacnes refused to su $it the controvers. for ar itration. ;t would see$ fro$ the 2rder of (C%C, which again re$anded the case for ar itration to the 1u+on ng %aga+a$a.a+a, that it is co$+ulsor. on the +art of the +arties to su $it the case for ar itration until an ar itration award is rendered . the 1u+on. %his, to our $inds, is contrar. to the ver. nature of the +roceedings under the 3P 1aw which es+ouses the +rinci+le of voluntar. ac4uiescence of the dis+uting +arties to a$ica le settle$ent. Bhat is co$+ulsor. under the 3P 1aw is that there e a confrontation etween the +arties efore the 1u+on Chair$an or the Pang=at and that a certification e issued that no conciliation or settle$ent has een reached, as attested to . the 1u+on or Pang=at Chair$an, efore a case falling within the authorit. of the 1u+on $a. e instituted in court or an. other govern$ent office for ad<udication. 05 ;n other words, the onl. necessar. +re)condition efore an. case falling within the authorit. of the 1u+on or the Pang=at $a. e filed efore a court is that there has een +ersonal confrontation etween the +arties ut des+ite earnest efforts to conciliate, there was a failure to a$ica l. settle the dis+ute. ;t should e e$+hasiEed that while the s+ouses (anacnes a++eared efore the 1u+on during the initial hearing for the conciliation +roceedings, the. refused to sign the Agree$ent for Ar itration for$, which would have signified their consent to su $it the case for ar itration. %herefore, u+on certification . the 1u+on ng %aga+a$a.a+a that the confrontation efore the Pang=at failed ecause the s+ouses (anacnes refused to su $it the case for ar itration and insisted that the case should go to court, the (C%C should have continued with the +roceedings in the case for recover. of +ossession which it sus+ended in order to give wa. for the +ossi le a$ica le resolution of the case through ar itration efore the 1u+on ng %aga+a$a.a+a. Petitioner,s assertion that the +arties $ust e ound . their res+ective counsels, agree$ent to su $it the case for ar itration and thereafter enter into an a$ica le settle$ent is i$+recise. Bhat was agreed to . the +arties, res+ective counsels was the re$and of the case to the 1u+on ng %aga+a$a.a+a for conciliation +roceedings and not the actual a$ica le settle$ent of the case. As stated earlier, the +arties $a. onl. e co$+elled to a++ear efore the 1u+on ng %aga+a$a.a+a for the necessar. confrontation, ut not to enter into an. a$ica le settle$ent, or in the case at ar, to sign the Agree$ent for Ar itration. %hus, when the (anacnes s+ouses +ersonall. a++eared during the initial hearing efore the 1u+on ng %aga+a$a.a+a, the. had alread. co$+lied with the agree$ent during the +re)trial to su $it the case for conciliation +roceedings. %heir +resence during said hearing is alread. their ac4uiescence to the order of the (C%C re$anding the case to the 1u+on for conciliation +roceedings, as there has een an actual confrontation etween the +arties des+ite the fact that no a$ica le settle$ent was reached due to the s+ouses (anacnes, refusal to sign the Agree$ent for Ar itration. Further$ore, (C%C should not have +ersisted in ordering the 1u+on ng %aga+a$a.a+a to render an ar itration award u+on the refusal of the s+ouses (anacnes to su $it the case for ar itration since such ar itration award will not ind the s+ouses. As reflected in *ection 40& of the Revised 3atarungang Pa$ aranga. 1aw, in order that a +art. $a. e ound . an ar itration award, said +art. $ust have agreed in writing that the. shall a ide . the ar itration award of the 1u+on or the Pang=at. 1i=e in an. other contract, +arties who have not signed an agree$ent to ar itrate will not e ound . said agree$ent since it is a9io$atic that a contract cannot e inding u+on and cannot e enforced against one who is not a +art. to it. ;n view of the fact that u+on verification . the Pang=at Chair$an, in order to settle the issue of

whether or not the. intend to su $it the $atter for ar itration, the s+ouses (anacnes refused to affi9 their signature or thu$ $ar= on the Agree$ent for Ar itration For$, the (anacnes s+ouses cannot e ound . the Agree$ent for Ar itration and the ensuing ar itration award since the. never eca$e +riv. to an. agree$ent su $itting the case for ar itration . the Pang=at. 8HEREFORE, )re-i&e& "on&idered, (#e in&(an( )e(i(ion i& #ere+0 DENIED. T#e De"i&ion of (#e CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 9$1: i& #ere+0 AFFIRMED. T#e MCTC of ;e&ao-Sa/ada, Mo*n(ain Pro3in"e, i& #ere+0 ORDERED (o )ro"eed ,i(# (#e (ria2 of Ci3i2 Ca&e for Re"o3er0 of Po&&e&&ion of Rea2 Pro)er(0, and (#e i--edia(e re&o2*(ion of (#e &a-e ,i(# de2i+era(e di&)a("#.