THIRDDIVISIONREPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Petitioner,

G.R.No.169067

versus

Present:CARPIOMORALES,J.,Chairperson,BRION,BERSAMIN,VILLARAMA,JR.,andSERENO,JJ.

ANGELO B. MALABANAN,PABLO B. MALABANAN,GREENTHUMB REALTY ANDDEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONand THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDSOFBATANGAS,Respondents.

Promulgated:

October6,2010

xx

DECISION

VILLARAMA,JR.,J.:

ThispetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,as

amended,seekstooverturntheResolution[1]

datedJuly20,2005oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CVNo.70770dismissingpetitionersappeal.

Thefactsareasfollows:

Respondents Angelo B.Malabanan and Pablo B.Malabanan were registered owners of a405,000squaremeter parcel of land situated in Talisay, Batangas and covered by Transfer

Certificate of Title (TCT)No. T24268[2]

of theRegister ofDeeds of Tanauan, Batangas. Saidparcel of landwas originally registered onApril 29, 1936 in theRegister ofDeeds ofBatangas

underOriginalCertificateofTitle(OCT)No.017421[3]

pursuanttoDecreeNo.589383[4]

issuedinL.R.C.RecordNo.50573.OCTNo.017421wascancelledandwasreplacedwithTCTNo.T9076 fromwhich respondents title,TCTNo.T24268,wasderived.Theparcelof landwas latersubdividedintosmallerlotsresultinginthecancellationofTCTNo.T24268.ThederivativetitlesarenoweitherinthenamesoftheMalabanansorrespondentGreenthumbRealtyandDevelopmentCorporation.

Petitioner Republic of the Philippines claims that in an investigation conducted by theDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources (Region IV), it was revealed that the landcoveredbyTCTNo.T24268waswithintheunclassifiedpublicforestofBatangasperL.C.CM

No. 10.This prompted petitioners filing of a complaint[5]

for reversion and cancellation of titleagainst respondents onMarch 30, 1998. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. T1055 andraffled off toBranch 83 of theRegional TrialCourt (RTC) ofBatangas. The casewas later redocketedasCivilCaseNo.C192.

On May 5, 1998, the Malabanans filed a Motion to Dismiss.[6]

They argued that thecomplaintfailedtostateacauseofactionthecourthasnojurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterthe

complaintviolatesSection7,[7]

Rule8of the1997RulesofCivilProcedure,asamended, sincepetitionerdidnotattachacopyofDecreeNo.589383oftheCourtofFirstInstanceofBatangas,pursuant to whichOCTNo. 017421was issued in LRCRecordNo. 50573 and that a similarcomplaintforreversiontothepublicdomainofthesameparcelsoflandbetweenthesamepartieshasalreadybeendismissedbythesamecourt.

InanOrder[8]

datedDecember11,1998,thetrialcourtdismissedthecomplaint.Thesalientportionsoftheorderread:

AsimilarcomplaintforreversiontothepublicdomainofthesameparcelsoflandwasfiledwiththisCourtonJuly14,1997byplaintiffagainstdefendantsmovants.Thecase,docketedasCivilCaseNo.T784,wasdismissedonDecember7,1992(sic)forlackofjurisdiction.

Aspointedoutbymovants,thenullificationofOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.017421andallitsderivativetitleswouldinvolvethenullificationofthejudgmentoftheLandRegistrationCourtwhichdecreed the issuance of the title over the property. Therefore, the applicable provision of law isSection 9 (2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 which vests upon the Court of Appeals exclusivejurisdictionoveractionsforannulmentofjudgmentsoftheRegionalTrialCourt.

Moreover, thisCourt is aware, and takes judicial notice, of the fact that theparcels of land,subject of reversion had been the subject of several cases before this Court concerning theownershipandpossessionthereofbydefendantsmovants.ThesecaseswereevenelevatedtotheCourt of Appeals and the Supreme Court which, in effect, upheld the ownership of thepropertiesbydefendantsMalabanans.SaiddecisionsofthisCourt,theCourtofAppeals,and

theSupremeCourtshouldthenalsobeannulled.[9]

(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied.)

OnJanuary5,1999,petitionerfiledaNoticeofAppeal[10]

fromtheorderofdismissal.OnJanuary18,1999, theMalabanansmoved todenydue course and todismiss appeal arguing thatpetitioner, in filing a notice of appeal, adopted an improper mode of appeal. The Malabananscontendedthattheissueofjurisdictionofthetrialcourtoverthecomplaintfiledbypetitionerisaquestion of law which should be raised before the Supreme Court via a petition for review on

certiorariunderRule45.[11]

OnJune 29, 1999, the trial court issued anOrder[12]

denying due course and dismissing

petitionersappeal.However,oncertiorari,[13]

docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.54721,saidorderwasreversedbytheCAonFebruary29,2000.TheCAruledthatthedeterminationofwhetherornotanappeal may be dismissed on the ground that the issue involved is purely a question of law isexclusively lodgedwithin thediscretionof theCA.Consequently, the trial courtwasdirected togiveduecoursetopetitionersappealandorderthetransmittaloftheoriginalrecordsonappealto

theCA.[14]

Petitioner,initsAppealBrief[15]

filedbeforetheCA,raisedthisloneassignmentoferror:

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND OF

LACKOFJURISDICTION.[16]

Aperusaloftheargumentsinthebriefrevealsthatnotonlydidpetitionerraisethejurisdictionalissue,it likewise questioned the portion of the dismissal orderwhere it was held that several casesinvolvingthesubjectlandhavealreadybeenfiledandinthosecases,theCAandtheSupremeCourthaveupheldrespondentsownership.Petitionerargued that thequestionofwhether therightoftheMalabananshad, infact,beenupheldisfactual innatureandnecessarilyrequires

presentationofevidence.[17]

On July 20, 2005, however, the CA issued the assailed Resolution dismissing petitionersappeal,holdingthattheissueofjurisdiction,beingapurequestionoflaw,iscognizableonlybytheSupremeCourtviaapetitionforreviewoncertiorari.ItdismissedpetitionersappealunderSection

2,[18]

Rule50ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,asamended.

Beforeus,petitionerraisesthesoleissueof:

WHETHERTHECOURTOFAPPEALSCOMMITTEDAREVERSIBLEERRORINDISMISSINGPETITIONERSAPPEALFORBEINGTHEWRONGMODETOASSAILTHETRIALCOURTS

ORDER.[19]

Petitionerarguesthattheissuesurroundingthevalidityoftheorderdismissingthecomplaintdoesnotonlyinvolveaquestionof lawbutalsoinvolvesaquestionoffact.ThequestionoffactpertainstotheportionofthetrialcourtsassailedorderwhichstatedthattheMalabanansownershiphadbeenupheldbytheCAandtheSupremeCourt.Petitionercontendsthatthequestionofwhethersuch right had in fact been upheld is factual in nature. Petitioner adds that the trial court hasjurisdictionoverthecomplaintandshouldnothavedismissedthecomplaintinthefirstplace.

Respondents,ontheotherhand,counterthattherearenofactualissuesinvolvedbecausetheyaredeemedtohavehypotheticallyadmittedthetruthofthefactsallegedinthecomplaintwhentheyfiledamotiontodismiss.

Thepetitionismeritorious.

InMurillo v.Consul,[20]

we had the opportunity to clarify the three (3)modes of appealfromdecisionsoftheRTC,towit:(1)byordinaryappealorappealbywritoferrorunderRule41,[21]

where judgment was rendered in a civil or criminal action by the RTC in the exercise of

originaljurisdiction(2)bypetitionforreviewunderRule42,[22]

wherejudgmentwasrenderedbytheRTCintheexerciseofappellatejurisdictionand(3)bypetitionforreviewoncertioraritothe

SupremeCourtunderRule45.[23]

ThefirstmodeofappealistakentotheCAonquestionsoffactormixedquestionsoffactandlaw.ThesecondmodeofappealisbroughttotheCAonquestionsoffact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. The third mode of appeal is elevated to the

SupremeCourtonlyonquestionsoflaw.[24]

AndinLeonciov.DeVera,[25]

thisCourthasdifferentiatedaquestionoflawfromaquestionoffact.Aquestionoflawariseswhenthereisdoubtastowhatthelawisonacertainstateoffacts,whilethereisaquestionoffactwhenthedoubtarisesastothetruthorfalsityoftheallegedfacts.Foraquestiontobeoneoflaw,thesamemustnotinvolveanexaminationoftheprobativevalueoftheevidencepresentedby the litigantsoranyof them.The resolutionof the issuemust rest solelyonwhat the law provides on the given set of circumstances.Once it is clear that the issue invites areview of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether aquestionisoneoflaworoffactisnottheappellationgiventosuchquestionbythepartyraisingthesame rather, it iswhether the appellate court candetermine the issue raisedwithout reviewingor

evaluatingtheevidence,inwhichcase,itisaquestionoflawotherwiseitisaquestionoffact.[26]

Here,petitionersappealdoesnotonlyinvolveaquestionoflaw.Asidefromthetrialcourtsrulingthat ithasnojurisdictionover thecomplaint,petitioner likewisequestionedtheotherbasisforthetrialcourtsruling,whichreferstopreviouslydecidedcasesallegedlyupholdingwithfinalitytheownershipoftheMalabanansoverthedisputedproperty.Ascorrectlyarguedbypetitioner,thequestion ofwhether the ownership of theMalabanans has in fact been sustainedwith finality isfactualinnatureasitrequiresthepresentationofevidence.

Since the appeal raised mixed questions of fact and law, no error can be imputed onpetitionerforinvokingtheappellatejurisdictionoftheCAthroughanordinaryappealunderRule41.

WHEREFORE,theResolutiondatedJuly20,2005oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.70770isREVERSEDandSETASIDE.PetitionersappealisREINSTATEDandtheinstantcaseisREMANDED to the Court of Appeals, which is directed to proceed with the usual appealprocessthereinwithdeliberatedispatch.

Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.AssociateJusticeWECONCUR:

CONCHITACARPIOMORALESAssociateJustice

Chairperson

ARTUROD.BRIONAssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMINAssociateJustice

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENOAssociateJustice

ATTESTATIONIattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES

AssociateJusticeChairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and the Division ChairpersonsAttestation,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONAChiefJustice

[1] Rollo, pp. 2628. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now a retired member of this Court), with Associate JusticesBienvenidoL.ReyesandElviJohnS.Asuncionconcurring.

[2]Records,p.11.

[3]Id.at1213.

[4]Id.at1415.

[5]Id.at110.

[6]Id.at2231.

[7]SEC.7.Actionordefensebasedondocument.Wheneveranactionordefense isbaseduponawritten instrumentordocument, thesubstanceofsuchinstrumentordocumentshallbesetforthinthepleading,andtheoriginaloracopythereofshallbeattachedtothepleadingasanexhibit,whichshallbedeemed tobeapartof thepleading,or saidcopymaywith likeeffectbe set forth in thepleading.

[8]Records,pp.8586.

[9]Id.

[10]Id.at9091.

[11]Id.at9396.

[12]Id.at103104.

[13]Id.at107120.

[14]Id.at195202.

[15]CArollo,pp.2750.

[16]Id.at38.

[17]Id.at4647.

[18]SEC.2.DismissalofimproperappealtotheCourtofAppeals.AnappealunderRule41takenfromtheRegionalTrialCourttotheCourtofAppealsraisingonlyquestionsoflawshallbedismissed,issuespurelyoflawnotbeingreviewablebysaidcourt.Similarly,an appeal by notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of aRegional TrialCourt shall bedismissed.

AnappealerroneouslytakentotheCourtofAppealsshallnotbetransferredtotheappropriatecourtbutshallbedismissedoutright.[19]

Rollo,p.15.[20]

Resolutionof theCourtEnBanc inUDK9748datedMarch1,1990ascitedinMacababbad,Jr.v.Masirag,G.R.No. 161237,January14,2009,576SCRA70,83.

[21]Rule41AppealfromtheRegionalTrialCourts.

[22]Rule42PetitionforReviewfromtheRegionalTrialCourtstotheCourtofAppeals.

[23]Rule45AppealbyCertioraritotheSupremeCourt.

[24]Macababbad,Jr.v.Masirag, supranote20,at8384seealsoAbedesv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.174373,October15,2007,536SCRA268,285286andSuarezv.Villarama,Jr.,G.R.No.124512,June27,2006,493SCRA74,80.

[25]G.R.No.176842,February18,2008,546SCRA180.

[26]Id.at184,citingBinayv.Odea,G.R.No.163683,June8,2007,524SCRA248,255256,furthercitingVelayoFongv.Velayo,G.R.No.155488,December6,2006,510SCRA320,329330.