FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 113388. September 5, 1997.]

ANGELITA MANZANO , petitioner, vs . COURT OF APPEALS, and

MELECIA MADOLARIA, as Assignor to NEW UNITED FOUNDRY
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION , respondents.

O.F. Santos & P.C. Nolasco for petitioner.

Sioson, San Diego & Associates for private respondents.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioner Manzano led with the Philippine Patent O ce an action for the
cancellation of Letters Patent No. UM-4609 for a gas burner registered in the name of
respondent Madolaria who subsequently assigned the letters patent to United Foundry.
Petitioner alleged that the gas burner was not inventive, new or useful; that the
speci cation of the letters patent did not comply with the requirements of the law; that
respondent Madolaria was not the original inventor nor did she derive her rights from the
original inventor of the utility model; and that the letters patent was secured by means of
fraud or misrepresentation. Petitioner further alleged that the utility model had been
known by others in the Philippines for more than one (1) year before her application. The
Director of Patents denied the petition for cancellation holding that the evidence of
petitioner was not able to establish convincingly that the patented utility model of private
respondent was anticipated. Not one of the various pictorial representations of business
convincingly showed that the devices presented by petitioner was identical with the utility
model of the respondent. Even assuming that the brochures depicted each element of the
patented gas burner device so that the prior art and patented device became identical
although in truth they were not, they could not serve as anticipatory bars for the reason
that they were undated. The dates when they were distributed to the public were not
indicated and, therefore, were useless prior art references. The records do not support the
petitioner's contention that the Letters Patent was obtained by means of fraud and/or
misrepresentation. No evidence whatsoever was presented to show that Madolaria
withheld with intent to deceive material facts which, if disclosed, would have resulted in the
refusal by the Philippine Patent Office to issue the Letters Patent under inquiry.
The ndings of fact of the Director of Patents are conclusive on this Court when
supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner has failed to show compelling grounds for a
reversal of the findings and conclusions of the Patent Office and the Court of Appeals. aATHES

SYLLABUS

1. COMMERCIAL LAW; LAW ON PATENTS; PATENTABILITY OF A DISCOVERY;

ELEMENT OF NOVELTY IS ESSENTIAL. — The element of novelty is an essential requisite
of the patentability of an invention or discovery. If a device or process has been known or
used by others prior to its invention or discovery by the applicant, an application for a
patent therefor should be denied; and if the application has been granted, the court, in a
judicial proceeding in which the validity of the patent is drawn in question, will hold it void
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 and ineffective. It has been repeatedly held that an invention must possess the essential
elements of novelty, originality and precedence, and for the patentee to be entitled to the
protection the invention must be new to the world. In issuing Letters Patent No. UM-4609
to Melecia Madolaria for an "LPG Burner" on 22 July 1981, the Philippine Patent O ce
found her invention novel and patentable. The issuance of such patent creates a
presumption which yields only to clear and cogent evidence that the patentee was the
original and rst inventor. The burden of proving want of novelty is on him who avers it and
the burden is a heavy one which is met only by reasonable doubt. Hence, a utility model
shall not be considered "new" if before the application for a patent it has been publicly
known or publicly used in this country or has been described in a printed publication or
publications circulated within the country, or if it is substantially similar to any other utility
model so known, used or described within the country.
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; VALIDITY OF PATENTS; FINDINGS OF THE
PHILIPPINE PATENT OFFICE, RESPECTED. — The validity of the patent issued by the
Philippine Patent O ce in favor of private respondent and the question over the
inventiveness, novelty and usefulness of the improved model of the LPG burner are
matters which are better determined by the Patent O ce. The technical staff of the
Philippine Patent O ce composed of experts in their eld has by the issuance of the
patent in question accepted private respondent's model of gas burner as a discovery.
There is a presumption that the O ce has correctly determined the patentability of the
model and such action must not be interfered with in the absence of competent evidence
to the contrary. The rule is settled that the ndings of fact of the Director of Patents,
especially when a rmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court when
supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner has failed to show compelling grounds for a
reversal of the ndings and conclusions of the Patent O ce and the Court of Appeals. The
alleged failure of the Director of Patents and the Court of Appeals to accord evidentiary
weight to the testimonies of the witnesses of petitioner showing anticipation is not a
justi cation to grant the petition. Pursuant to the requirement of clear and convincing
evidence to overthrow the presumption of validity of a patent, it has been held that oral
testimony to show anticipation is open to suspicion and if uncorroborated by cogent
evidence, as what occurred in this case, it may be held insu cient. The question on priority
of invention is one of fact. Novelty and utility are likewise questions of fact. The validity of
patent is decided on the basis of factual inquiries. Whether evidence presented comes
within the scope of prior art is a factual issue to be resolved by the Patent O ce. There is
question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged
facts or when the query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence considering
mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevance of speci c surrounding
circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole and the probabilities of the
situation. Time and again we have held that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to
analyze or weigh all over again the evidence and credibility of witnesses presented before
the lower tribunal or o ce. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Its jurisdiction is
limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, its ndings of
fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court. SEcITC

DECISION

BELLOSILLO , J : p

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 The primary purpose of the patent system is not the reward of the individual but the
advancement of the arts and sciences. The function of a patent is to add to the sum of
useful knowledge and one of the purposes of the patent system is to encourage
dissemination of information concerning discoveries and inventions. This is a matter which
is properly within the competence of the Patent O ce, the o cial action of which has the
presumption of correctness and may not be interfered with in the absence of new
evidence carrying thorough conviction that the O ce has erred. Since the Patent O ce is
an expert body preeminently quali ed to determine questions of patentability, its ndings
must be accepted if they are consistent with the evidence, with doubts as to patentability
resolved in favor of the Patent Office. 1
Petitioner Angelita Manzano led with the Philippine Patent O ce on 19 February
1982 an action for the cancellation of Letters Patent No. UM-4609 for a gas burner
registered in the name of respondent Melecia Madolaria who subsequently assigned the
letters patent to New United Foundry and *Manufacturing Corporation (UNITED FOUNDRY,
for brevity). Petitioner alleged that (a) the utility model covered by the letters patent, in this
case, an LPG gas burner, was not inventive, new or useful; (b) the speci cation of the
letters patent did not comply with the requirements of Sec. 14, RA No. 165, as amended;
(c) respondent Melecia Madolaria was not the original, true and actual inventor nor did she
derive her rights from the original, true and actual inventor of the utility model covered by
the letters patent; and, (d) the letters patent was secured by means of fraud or
misrepresentation. In support of her petition for cancellation petitioner further alleged that
(a) the utility model covered by the letters patent of respondent had been known or used
by others in the Philippines for more than one (1) year before she led her application for
letters patent on 9 December 1979; (b) the products which were produced in accordance
with the utility model covered by the letters patent had been in public use or on sale in the
Philippines for more than one (1) year before the application for patent therefor was led.
cdpr

Petitioner presented the following documents which she correspondingly marked

as exhibits: (a) a davit of petitioner alleging the existence of prior art, marked Exh. "A;" (b)
a brochure distributed by Manila Gas Corporation disclosing a pictorial representation of
Ransome Burner made by Ransome Torch and Burner Company, USA, marked Exh. "D;" and,
(c) a brochure distributed by Esso Gasul or Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., of the Philippines
showing a picture of another similar burner with top elevation view and another
perspective view of the same burner, marked Exh. "E."
Testifying for herself petitioner narrated that her husband Ong Bun Tua worked as a
helper in the UNITED FOUNDRY where respondent Melecia Madolaria used to be a liated
with from 1965 to 1970; that Ong helped in the casting of an LPG burner which was the
same utility model of a burner for which Letters Patent No. UM-4609 was issued, and that
after her husband's separation from the shop she organized Besco Metal Manufacturing
(BESCO METAL, for brevity) for the casting of LPG burners one of which had the
con guration, form and component parts similar to those being manufactured by UNITED
FOUNDRY. Petitioner presented in evidence an alleged model of an LPG burner marked
Exh. "K" and covered by the Letters Patent of respondent, and testi ed that it was given to
her in January 1982 by one of her customers who allegedly acquired it from UNITED
FOUNDRY. Petitioner also presented in evidence her own model of an LPG burner called
"Ransome" burner marked Exh. "L," which was allegedly manufactured in 1974 or 1975 and
sold by her in the course of her business operation in the name of BESCO METAL.
Petitioner claimed that this "Ransome" burner (Exh. "L") had the same con guration and
mechanism as that of the model which was patented in favor of private respondent
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Melecia Madolaria. Also presented by petitioner was a burner cup of an imported
"Ransome" burner marked Exh "M" which was allegedly existing even before the patent
application of private respondent.
Petitioner presented two (2) other witnesses, namely, her husband Ong Bun Tua and
Fidel Francisco. Ong testi ed that he worked as a helper in the UNITED FOUNDRY from
1965 to 1970 where he helped in the casting of LPG burners with the same form,
con guration and mechanism as that of the model covered by the Letters Patent issued to
private respondent. Francisco testi ed that he had been employed with the Manila Gas
Corporation from 1930 to 1941 and from 1952 up to 1969 where he retired as supervisor
and that Manila Gas Corporation imported "Ransome" burners way back in 1965 which
were advertised through brochures to promote their sale.
Private respondent, on the other hand, presented only one witness, Rolando
Madolaria, who testi ed, among others, that he was the General Supervisor of the UNITED
FOUNDRY in the foundry, machine and bu ng section; that in his early years with the
company, UNITED FOUNDRY was engaged in the manufacture of different kinds of gas
stoves as well as burners based on sketches and speci cations furnished by customers;
that the company manufactured early models of single-piece types of burners where the
mouth and throat were not detachable; that in the latter part of 1978 respondent Melecia
Madolaria con ded in him that complaints were being brought to her attention concerning
the early models being manufactured; that he was then instructed by private respondent to
cast several experimental models based on revised sketches and speci cations; that
private respondent again made some innovations; that after a few months, private
respondent discovered the solution to all the defects of the earlier models and, based on
her latest sketches and speci cations, he was able to cast several models incorporating
the additions to the innovations introduced in the models. Various tests were conducted
on the latest model in the presence and under the supervision of Melecia Madolaria and
they obtained perfect results. Rolando Madolaria testi ed that private respondent decided
to file her application for utility model patent in December 1979.
On 7 July 1986 the Director of Patents Cesar C. Sandiego issued Decision No. 86-56
denying the petition for cancellation and holding that the evidence of petitioner was not
able to establish convincingly that the patented utility model of private respondent was
anticipated. Not one of the various pictorial representations of business clearly and
convincingly showed that the devices presented by petitioner was identical or substantially
identical with the utility model of the respondent. The decision also stated that even
assuming that the brochures depicted clearly each and every element of the patented gas
burner device so that the prior art and patented device became identical although in truth
they were not, they could not serve as anticipatory bars for the reason that they were
undated. The dates when they were distributed to the public were not indicated and,
therefore, were useless prior art references. The records and evidence also do not support
the petitioner's contention that Letters Patent No. UM-4609 was obtained by means of
fraud and/or misrepresentation. No evidence whatsoever was presented by petitioner to
show that the then applicant Melecia Madolaria withheld with intent to deceive material
facts which, if disclosed, would have resulted in the refusal by the Philippine Patent O ce
to issue the Letters Patent under inquiry.
Petitioner elevated the decision of the Director of Patents to the Court of Appeals
which on 15 October 1993 a rmed the decision of the Director of Patents. Hence, this
petition for review on certiorari alleging that the Court of Appeals erred (a) in relying on
imaginary differences which in actuality did not exist between the model of private
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 respondent covered by Letters Patent No. UM-4609 and the previously known model of
Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., and Manila Gas Corporation, making such imaginary
differences grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (b) in rendering
judgment based on misapprehension of facts; (c) in relying mainly on the testimony of
private respondent's sole witness Rolando Madolaria; and, (d) in not cancelling Letters
Patent No. UM-4609 in the name of private respondent.
Petitioner submits that the differences cited by the Court of Appeals between the
utility model of private respondent and the models of Manila Gas Corporation and Esso
Standard Eastern, Inc., are more imaginary than real. She alleges that based on Exhs. "E," "E-
1," "F" and "F-1" or the brochures of Manila Gas Corporation and Esso Standard Eastern,
Inc., presented by petitioner, the cup-shaped burner mouth and threaded hole on the side
are shown to be similar to the utility model of private respondent. The exhibits also show a
detachable burner mouth having a plurality of upwardly existing undulations adopted to act
as gas passage when the cover is attached to the top of said cup-shaped mouth all of
which are the same as those in the patented model. Petitioner also denies as substantial
difference the short cylindrical tube of the burner mouth appearing in the brochures of the
burners being sold by Manila Gas Corporation and the long cylindered tube of private
respondent's model of the gas burner.
Petitioner argues that the actual demonstration made during the hearing disclosed
the similarities in form, operation and mechanism and parts between the utility model of
private respondent and those depicted in the brochures. The ndings of the Patent O ce
and the Court of Appeals that the brochures of Manila Gas Corporation and Esso Standard
Eastern, Inc., are undated cannot overcome the fact of their circulation before private
respondent led her application for utility model patent. Petitioner thus asks this Court to
take judicial notice of the fact that Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., disappeared before 1979
and reappeared only during the Martial Law years as Petrophil Corporation. Petitioner also
emphasizes that the brochures indicated the telephone number of Manila Gas Corporation
as 5-79-81 which is a ve (5) numbered telephone number existing before 1975 because
telephones in Metro Manila started to have six (6) numbers only after that year.
Petitioner further contends that the utility model of private respondent is absolutely
similar to the LPG burner being sold by petitioner in 1975 and 1976, and also to the
"Ransome" burner depicted in the old brochures of Manila Gas Corporation and Esso
Standard Eastern, Inc., fabricated by Ransome Torch and Burner Company of Oakland,
California, USA, especially when considered through actual physical examination, assembly
and disassembly of the models of petitioner and private respondent. Petitioner faults the
Court of Appeals for disregarding the testimonies of Ong Bun Tua and Fidel Francisco for
their failure to produce documents on the alleged importation by Manila Gas Corporation
of "Ransome" burners in 1965 which had the same con guration, form and mechanism as
that of the private respondent's patented model.
Finally, it is argued that the testimony of private respondent's lone witness Rolando
Madolaria should not have been given weight by the Patent O ce and the Court of
Appeals because it contained mere after-thoughts and pretensions.
We cannot sustain petitioner. Section 7 of RA No. 165, as amended, which is the law
on patents, expressly provides —
Sec. 7. Inventions patentable. — Any invention of a new and useful
machine, manufactured product or substance, process or an improvement of any
of the foregoing, shall be patentable.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Further, Sec. 55 of the same law provides —
Sec. 55. Design patents and patents for utility models. — (a) Any new,
original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture and (b) any new
model of implements or tools or of any industrial product or of part of the same,
which does not possess the quality of invention, but which is of practical utility by
reason of its form, con guration, construction or composition, may be protected
by the author thereof, the former by a patent for a design and the latter by a
patent for a utility model, in the same manner and subject to the same provisions
and requirements as relate to patents for inventions insofar as they are applicable
except as otherwise herein provided.

The element of novelty is an essential requisite of the patentability of an invention or

discovery. If a device or process has been known or used by others prior to its invention or
discovery by the applicant, an application for a patent therefor should be denied; and if the
application has been granted, the court, in a judicial proceeding in which the validity of the
patent is drawn in question, will hold it void and ineffective. 2 It has been repeatedly held
that an invention must possess the essential elements of novelty, originality and
precedence, and for the patentee to be entitled to the protection the invention must be
new to the world. 3
In issuing Letters Patent No. UM-4609 to Melecia Madolaria for an "LPG Burner" on
22 July 1981, the Philippine Patent O ce found her invention novel and patentable. The
issuance of such patent creates a presumption which yields only to clear and cogent
evidence that the patentee was the original and rst inventor. The burden of proving want
of novelty is on him who avers it and the burden is a heavy one which is met only by clear
and satisfactory proof which overcomes every reasonable doubt. 4 Hence, a utility model
shall not be considered "new" if before the application for a patent it has been publicly
known or publicly used in this country or has been described in a printed publication or
publications circulated within the country, or if it is substantially similar to any other utility
model so known, used or described within the country. 5
As found by the Director of Patents, the standard of evidence su cient to overcome
the presumption of legality of the issuance of UM-4609 to respondent Madolaria was not
legally met by petitioner in her action for the cancellation of the patent. Thus the Director
of Patents explained his reasons for the denial of the petition to cancel private
respondent's patent —
Scrutiny of Exhs. "D" and "E" readily reveals that the utility model (LPG
Burner) is not anticipated. Not one of the various pictorial representations of
burners clearly and convincingly show that the device presented therein is
identical or substantially identical in construction with the aforesaid utility model.
It is relevant and material to state that in determining whether novelty or newness
is negatived by any prior art, only one item of the prior art may be used at a time.
For anticipation to occur, the prior art must show that each element is found
either expressly or described or under principles of inherency in a single prior art
reference or that the claimed invention was probably known in a single prior art
device or practice. (Kalman v. Kimberly Clark, 218 USPQ 781, 789)
Even assuming gratia arguendi that the aforesaid brochures do depict
clearly on all fours each and every element of the patented gas burner device so
that the prior art and the said patented device become identical, although in truth
they are not, they cannot serve as anticipatory bars for the reason that they are
undated. The dates when they were distributed to the public were not indicated
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 and, therefore, they are useless prior art references.

xxx xxx xxx

Furthermore, and more signi cantly, the model marked Exh. "K" does not
show whether or not it was manufactured and/or cast before the application for
the issuance of patent for the LPG burner was filed by Melecia Madolaria.
With respect to Exh. "L," petitioner claimed it to be her own model of LPG
burner allegedly manufactured sometime in 1974 or 1975 and sold by her in the
course of her business operation in the name of Besco Metal Manufacturing,
which burner was denominated as "Ransome" burner.
xxx xxx xxx
But a careful examination of Exh. "L" would show that it does not bear the
word "Ransome" which is the burner referred to as the product being sold by the
Petitioner. This is not the way to prove that Exh. "L" anticipates Letters Patent No.
UM-4609 through Exhs. "C" and "D." Another factor working against the
Petitioner's claims is that an examination of Exh. "L" would disclose that there is
no indication of the time or date it was manufactured. This O ce, thus has no
way of determining whether Exh. "L" was really manufactured before the ling of
the aforesaid application which matured into Letters Patent No. UM-4609, subject
matter of the cancellation proceeding.
At this juncture, it is worthwhile to point out that petitioner also presented
Exh. "M" which is the alleged burner cup of an imported "Ransome" burner. Again,
this O ce nds the same as unreliable evidence to show anticipation. It observed
that there is no date indicated therein as to when it was manufactured and/or
imported before the ling of the application for issuance of patent of the subject
utility model. What is more, some component parts of Exh. "M" are missing, as
only the cup was presented so that the same could not be compared to the utility
model (subject matter of this case) which consists of several other detachable
parts in combination to form the complete LPG burner.
xxx xxx xxx
It must likewise be pointed out that Ong Bun Tua testi ed on the brochures
allegedly of Manila Gas and of Esso Gasul marked Exhs. "E" and "F" and on the
alleged fact that Manila Gas Corporation was importing from the United States
"Ransome" burners. But the same could not be given credence since he himself
admitted during cross-examination that he has never been connected with Manila
Gas Corporation. He could not even present any importation papers relating to the
alleged imported ransome burners. Neither did his wife. 6

The above ndings and conclusions of the Director of Patent were reiterated and
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 7
The validity of the patent issued by the Philippine Patent O ce in favor of private
respondent and the question over the inventiveness, novelty and usefulness of the
improved model of the LPG burner are matters which are better determined by the Patent
O ce. The technical staff of the Philippine Patent O ce composed of experts in their eld
has by the issuance of the patent in question accepted private respondent's model of gas
burner as a discovery. There is a presumption that the O ce has correctly determined the
patentability of the model 8 and such action must not be interfered with in the absence of
competent evidence to the contrary.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 The rule is settled that the ndings of fact of the Director of Patents, especially
when a rmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court when supported by
substantial evidence. Petitioner has failed to show compelling grounds for a reversal of
the findings and conclusions of the Patent Office and the Court of Appeals.
The alleged failure of the Director of Patents and the Court of Appeals to accord
evidentiary weight to the testimonies of the witnesses of petitioner showing anticipation is
not a justi cation to grant the petition. Pursuant to the requirement of clear and convincing
evidence to overthrow the presumption of validity of a patent, it has been held that oral
testimony to show anticipation is open to suspicion and if uncorroborated by cogent
evidence, as what occurred in this case, it may be held insufficient. 9
Finally, petitioner would want this Court to review all over again the evidence she
presented before the Patent O ce. She argues that contrary to the decision of the Patent
O ce and the Court of Appeals, the evidence she presented clearly proves that the
patented model of private respondent is no longer new and, therefore, fraud attended the
acquisition of patent by private respondent.
It has been held that the question on priority of invention is one of fact. Novelty and
utility are likewise questions of fact. The validity of patent is decided on the basis of
factual inquiries. Whether evidence presented comes within the scope of prior art is a
factual issue to be resolved by the Patent O ce. 10 There is question of fact when the
doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts or when the query
necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of
witnesses, existence and relevance of speci c surrounding circumstances, their relation to
each other and to the whole and the probabilities of the situation. 1 1 cdphil

Time and again we have held that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to
analyze or weigh all over again the evidence and credibility of witnesses presented before
the lower tribunal or o ce. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Its jurisdiction is
limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, its ndings of
fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals a rming
that of the Philippine Patent Office is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima Jr., JJ ., concur.

Footnotes

1. 60 Am. Jur. 2d 462.

2. 40 Am. Jur. 547.
3. Maguan v. Court of Appeals, No. L-45101, 28 November 1986, 146 SCRA 107.
4. 60 Am. Jur. 2d 573.

5. Sec. 55. RA No. 165, as amended.

6. Rollo, pp. 143-167.
7. Id., pp. 204-214.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 8. Aguas v. de Leon, No. L-32160, 30 January 1982, 111 SCRA 238.
9. 60 Am. Jur. 2d 573.
10. Id., p. 582.
11. Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101680, 2 December 1992, 216 SCRA 224.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com