text:
REY CASTIGADOR CATEDRILLA, PETITIONER, VS. MARIO AND MARGIE[1] LAURON, RESPONDENTS.
PERALTA, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision[2] dated February 28, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 00939, as well as its Resolution[3] dated July 11, 2007 which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
On February 12, 2003, petitioner Rey Castigador Catedrilla filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Lambunao, Iloilo a Complaint[4] for ejectment against the spouses Mario and Margie Lauron alleging as follows: that Lorenza Lizada is the owner of a parcel of land known as Lot 183, located in Mabini Street, Lambunao, Iloilo, which was declared for taxation purposes in her name under Tax Declaration No. 0363;[5] that on February 13, 1972, Lorenza died and was succeeded to her properties by her sole heir Jesusa Lizada Losañes, who was married to Hilarion Castigador (Castigador); that the spouses Jesusa and Hilarion Castigador had a number of children, which included Lilia Castigador (Lilia), who was married to Maximo Catedrilla (Maximo); that after the death of the spouses Castigador, their heirs agreed among themselves to subdivide Lot 183 and, pursuant to a consolidation subdivision plan[6] dated January 21, 1984, the parcel of lot denominated as Lot No. 5 therein was to be apportioned to the heirs of Lilia since the latter already died on April 9, 1976; Lilia was succeeded by her heirs, her husband Maximo and their children, one of whom is herein petitioner; that petitioner filed the complaint as a co-owner of Lot No. 5; that sometime in 1980, respondents Mario and Margie Lauron, through the tolerance of the heirs of Lilia, constructed a residential building of strong materials on the northwest portion of Lot No. 5 covering an area of one hundred square meters; that the heirs of Lilia made various demands for respondents to vacate the premises and even exerted earnest efforts to compromise with them but the same was unavailing; and that petitioner reiterated the demand on respondents to vacate the subject lot on January 15, 2003, but respondents continued to unlawfully withhold such possession.
In their Answer,[7] respondents claimed that petitioner had no cause of action against them, since they are not the owners of the residential building standing on petitioner's lot, but Mildred Kascher (Mildred), sister of respondent Margie, as shown by the tax declaration in Mildred's name;[8] that in 1992, Mildred had already paid P10,000.00 as downpayment for the subject lot to Teresito Castigador;[9] that there were several instances that the heirs of Lilia offered the subject Lot 183 for sale to respondents and Mildred and demanded payment, however, the latter was only interested in asking money without any intention of delivering or registering the subject lot; that in 1998, Maximo, petitioner's father, and respondent Margie entered into an amicable settlement[10] before the Barangay Lupon of Poblacion Ilawod, Lambunao, Iloilo wherein Maximo offered the subject lot to the spouses Alfons and Mildred Kascher in the amount of P90,000.00 with the agreement that all documents related to the transfer of the subject lot to Maximo and his children be prepared by Maximo, but the latter failed to comply; and that the amicable settlement should have the force and effect of a final judgment of a court, hence, the instant suit is barred by prior judgment. Respondents counterclaimed for damages.
On November 14, 2003, the MTC rendered its Decision,[11] the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff ordering the defendants:
1. To vacate the lot in question and restore possession to the plaintiff;
2. To pay plaintiff in the reduced amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) as Atty's fees, plus ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) per Court appearance;
3. To pay plaintiff reasonable compensation for the use of the lot in question ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) pesos yearly counted from the date of demand;
4. To pay the cost of litigation.
No award of moral and exemplary damages.
Defendants' counterclaim is hereby dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.[12]
The MTC found that from the allegations and evidence presented, it appeared that petitioner is one of the heirs of Lilia Castigador Catedrilla, the owner of the subject lot and that respondents are occupying the subject lot; that petitioner is a party who may bring the suit in accordance with Article 487[13] of the Civil Code; and as a co-owner, petitioner is allowed to bring this action for ejectment under Section 1, Rule 70[14] of the Rules of Court; that respondents are also the proper party to be sued as they are the occupants of the subject lot which they do not own; and that the MTC assumed that the house standing on the subject lot has been standing thereon even before 1992 and only upon the acquiescence of the petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest.
The MTC found that respondents would like to focus their defense on the ground that Mildred is an indispensable party, because she is the owner of the residential building on the subject lot and that there was already a perfected contract to sell between Mildred and Maximo because of an amicable settlement executed before the Office of the Punong Barangay. However, the MTC, without dealing on the validity of the document and its interpretation, ruled that it was clear that respondent Margie was representing her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Bienvenido Loraña, in the dispute presented with the Punong Barangay. It also found that even Mildred's letter to petitioner's father Maximo recognized the title of petitioner's father over the subject lot and that it had not been established by respondents if Teresito Castigador, the person who signed the receipt evidencing Mildred's downpayment of P10,000.00 for the subject lot, is also one of the heirs of Lilia. The MTC concluded that respondents could not be allowed to deflect the consequences of their continued stay over the property, because it was their very occupation of the property which is the object of petitioner's complaint; that in an action for ejectment, the subject matter is material possession or possession de facto over the real property, and the side issue of ownership over the subject lot is tackled here only for the purpose of determining who has the better right of possession which is to prove the nature of possession; that possession of Lot 183 should be relinquished by respondents to petitioner, who is a co-owner, without foreclosing other remedies that may be availed upon by Mildred in the furtherance of her supposed rights.
Respondents filed their appeal with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, raffled off to Branch 26. On March 22, 2005, the RTC rendered its Order,[15] the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, circumstances herein-above considered, the decision of the court dated November 14, 2003 is hereby AFFIRMED, except for the payment of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees.
The RTC found that petitioner, being one of the co-owners of the subject lot, is the proper party in interest to prosecute against any intruder thereon. It found that the amicable settlement signed and executed by the representatives of the registered owner of the premises before the Lupon is not binding and unenforceable between the parties. It further ruled that even if Mildred has her name in the tax declaration signifying that she is the owner of the house constructed on the subject lot, tax declarations are not evidence of ownership but merely issued to the declarant for purposes of payment of taxes; that she cannot be considered as an indispensable party in a suit for recovery of possession against respondents; that Mildred should have intervened and proved that she is an indispensable party because the records showed that she was not in actual possession of the subject lot. The RTC deleted the attorney's fees, since the MTC decision merely ordered the payment of attorney's fees without any basis.
Respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order[17] dated June 8, 2005.
Dissatisfied, respondents filed with the CA a petition for review. Petitioner filed his Comment thereto.
On February 28, 2007, the CA issued its assailed decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, this petition for review is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 26, Iloilo City, dated March 22, 2005, that affirmed the MTC Decision dated November 14, 2003, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Consequently, the complaint for ejectment of the respondent is DISMISSED.[18]
The CA found that only petitioner filed the case for ejectment against respondents and ruled that the other heirs should have been impleaded as plaintiffs citing Section 1,[19] Rule 7 and Section 7,[20] Rule 3 of the Rules of Court; that the presence of all indispensable parties is a condition sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power; that when an indispensable party is not before the court, the action should be dismissed as without the presence of all the other heirs as plaintiffs, the trial court could not validly render judgment and grant relief in favor of the respondents.
The CA also ruled that while petitioner asserted that the proper parties to be sued are the respondents as they are the actual possessors of the subject lot and not Mildred, petitioner still cannot disclaim knowledge that it was to Mildred to whom his co-owners offered the property for sale, thus, he knew all along that the real owner of the house on the subject lot is Mildred and not respondents; that Mildred even paid P10,000.00 out of the total consideration for the subject lot and required respondents' relatives to secure the documents that proved their ownership over the subject lot; that Maximo and Mildred had previously settled the matter regarding the sale of the subject lot before the Barangay as contained in an amicable settlement signed by Maximo and respondent Margie. Thus, the question in this case extends to mere possessory rights and non-inclusion of indispensable parties made the complaint fatally defective. From the facts obtaining in this case, ejectment being a summary remedy is not the appropriate action to file against the alleged deforciant of the property.
Hence, this petition for review wherein petitioner raises the following issues:
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT WAS A NULLITY .
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT HELD THAT PETITIONER KNEW ALL ALONG THAT MILDRED KASCHER, AND NOT RESPONDENTS, WERE THE REAL OWNERS OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.[21]
The CA found that petitioner's co-heirs to the subject lot should have been impleaded as co-plaintiffs in the ejectment case against respondents, since without their presence, the trial court could not validly render judgment and grant relief in favor of petitioner.
We do not concur.
Petitioner can file the action for ejectment without impleading his co-owners. In Wee v. De Castro,[22] wherein petitioner therein argued that the respondent cannot maintain an action for ejectment against him, without joining all his co-owners, we ruled in this wise:
Article 487 of the New Civil Code is explicit on this point:
ART. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.
This article covers all kinds of action for the recovery of possession, i.e., forcible entry and unlawful detainer (accion interdictal), recovery of possession (accion publiciana), and recovery of ownership (accion de reivindicacion). As explained by the renowned civilest, Professor Arturo M. Tolentino:
A co-owner may bring such an action, without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all. If the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, such that he claims possession for himself and not for the co-ownership, the action will not prosper.
In the more recent case of Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman, this Court declared that a co-owner is not even a necessary party to an action for ejectment, for complete relief can be afforded even in his absence, thus:
In sum, in suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real parties in interest. However, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code and the relevant jurisprudence, any one of them may bring an action, any kind of action for the recovery of co-owned properties. Therefore, only one of the co-owners, namely the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of the co-owned property, is an indispensable party thereto. The other co-owners are not indispensable parties. They are not even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be afforded in the suit even without their participation, since the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners.[23]
In this case, although petitioner alone filed the complaint for unlawful detainer, he stated in the complaint that he is one of the heirs of the late Lilia Castigador, his mother, who inherited the subject lot, from her parents. Petitioner did not claim exclusive ownership of the subject lot, but he filed the complaint for the purpose of recovering its possession which would redound to the benefit of the co-owners. Since petitioner recognized the existence of a co-ownership, he, as a co-owner, can bring the action without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs.
Petitioner contends that the CA committed a reversible error in finding that Mildred Kascher is an indispensable party and that her non-inclusion as a party defendant in the ejectment case made the complaint fatally defective, thus, must be dismissed.
We agree with petitioner.
The CA based its findings that Mildred is an indispensable party because it found that petitioner knew all along that Mildred is the owner of the house constructed on the subject lot as shown in the affidavits[24] of Maximo and petitioner stating that petitioner's co-owners had offered for sale the subject lot to Mildred, and that Maximo, petitioner's father, and Mildred had previously settled before the Barangay the matter regarding the sale of the subject lot to the latter as contained in the amicable settlement.
We find that the affidavits of Maximo and petitioner merely stated that the lot was offered for sale to Mildred, but nowhere did it admit that Mildred is the owner of the house constructed on the subject lot.
Also, it appears that the amicable settlement[25] before the Barangay wherein it was stated that Maximo will sell the subject lot to the spouses Alfons and Mildred Kascher was signed by Maximo on behalf of his children and respondent Margie on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Bienvenido Loraña. Thus, there is no basis for the CA's conclusion that it was Mildred and Maximo who had previously settled the sale of the subject lot.
Moreover, it appears however, that while there was a settlement, Liah C. Catedrilla, one of petitioner's co-heirs, wrote a letter[26] dated October 30, 2002, to the Spouses Loraña and respondent Margie stating that the latter had made a change on the purchase price for the subject lot which was different from that agreed upon in the amicable settlement. Records neither show that respondent Margie had taken steps to meet with Liah or any of her co-heirs to settle the matter of the purchase price nor rebut such allegation in the letter if it was not true. The letter[27] dated July 5, 2003 of respondent Margie's counsel addressed to petitioner's counsel, stating that his client is amenable in the amount as proposed in the amicable settlement, would not alter the fact of respondents' non-compliance with the settlement since the letter was sent after the ejectment case had already been filed by petitioner.
In Chavez v. Court of Appeals,[28] we explained the nature of the amicable settlement reached after a barangay conciliation, thus:
Indeed, the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law provides that an amicable settlement reached after barangay conciliation proceedings has the force and effect of a final judgment of a court if not repudiated or a petition to nullify the same is filed before the proper city or municipal court within ten (10) days from its date. It further provides that the settlement may be enforced by execution by the lupong tagapamayapa within six (6) months from its date, or by action in the appropriate city or municipal court, if beyond the six-month period. This special provision follows the general precept enunciated in Article 2037 of the Civil Code, viz.:
A compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res judicata; but there shall be no execution except in compliance with a judicial compromise.
Thus, we have held that a compromise agreement which is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs is a valid contract which is the law between the parties themselves. It has upon them the effect and authority of res judicata even if not judicially approved, and cannot be lightly set aside or disturbed except for vices of consent and forgery.
However, in Heirs of Zari, et al. v. Santos, we clarified that the broad precept enunciated in Art. 2037 is qualified by Art. 2041 of the same Code, which provides:
If one of the parties fails or refuses to abide by the compromise, the other party may either enforce the compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original demand.
We explained, viz.:
[B]efore the onset of the new Civil Code, there was no right to rescind compromise agreements. Where a party violated the terms of a compromise agreement, the only recourse open to the other party was to enforce the terms thereof.
When the new Civil Code came into being, its Article 2041 x x x created for the first time the right of rescission. That provision gives to the aggrieved party the right to "either enforce the compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original demand." Article 2041 should obviously be deemed to qualify the broad precept enunciated in Article 2037 that "[a] compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res judicata.
In exercising the second option under Art. 2041, the aggrieved party may, if he chooses, bring the suit contemplated or involved in his original demand, as if there had never been any compromise agreement, without bringing an action for rescission. This is because he may regard the compromise as already rescinded by the breach thereof of the other party.[29]
While the amicable settlement executed between Maximo and respondent Margie before the Barangay had the force and effect of a final judgment of a court, it appears that there was non-compliance thereto by respondent Margie on behalf of her parents which may be construed as repudiation. The settlement is considered rescinded in accordance with the provision of Article 2041 of the Civil Code. Since the settlement was rescinded, petitioner, as a co-owner, properly instituted the action for ejectment to recover possession of the subject lot against respondents who are in possession of the same.
Even the receipt[30] signed by a certain Teresito Castigador, acknowledging having received from Mildred the amount of P10,000.00 as downpayment for the purchase of the subject lot, would not also prove respondents' allegation that there was already a perfected contract to sell the subject lot to Mildred, since the authority of Teresito to sell on behalf of the heirs of Lilia Castigador was not established.
In ejectment cases, the only issue to be resolved is who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership set forth by any of the party-litigants.[31] In an action for unlawful detainer, the real party-in-interest as party-defendant is the person who is in possession of the property without the benefit of any contract of lease and only upon the tolerance and generosity of its owner.[32] Well settled is the rule that a person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is bound by an implied promise that he will vacate the same upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him.[33] His status is analogous to that of a lessee or tenant whose term of lease has expired but whose occupancy continued by tolerance of the owner.[34]
Here, records show that the subject lot is owned by petitioner's mother, and petitioner, being an heir and a co-owner, is entitled to the possession of the subject lot. On the other hand, respondent spouses are the occupants of the subject lot which they do not own. Respondents' possession of the subject lot was without any contract of lease as they failed to present any, thus lending credence to petitioner's claim that their stay in the subject lot is by mere tolerance of petitioner and his predecessors. It is indeed respondents spouses who are the real parties-in-interest who were correctly impleaded as defendants in the unlawful detainer case filed by petitioner.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated February 28, 2007 and the Resolution dated July 11, 2007 of the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated March 22, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Iloilo City, in Civil Case No. 04-27978, is hereby REINSTATED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Abad, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
[1] Sometimes spelled as Mergie in some pleadings.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, with Associate Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Stephen C. Cruz, concurring; rollo, pp. 22-32.
[4] Docketed as Civil Case No. 516, records, pp. 5-8.
[5] Rollo, p. 158.
[11] Per Judge Augusto L. Nobleza; rollo, pp. 137-142.
[12] Id. at 142. (Citations omitted)
[13] Art. 487. Anyone of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.
[14] Rule 70. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. – Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs.
[15] Per Judge Antonio M. Natino, rollo, pp. 65-75.
[19] Section 1. Caption. – The caption sets forth the name of the court, the title of the action, and the docket number if assigned.
The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They shall all be named in the original complaint or petition; but in subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name of the first party on each side be stated with an appropriate indication when there are other parties.
Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated.
[20] Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. – Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
[22] G.R. No. 176405, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA 695.
[24] Rollo, pp. 160-161; 168-169, respectively.
8. My family offered the lot being occupied now by the Laurons for sale to them and more particularly to her sister, Mildred Kascher, however, negotiations for the sale failed. (Rollo, p. 161)
We, complainants and respondents in the above-captioned case, do hereby agree to settle our dispute as follows:
The complainant/owner, Mr. Maximo Catedrilla, in behalf of his children agree to sell Lot. No. 54 to spouses Alfons and Mildred Kascher in the amount of P90,000.00.
The buyer agrees to buy at the price stated, payment will be made at the time the documents showing his ownership and the Deed of Sale shall have been finished.
In case the owner fails to gather the necessary documents pertaining to his ownership on time, he has the option to extend the time of execution of the Deed of Sale until such time that the documents have been completed.
In case the buyer fails to pay the amount at the time that the Deed of Sale is ready for execution they will lose their right to purchase and the owner shall give a warning to remove all the improvements they have made on the said lot.
Date of execution of the Deed of Sale shall be on September 30, 1998.
[28] G.R. No. 159411, March 18, 2005, 453 SCRA 843.
[31] Lao v. Lao, G.R. No. 149599, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 539, 546.
[33] Arambulo v. Gungab, 508 Phil. 612, 621-622 (2005), citing Boy v. Court of Appeals, 471 Phil. 102, 114 (2004).
[34] Lao v. Lao, supra note 31, at 547.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


FRED: Did you see the stew they served in the cafeteria today?
HARRY: No, but I'll see it when they serve it again next week.
Let me try to describe what the food tastes like in our school cafeteria.
Have you ever eaten any of your old clothes?
They served chicken noodle soup in the school cafeteria today.
A kid from the third grade got the noodle.
FRED: Do they have good food in your school cafeteria?
HARRY: Yeah, until somebody cooks it.
TEACHER: What was the Tuesday Special in the cafeteria?
TEACHER: How did it taste?
PUPIL: Like it should have been the Monday Special.
most of the kids say grace before, during, and after the meal.
the cafeteria will have the rolls to go with it.
they serve leftovers from World War II.
that flies go there to lose weight.
FRED: How do they keep flies out of the kitchen in the school cafeteria?
HARRY: They let them taste the food.


One of the challenges of building and operating complex systems is that it's difficult to talk about one facet or component of them without bleeding the conversation into other related concerns. That's the funky thing about complex systems and systems thinking: components come together to behave in different (sometimes surprising) ways that they never would on their own, in isolation. Everything always connects to everything else, so it's always tempting to see connections and want to include them in discussion. I suspect James Urquhart feels the same.
So one helpful bit (I've found) is Erik Hollnagel's Four Cornerstones of Resilience. I've been using it as a lens with which which to discuss and organize my thoughts on…well, everything. I think I've included them in every talk, presentation, or maybe even every conversation I've had with anyone for the last year and a half. I'm planning on annoying every audience for the foreseeable future by including them, because I can't seem to shake how helpful they are as a lens into viewing resilience as a concept.
The greatest part about the four cornerstones is that it's a simplification device for discussion. And simplifications don't come easily when talking about complex systems. The other bit that I like is that it makes it straightforward to see relationships in activities and challenges in each of them, as they relate to each other.
I'll leave it as an exercise to imagine how anticipation can then affect monitoring, response, and learning. The point here is that each of the four cornerstones can effect each other in all sorts of ways, and those relationships ought to be explored.
I do think it's helpful when looking at these pieces to understand that they can exist on a large time window as well as a small one. You might be tempted to view them in the context of infrastructure attributes in outage scenarios; this would be a mistake, because it narrows the perspective to what you can immediately influence. Instead, I think there's a lot of value in looking at the cornerstones as a lens on the larger picture.
Of course going into each one of these in detail isn't going to happen in a single epic too-long blog post, but I thought I'd mention a couple of things that I currently think of when I've got this perspective in mind.
This is knowing what to expect, and dealing with the potential for fundamental surprises in systems. This involves what Westrum and Adamski called "Requisite Imagination", the ability to explore the possibilities of failure (and success!) in a given system. The process of imagining scenarios in the future is a worthwhile one, and I certainly think a fun one. The skill of anticipation is one area where engineers can illustrate just how creative they are. Cheers to the engineers who can envision multiple futures and sort them based on likelihood. Drinks all around to those engineers who can take that further and explain the rationale for their sorted likelihood ratings. Whereas monitoring deals in the now, anticipation deals in the future.
Architectural Reviews These are meetings open to all of engineering that we have when there's a new pattern being used or a new type of technology being introduced, and why. We gather up people proposing the ideas, and then spend time shooting holes into it with the goal of making the solution stronger than it might have been on its own. We'd also entertain what we'd do if things didn't go according to plan with the idea. We take adopting new technologies very seriously, so this doesn't happen very often.
Go or No-Go Meetings (a.k.a. Operability Reviews) These are where we gather up representative folks (at least someone from Support, Community, Product, and obviously Engineering) to discuss some fundamentals on a public-facing change, and walk through any contingencies that might need to happen. Trick is – in order to get contingencies as part of the discussion, you have to name the circumstances where they'd come up.
GameDay Exercises These are exercises where we validate our confidence in production by causing as many horrible things we can to components while they're in production. Even asking if a GameDay is possible sparks enough conversation to be useful, and burning pieces to the ground to see how it behaves when it does is always a useful task. We want no unique snowflakes, so being able to stand it up as fast as it can burn down is fun for the whole family.
Recognize when adaptive capacity is failing – Example: Can you detect when your team's ability to respond to outages degrades?
Recognizing the threat of exhausting buffers or reserves – Example: Can you tell when your tolerances for faults are breached? When your team's workload prevents proactive planning from getting done?
Recognize when to shift priorities across goal trade-offs – Example: Can you tell when you're going to have to switch from greenfield development, and focus on cleaning up legacy infra?
Able to make perspective shifts and contrast diverse perspectives that go beyond their nominal position – Example: Can Operations understand the goals of Development, and vice-versa, and support them in the future?
Able to navigate interdependencies across roles, activities, and levels – Example: Can you foresee what's going to be needed from different groups (Finance, Support, Facilities, Development, Ops, Product, etc.) and who in those teams need to be kept up-to-date with ongoing events?
Recognize the need to learn new ways to adapt – Example: Will you know when it's time to include new items in training incoming engineers, as failure scenarios and ways of working change in the organization and infrastructure?
I'm fascinated by the skill of anticipation, frankly. I spoke at Velocity Europe in Berlin last year on the topic.
This is knowing what to look for, and dealing with the critical in systems. Not just the mechanics of servers and networks and applications, but monitoring in the organizational sense. Anomaly detection and metrics collection and alerting are obviously part of this, and should be familiar to anyone expecting their web application to be operable.
But in addition to this, we're talking as well about meta-metrics on the operations and activities of both infrastructure and staff.
How might an team measure its cognitive load during an outage, in order to detect when it is drifting?
Are there any gaps that appear in a team's coordinative or collaborative abilities, over time?
Can the organization detect when there are goal conflicts (example: accelerating production schedules in the face of creeping scope) quickly enough to make them explicit and do something about them?
What leading or lagging indicators could you use to gauge whether or not the performance demand of a team is beyond what could be deemed "normal" for the size and scale it has?
How can you confirm that engineers are being ramped up adequately to being productive and adaptive in a team?
…[people] tend to neglect how processes develop over time (awareness of rates) versus assessing how things are in the moment.
I was lucky enough to talk a bit more in detail about Resilient Response In Complex Systems at QCon in London this past year.
This is knowing what has happened, and dealing with the factual in systems. Everyone wants to believe that their team or group or company has the ability to learn, right? A hallmark of good engineering is empirical observation that results in future behavior changes. Like I mentioned above, this is the place where Post-Mortems usually come into play. At this point I think our field ought to be familiar with Post-Mortem meetings and the general structure and goal of them: to glean as much information about an incident, an outage, a surprising result, a mistake, etc. and spread those observations far and wide within the organization in order to prevent them from happening in the future.
Can act like safety "vaccines" for an organization, because they are just a little bit of failure that doesn't really hurt.
They happen much more often than actual systemic failures, so they provide a lot more data on latent failures.
They are a powerful reminder of hazards, therefore keeping the "constant sense of unease" that is needed to provide resilience in a system.
This morning I went to do X, so I did Y. Boy was that a bad idea! Not only did it not do what I thought it was going to, but also it almost brought the site down because of Z, which was a surprise to me. So whatever you do, don't make the same mistake I did. In the meantime, I'm going to see what I can do to prevent that from happening.
For one, it provides the confirmation that anyone, at any time, no matter their seniority level, can make a mistake or act on faulty assumptions. The other benefit is that it sends the message that admitting to making a mistake is acceptable and encouraged, and that people should feel safe in admitting to these sometimes embarrassing events.
This last point is so powerful that it's hard to emphasize it more. It's related to encouraging a Just Culture, something that I wrote about recently over at Code As Craft, Etsy's Engineering blog.
The last bit I wanted to mention about learning is purposefully not incident-related. One of the basic tenets of Resilience Engineering is that safety is not the absence of incidents an failures; it's the presence of actions, behaviors, and culture (all along the lines of the four cornerstones above) that causes an organization to be safe. Learning from failures means that the surface area to learn from is not all that large. To be clear, most organizations see successes much much more often than they do failures.
One such focus might be changes. If, across 100 production deploys, you had 9 change-related outages, which should you learn from? Should you be satisfied to look at those nine, have postmortems, and then move forward, safe in the idea that you've rid yourself of the badness? Or should you also look at the 91 deploys, and gather some hypothesis about why they ended up ok? You can learn from 9 events, or 91. The argument here is that you'll be safer by learning from both.
So in addition to learning from why things go wrong, we ought to learn just as much from why do things go right? Why didn't your site go down today? Why aren't you having an outage right now? This is likely due to a huge number of influences and reasons, all worth exploring.
Great point about analyzing 91 success vs. post mortem on 9 fails.


text:
As CNN launched a new, multi-platform operation in Lagos, Nigeria, Ms Stephanie Busari has been named head of the bureau's multiple platforms, reports ITRealms.
The multiple platform, ITRealms gathered has been designed to give the network a nimble, broad-based, digital-first presence in Africa's most populous country.
According to Deborah Rayner, SVP, Newsgathering at CNN International, leading the operation in Lagos would be Stephanie Busari, who takes on the role of Supervising Producer, Africa, and will work across CNN's newsgathering and digital operations, and will be the network's first responder for all platforms.
"This is a truly integrated role, and one that underlines CNN's commitment to both Nigeria and Africa as a whole. Stephanie will work across our platforms on both news and feature content. In particular, she will head CNN's Africa content across digital – responding to breaking news and managing our Africa features projects. She will also be central to CNN International's coverage of the continent on television," Rayner said.
For Busari, to return to Nigeria at such an important time in the country's history is a proud and exciting moment for her.
"This is such a vibrant country, full of possibilities, and as well as my broader remit looking at Africa as a whole this role will be about putting the many sides of Nigeria itself into sharper relief for the world," she said.
ITRealms recalls that since joining CNN in 2008, Busari has worked across some of the network's most important African stories. In particular she was central to CNN's coverage of the Missing Chibok girls, working alongside Senior International Correspondent Nima Elbagir.
A multi-award winning journalist, Busari began her career at the now-defunct London-based newspaper New Nation, which was aimed at the UK's black and ethnic minority communities. She then moved to the UK's Daily Mirror, where among other beats she covered Northern Ireland, reporting on some of the worst affected areas of "The Troubles". While in Belfast she also launched and edited an award-winning lifestyle column for the paper. A native Yoruba speaker, she also speaks fluent French.
Pix: Ms Stephanie Busari
Labels: Bureau, Busari heads, CNN, multiple, Nigerian, platform


You are here: Home » Personal » How Much House Can I Afford?
Home ownership is definitely something that's in my long-term plan, but I haven't quite figured out where it fits in. One important aspect of determine when I will buy a house, is determining how much house I can afford. I obviously don't just want to buy a house for the sake of buying a house, so I won't be buying until what I can afford aligns with what I want.
The eventual approval for a mortgage is a complicated process, but there are some simple calculations that can be performed to get an idea about how much house you can afford. For example, the FHA publishes its loan requirements on its website. Zillow also offers a quick-and-easy calculation of how much house you can afford. But before you rush off to run the calculation, let's look at these ratios a bit more.
Under this qualification ratio, the total mortgage payment (including principal, interest, taxes, insurance, amd PMI) is compared to your gross income as a ratio. This is sometimes referred to as a front-end ratio. The FHA states that it requires a minimum front-end ratio of 31%. You might see 28% mentioned as a common ratio required by private lenders (often expressed as 28/36 debt-to-income — the 36 applies to the next ratio).
To calculate this, you multiply your monthly gross income by the required percentage. For example, if you have a gross income of $8,333 (100,000/12), your mortgage payment should not exceed $2,333 (under a 28% ratio).
This is where your other debt comes into play. This ratio compares your total monthly payment toward servicing debt with your income. Total debt adds auto loan, student loan, and credit card payments. For U.S conforming loans, the maximum ratio is typically 36%. By taking the difference between the two ratios (8%), you can see that your other debt servicing payments can be up to $666 per month.
Now that you know what type of payment you can afford, you'll need to convert this into the amount of house you can afford (or qualify for). If we use today's rates of 3.5% on a 30-year fixed mortgage, you'd owe about $45 per month for each $10,000 borrowed. You'd have to adjust for any PMI required.
So based on this example income and ratios (which mirror mine), I'd be able to qualify for approximately $500,000 worth of house. And then I'd add any down payment made on top of that.
By comparison, if interest rates are at 6%, then you'd use a ratio of approximately $60 per $10,000 borrowed, which would yield a total mortgage of $388,833.
As you can see, just by being able to take advantage of lower interest rates, I'd be able to purchase more than $100,000 more house for the same monthly payment. I know these aren't the correct terms to think of as far as home purchases go since the higher 6% loan could potentially be refinanced later, but it's hard to ignore the huge impact that today's lower interest rates play.
Is 2013 the Year to Buy a House?


The Transportation Committee offers those with an interest in transportation issues the opportunity to network with other professionals, to sharpen their technical and professional skills, and to grow professionally.
Understanding the nation's infrastructure needs and future plans and keeping track of the myriad of transportation funding options is a tough job in the calmest of years, and today's political climate has made this an even greater challenge. In this constantly changing world, staying on top of transportation funding is a full-time job. While ASCE members and industry professionals are always up to the challenge of developing designs for the most complicated infrastructure needs, navigating the legislative pathways that lead to the funding that pays for the design and construction can be daunting.
In this month's ASCE NCS Transportation Committee lecture, Cathy Connor, WSP's Director of Federal Government Affairs will provide an update on the Trump Administration's new Infrastructure Plan, what it means to the industry, and what funding options are now available and how you or your clients can take advantage of them to advance your programs. In addition to the Trump Infrastructure Plan, she will discuss the FY 18 and FY 19 USDOT budget/appropriations and FAST Act reauthorization, and the related looming insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund. As anyone who watches the news or follows Twitter feeds knows, things change quickly these days, so by March 27, there may be even more to discuss.
Cathy Connor is a Senior Vice President and Director of Federal Government Affairs for WSP (formerly Parsons Brinckerhoff), located in the Washington, DC office. She was previously with the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), where she was Deputy Director of Government Affairs, and prior to that, was a political appointee at the US Department of Transportation where she served as Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. Cathy is responsible for directing WSP's federal legislative, regulatory and political activities. Her extensive experience includes working with industry, federal agency and congressional staff on key infrastructure legislation, such as MAP-21, FAA Reauthorization and PRRIA. Cathy also helps clients identify federal funding sources and plan legislative strategies. She acts as the firm's liaison to numerous industry associations and legislative coalitions where she serves in various leadership roles and speaks at industry events. She is frequently quoted in ENR, Civil Engineering magazine and other industry publications on federal legislative activities.


Looking for a higher paying interest checking account? Our premium interest account has competitive rates with the conveniences of a checking account plus free checks. Monthly service fee is waived when minimum balance requirement is met.


Epilepsy is a neurological disorder in which the normal activity of brain cells are sometimes disturb. These abnormalities can cause convulsions, muscle spasms, and loss of consciousness. There are reportedly 50 million people worldwide that have epilepsy; it's prevalent in childhood, adolescence, and old age. Epilepsy is reportedly the most common serious brain disorder worldwide. The disorder is classified into three types: idiopathic, symptomatic, and cryptogenic.
Reportedly 60% of people with epilepsy, have idiopathic epilepsy.
Idiopathic seizures, where there is no apparent cause, is possibly linked genetically. Symptomatic seizures are usually caused by widespread brain damage. Reportedly, those affected with these seizures, often have other neurological problems, such as mental retardation or cerebral palsy. Lastly, cryptogenic epilepsy are seizures with no obvious cause. Thus, the terms "idiopathic epilepsy" and "cryptogenic epilepsy" are sometimes used interchangeably.
Epidiolex, an investigative drug extracted from marijuana, that comes in a liquid form, has been tested on children with epilepsy. Reportedly, the drug does not obtain intoxicating properties, is a liquid made of a purified cannabidiol (CBD) extracted from marijuana plants, and is grown under license at an unknown location in Britain. "I was skeptical at first, but families are trying medical cannabis and it is working, including several girls with Aicardi Syndrome," Polly VanderWoude said. Olivia VanderWoude, Polly's daughter, has suffered uncontrollable seizures since she was diagnosed at 2-months-old. Olivia is now 3-years-old. Olivia has Aicardi Syndrome. Polly wants to give Olivia a marijuana strain rich in CBD, the major non-psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.
"The Epilepsy Foundation is firmly committed to supporting physician directed care, and to exploring and advocating for all potential treatment options for epilepsy, including CBD oil and medical marijuana," a statement from epilepsy.com. Reportedly, out of 151 patients in the safety testing for Epidiolex, 26 experienced serious adverse effect and two died, although GW pharmaceuticals said independent investigations found they were unrelated to the trail. In addition, the children in the study, were all receiving other treatment alongside the Epidiolex. Two of the patients were taken from the study because of "adverse effects" and another four due to a lack of clinical effect.
Marijuana and its components are classified as schedule 1 drugs by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Because of its label, it's difficult to conduct research using marijuana agents but it's not impossible. "I believe the Epidiolex has the potential to be an important advance in treatment for these treatment-resistant children and will likely have a significant role as a future therapy," said Dr. Elizabeth Thiele, director of the Pediatric Epilepsy Program at Massachusetts General Hospital.
People with uncontrolled seizures live with continual risk of serious injuries and loss of life. In states where medical marijuana use is legal as a treatment for epilepsy, a number of people living with the disorder report beneficial effect, including a decrease in seizure activity.