Republic v. Mangotara

8/16/2019 Republic v. Mangotara

1/96

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF

THE PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner,

- versus -

HON. MAMINDIARA P.

MANGOTARA, in his capacity as

P!si"in# $%"#! &' th! R!#i&na(

Tia( C&%t, Banch ), I(i#an City,

Lana& "!( N&t!, an" MARIA

CRISTINA FERTILI*ER

CORPORATION, an" th!

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN+,Respondents,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

LAND TRADE REALT

CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

- versus -

NATIONAL PO/ER

CORPORATION an" NATIONAL

TRANSMISSION

CORPORATION 0TRANSCO1,

Respondents,

G.R. N&. )23425

G.R. N&. )23535


2/96

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NATIONAL PO/ER

CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

- versus -

HON. COURT OF APPEALS

0Sp!cia( T6!nty-Thi" Di7isi&n,

Ca#ayan "! O& City1, an" LAND

TRADE REALT

CORPORATION,

Respondents, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

REPUBLIC OF

THEPHILIPPINES,

Petitioner,

- versus -

DEMETRIA CACHO, !p!s!nt!"

8y a((!#!" H!is DEMETRIA

CONFESOR VIDAL an"9&

TEOFILO CACHO, A*IMUTH

INTERNATIONAL

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

an" LAND TRADE REALT

CORPORATION,

Respondents.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NATIONAL TRANSMISSION

CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

- versus -

G.R. N&s. )24455-5:

G.R. N&. )24;3)

G.R. N&s. )245:4-:;


3/96

HON. COURT OF APPEALS

0Sp!cia( T6!nty-Thi"

Di7isi&n, Ca#ayan "! O& City1, an"

LAND TRADE REALT

CORPORATION as !p!s!nt!" 8y

Atty. Ma C. Ta8i


4/96

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D E C I S I O N

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J .?

efore the Court are se/en consolidated Petitions for Re/ie0 on Certiorari and a

Petition for Certiorari under Rules 12 and 32 of the Rules of Court, respecti/el(,

arisin' from actions for 4uietin' of title, epropriation, e5ectment, and re/ersion,

0hich all in/ol/e the same parcels of land.

%n G.R. N&. )23425, the Republic of the Philippines 6Republic7, b( 0a( of

consolidated Petitions for Re/ie0 on Certiorari and for Certiorari under Rules 12

and 32 of the Rules of Court, respecti/el(, see8s to set aside the issuances of "ud'e

Mamindiara P. Man'otara 6"ud'e Man'otara7 of the Re'ional $rial Court, ranch

6R$C-ranch 7 of %li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte, in Ci/il Case No. +3,

particularl(, the: 67 Resolution9 dated "ul( *, *++2 0hich, in part, dismissed the

Complaint for propriation of the Republic for the latters failure to implead

indispensable parties and forum shoppin'; and 6*7 Resolution9* dated October *1,

*++2, 0hich denied the Partial Motion for Reconsideration of the Republic.

G.R. N&s. )2=22> an" )2==>; are t0o Petitions for Re/ie0

on Certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, 0here !andtrade Realt(

Corporation 6!AN#$RA#7, $eofilo Cacho, and dated "anuar( ?, *++) and Resolution91 dated "ul( 1,

*++) of the Court of Appeals in CA-=.R. CV No. ++123. $he Court of Appeals

affirmed the #ecision92 dated "ul( ), *++1 of the Re'ional $rial Court, ranch >

6R$C-ranch >7 of %li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte, in Ci/il Case No. 112*, 'rantin'

the Petition for @uietin' of $itle, %n5unction and #ama'es filed b( #emetria Vidal

and Aimuth %nternational #e/elopment Corporation 6A&%MB$7 a'ainst $eofilo

Cacho and Att(. =odofredo Cabildo.

G.R. N&. )23535 is a Petition for Re/ie0 on Certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules

of Court in 0hich !AN#$RA# ur'es the Court to re/erse and set aside

the #ecision93dated No/ember *>, *++2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-=.R. SP

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn1


5/96

Nos. D2)1 and D2D1. $he appellate court annulled se/eral issuances of the

Re'ional $rial Court, ranch 2 6R$C-ranch 27 of %li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte,

and its sheriff, in Ci/il Case No. 33>, specificall(, the: 67 Order 9) dated Au'ust ?,

*++1 'rantin' the Motion for ecution Pendin' Appeal of !AN#$RA#; 6*7

Erit of ecution9D dated Au'ust +, *++1; 6>7 t0o Notices of =arnishment 9? bothdated Au'ust , *++1, and 617 Notification9+dated Au'ust , *++1. $hese

issuances of the R$C-ranch 2 allo0ed and+, *++3 of the Court of Appeals in the

consolidated cases of CA-=.R. SP Nos. ++D21 and ++DD?, 0hich 67 'ranted the

Omnibus Motion of !AN#$RA# for the issuance of a 0rit of eecution and the

desi'nation of a special sheriff for the enforcement of the #ecision9> dated

#ecember *, *++2 of the R$C-ranch in Ci/il Case No. 33>, and 6*7 deniedthe applications of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO for a 0rit of preliminar( in5unction

to en5oin the eecution of the same R$C #ecision. $he #ecision dated #ecember

*, *++2 of R$C-ranch in Ci/il Case No. 33> affirmed the #ecision dated

Februar( ), *++1 of the M$CC in Ci/il Case No. 1)2-AF, fa/orin'

!AN#$RA#.

G.R. N&. )24;3) in/ol/es a Petition for Re/ie0 on Certiorari under Rule

12 of the Rules of Court filed b( the Republic, 0hich raises pure 4uestions of la0and see8s the re/ersal of the follo0in' issuances of the Re'ional $rial Court,

ranch 1 6R$C-ranch 17 of %li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte, in Ci/il Case No.

33D3, an action for cancellation of titles and re/ersion: 67 Order 91 dated

#ecember >, *++2 dismissin' the Complaint in Ci/il Case No. 33D3; and 6*7

Order 92 dated Ma( 3, *++3, den(in' the Motion for Reconsideration of the

Republic.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn15


6/96

I

THE PRECEDING CASES

$he consolidated se/en cases ha/e for their common 'enesis the ?1 caseof Cacho v. Government of the United States93 61914 Cacho case7.

Th! 1914 Cacho Case

Sometime in the earl( ?++s, the late #oa #emetria Cacho 6#oa #emetria7

applied for the re'istration of t6& pac!(s &' (an": 67 !ot of Plan %%->)>*, the

smaller parcel 0ith an area of 4,:45 s@%a!

6*7 !ot * of Plan %%->)>*, the lar'er parcel 0ith an area of 42=,232 s@%a!

& 42.=2 h!cta!s 6!ot *7.oth parcels are situated in 0hat 0as

then the Municipalit( of %li'an, Moro Pro/ince, 0hich later became Sitio Nunucan,

then r'(. Suare, in %li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte. #oa #emetrias applications for

re'istration 0ere doc8eted as =!RO Record Nos. 3?+D and 3?+?.

$he application in GLRO R!c&" N&. :>3= co/ered L&t ), the smaller

parcel of land. #oa #emetria alle'edl( ac4uired !ot b( purchase from =abriel

Salos 6Salos7.Salos, in turn, bou'ht !ot from #atto #arondon and his 0ife

Alan'a, e/idenced b( a deed of sale in fa/or of Salos si'ned solel( b( Alan'a, on behalf of #atto #arondon.

$he application in GLRO R!c&" N&. :>3> in/ol/ed L&t , the bi''er

parcel of land. #oa #emetria purportedl( purchased !ot * from #atto

un'la(. #atto un'la( claimed to ha/e inherited !ot * from his uncle, #atto

Anando', 0ho died 0ithout issue.

Onl( the =o/ernment opposed #oa #emetrias applications for re'istration

on the 'round that the t0o parcels of land 0ere the propert( of the Bnited

States and formed part of a militar( reser/ation, 'enerall( 8no0n

as Camp O/erton.

On #ecember +, ?*, the land re'istration court 6!RC7 rendered its

#ecision in =!RO Record Nos. 3?+D and 3?+?.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn16


7/96

ased on the e/idence, the !RC made the follo0in' findin's in GLRO

R!c&" N&. :>3=:

3th

. $he court is con/inced from the proofs that the s

!sta8(ish!". Accordin' to his o0n declaration his residence on this land

commenced onl( a fe0 da(s before the sale. e admitted that the coco trees he is

supposed to ha/e planted had not (et be'un to bear fruit at the time of the sale,and 0ere /er( small. #atto #uroc positi/el( denies that un'la( li/ed on the

land, and it clearl( appears that he 0as not on the land 0hen it 0as first occupied

b( the militar(. Nor does #atto un'la( claim to ha/e planted the three man'otrees b( the roadside near point *2 of the plan. $he court belie/es that all the rest

of this parcel, not occupied nor culti/ated b( #atto Anando', 0as land claimed b(

#atto #uroc and also b( #atto Anando' and possibl( b( other dattos as a part of

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn17


8/96

their 'eneral 5urisdiction, and that it is the class of land that Act No. )D prohibits

the sale of, b( the dattos, 0ithout the epress appro/al of the =o/ernment.

%t is also found that #atto un'la( is the nephe0 of #ato Anando', and

that the Moro 0oman Alan'a, 'rantor of the small parcel, is the sister of #atto

Anando', and that he died 0ithout issue.

%t appears also that accordin' to the pro/isions of the Ci/il Code as also

the pro/isions of the !u0aran Code of the Moros, the Moro 0oman Alan'a has

an interest in the portion of land left b( her deceased brother, #atto Anando'. (

article !GGGV, section >, of the !u0aran Code, it 0ill be seen that the brothersand sisters of a deceased Moro inherit his propert( to the eclusion of the more

distant relati/es. $herefore #atto un'la( had no le'al interest 0hate/er in the

land to sell to the applicant, #oa #emetria Cacho. ut the Moro 0oman, Alan'a,

ha/in' appeared as a 0itness for the applicant 0ithout ha/in' made an( claim tothe land, the court finds from this fact that she has ratified the sale made b( her

nephe0.

Th! c&%t th!!'&! 'in"s that th! app(icant D&a D!

&6n! &' th! p&ti&n &' (an" &cc%pi!" an" p(ant!" 8y th! "!c!as!" Datt&

Anan" in th! s&%th!n pat &' th! (a#! pac!( &8!ct &' expediente N&.

:>3> &n(y an" h! app(icati&n as t& a(( th! !st &' th! (an" s&(icit!" in sai"

cas! is "!ni!". An" it is &"!!" that a n!6 s%7!y &' th! (an" 8! ocloc8, p.m. of the da( mentioned. ut the court, ne/ertheless, set sta8esmar8in' the N.., S.., and S.E. corners of the land found to ha/e been culti/ated

b( the deceased Anando'. $he N.. limit of said land is a broo8, and the N.E.

corner is the point 0here the broo8 intersects the shore line of the sea, the other corners mentioned bein' mar8ed 0ith pine sta8es. An" it is &"!!" that th!

n!6 s%7!y 8!


9/96

$he !RC additionall( decreed at the end of its #ecember +, ?* #ecision:

%t is further ordered that one-half of the costs of the ne0 sur/e( be paid b(

the applicant and the other half b( the =o/ernment of the Bnited States, and that

the applicant present the correspondin' deed from #atto #arondon on or beforethe abo/e-mentioned >+th da( of March, ?>. Final decision in these cases is

reser/ed until the presentation of the said deed and the ne0 plan.9?

Apparentl( dissatisfied 0ith the fore'oin' !RC 5ud'ment, #oa #emetria

appealed to this Court. %n its #ecision dated #ecember +, ?1, the Court

affirmed in toto the !RC #ecision of #ecember +, ?*, 0ell satisfied that the

findin's of fact of the court belo0 0ere full( sustained b( the e/idence adduced

durin' trial.i'ht(-three (ears later, in ??), the Court 0as a'ain called upon to settle a matter

concernin' the re'istration of !ots and * in the case of Cacho v. Court of

Appeals9*+ 61997 Cacho case7.

Th! 1997 Cacho Case

On "une *?, ?)D, $eofilo Cacho 6$eofilo7, claimin' to be the late #oa

#emetrias son and sole heir, filed before the R$C a petition for reconstitution of

t0o ori'inal certificates of title 6OC$s7, doc8eted under the ori'inal =!RO Record

Nos. 3?+D and 3?+?.

$eofilos petition 0as opposed b( the Republic, National Steel Corporation

6NSC7, and the Cit( of %li'an.

Actin' on the motion for 5ud'ment on demurrer to e/idence filed b( the

Republic and NSC, the R$C initiall( dismissed $eofilos petition for reconstitution

of titles because there 0as inade4uate e/idence to sho0 the prior eistence of thetitles sou'ht to be restored. Accordin' to the R$C, the proper remed( 0as a

petition for the reconstitution of decrees since it is undisputed that in Cases No.

3?+D and 3?+?, #ecrees No. +>31 and D?3?, respecti/el(, 0ere issued. $eofilo

sou'ht lea/e of court for the filin' and admission of his amended petition, but the

R$C refused. Ehen ele/ated to this Court in Cacho v. Mangotara, doc8eted as

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn20


10/96

=.R. No. D21?2, the Court resol/ed to remand the case to the R$C, 0ith an order

to the said trial court to accept $eofilos amended petition and to hear it as one for

re-issuance of decrees.

%n opposin' $eofilos petition, the Republic and NSC ar'ued that the samesuffered from 5urisdictional infirmities; that $eofilo 0as not the real part(-in-

interest; that $eofilo 0as 'uilt( of laches; that #oa #emetria 0as not the re'istered

o0ner of the sub5ect parcels of land; that no decrees 0ere e/er issued in #oa

#emetrias name; and that the issuance of the decrees 0as dubious and irre'ular.

After trial, on "une ?, ??>, the R$C rendered its #ecision 'rantin' $eofilos

petition and orderin' the reconstitution and re-issuance of #ecree Nos. +>31 and

D?3?. $he R$C held that the issuance of #ecree No. +>31 in =!RO No. 3?+D onMa( ?, ?> and #ecree No. D?3? in =!RO Record No. 3?+? on "ul( D, ?2

0as sufficientl( established b( the certifications and testimonies of concerned

officials. $he ori'inal issuance of these decrees presupposed a prior 5ud'ment that

had become final.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals re/ersed the R$C #ecision dated "une ?,

??> and dismissed the petition for re-issuance of #ecree Nos. +>31 and D?3?

because: 67 re-issuance of #ecree No. D?3? in =!RO Record No. 3?+? could not

be made in the absence of the ne0 sur/e( ordered b( this Court in the 1914 Cachocase; 6*7 the heir of a re'istered o0ner ma( lose his ri'ht to reco/er possession of

the propert( and title thereto b( laches; and 6>7 $eofilo failed to establish his

identit( and eistence and that he 0as a real part(-in-interest.

$eofilo then sou'ht recourse from this Court in the 1997 Cacho case. $he

Court re/ersed the 5ud'ment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of

the R$C appro/in' the re-issuance of #ecree Nos. +>31 and D?3?. $he Court

found that such decrees had in fact been issued and had attained finalit(, ascertified b( the Actin' Commissioner, #eput( Cler8 of Court %%%, =eodetic

n'ineer, and Chief of Re'istration of the then !and Re'istration Commission,

no0 National !and $itles and #eeds Re'istration Administration

6NA!$#RA7. $he Court further reasoned that:


11/96

9$o sustain the Court of Appeals rulin' as re'ards re4uirin' petitioners to fulfill

the conditions set forth in Cacho vs. U.S. 0ould constitute a dero'ation of the

doctrine of res judicata.Si'nificantl(, the issuance of the sub5ect decrees presupposes a prior final 5ud'ment because the issuance of such decrees is a mere

ministerial act on part of the !and Re'istration Commission 6no0 the

NA!$#RA7, upon presentation of a final 5ud'ment. %t is also 0orth notin' thatthe 5ud'ment in Cacho vs. U.S. could not ha/e ac4uired finalit( 0ithout the prior

fulfillment of the conditions in =!RO Record No. 3?+D, the presentation of the

correspondin' deed of sale from #atto #orondon on or before March >+, ?>6upon 0hich #ecree No. +>31 0as issued on Ma( ?, ?>7; and in =!RO

Record No. 3?+?, the presentation of a ne0 sur/e( per decision of "ud'e "or'e on

#ecember +, ?* and affirmed b( this Court on #ecember +, ?1 6upon

0hich #ecree No. D?3? 0as issued on "ul( D, ?27.

Re4uirin' the submission of a ne0 plan as a condition for the re-issuance of the

decree 0ould render the finalit( attained b( the Cacho vs. U.S. case nu'ator(,

thus, /iolatin' the fundamental rule re'ardin' res judicata. %t must be stressed thatthe 5ud'ment and the resultin' decree are res judicata, and these are bindin' upon

the 0hole 0orld, the proceedin's bein' in the nature of proceedin's inrem. esides, such a re4uirement is an impermissible assault upon the inte'rit(

and stabilit( of the $orrens S(stem of re'istration because it also effecti/el(

renders the decree inconclusi/e.9*

As to the issue of laches, the Court referred to the settled doctrine that laches

cannot bar the issuance of a decree. A final decision in land re'istration cases can

neither be rendered inefficacious b( the statute of limitations nor b( laches.

Anent the issue of the identit( and eistence of $eofilo and he bein' a real

part(-in-interest, the Court found that these 0ere sufficientl( established b( the

records. $he Court relied on $eofilos Affida/it of Ad5udication as #oa #emetrias

sole heir, 0hich he eecuted before the Philippine Consulate =eneral

in Chica'o, Bnited States of America6B.S.A.7; as 0ell as the publication in the

$imes "ournal of the fact of ad5udication of #oa #emetrias estate. $eofilo also

appeared personall( before the Vice Consul of the Philippine Consulate =eneral

in Chica'o to eecute a Special Po0er of Attorne( in fa/or of Att(. =odofredoCabildo 6Att(. Cabildo7 0ho represented him in this case. $he Court stressed that

the eecution of public documents is entitled to the presumption of re'ularit( and

proof is re4uired to assail and contro/ert the same.



12/96

%n the Resolution dated "ul( *D, ??), 9** the Court denied the Motions for

Reconsideration of the Republic and NSC.

As a result of the 1997 Cacho case, the decrees of re'istration 0ere re-

issued bearin' ne0 numbers and OC$s 0ere issued for the t0o parcels of land in#oa #emetrias name. OC$ No. +-*++ 6a.f.7 0as based on re-issued #ecree No.

N-*?131 in =!RO Record No. 3?+D, 0hile OC$ No. +-*+ 6a.f.7 0as based on

re-issued #ecree No. N-*?132 in =!RO Record No. 3?+?.

II

THE ANTECENT FACTS

OF THE PETITIONS AT BAR

$he dispute o/er !ots and * did not end 0ith the termination of the 1997 Cacho case. Another four cases in/ol/in' the same parcels of land 0ere instituted

before the trial courts durin' and after the pendenc( of the 1997 Cacho case. $hese

cases are: 67 the propriation Case, =.R. No. )+>)2; 6*7 the @uietin' of $itle

Case, =.R. Nos. )D))? and )DD?1; 6>7 the 5ectment or Bnla0ful #etainer Case,

=.R. No. )+2+2 6eecution pendin' appeal before the R$C7 and =.R. Nos.

)>>22-23 and )>23>-31 6eecution pendin' appeal before the Court of Appeals7;

and 617 the Cancellation of $itles and Re/ersion Case, =.R. No. )>1+. $hese

cases proceeded independentl( of each other in the courts a quo until the( reachedthis Court /ia the present Petitions. %n the Resolution9*> dated October >, *++), the

Court consolidated the se/en Petitions considerin' that the( either ori'inated from

the same case or in/ol/ed similar issues.

Ep&piati&n Cas!

0G.R. N&. )234251

$he Complaint for propriation 0as ori'inall( filed on Au'ust 2, ?D> b( the

%ron and Steel Authorit( 6%SA7, no0 the NSC, a'ainst Maria Cristina Fertilier Corporation 6MCFC7, and the latters mort'a'ee, the Philippine National an8

6PN7. $he Complaint 0as doc8eted as Ci/il Case No. +3 and raffled to R$C-

ranch , presided o/er b( "ud'e Man'otara.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn23


13/96

%SA 0as created pursuant to Presidential #ecree No. *)*? 9*1 dated Au'ust ?, ?)>,

to stren'then, de/elop, and promote the iron and steel industr( in

the Philippines. %ts eistence 0as etended until October +, ?DD.

On No/ember 3, ?D*, durin' the eistence of %SA, then PresidentFerdinand . Marcos issued Presidential Proclamation No. **>?, 9*2 reser/in' in

fa/or of %SA a parcel of land in %li'an Cit(, measurin' >+*,2>* s4uare meters or

>+.*2 hectares, to be de/oted to the inte'rated steel pro'ram of the

=o/ernment. MCFC occupied certain portions of this parcel of land. Ehen

ne'otiations 0ith MCFC failed, %SA 0as compelled to file a Complaint for

propriation.

Ehen the statutor( eistence of %SA epired durin' the pendenc( of Ci/ilCase No. +3, MCFC filed a Motion to #ismiss the case alle'in' the lac8 of

capacit( to sue of %SA. $he R$C-ranch 'ranted the Motion to #ismiss in an

Order dated No/ember ?, ?DD. %SA mo/ed for reconsideration or, in the

alternati/e, for the substitution of the Republic as plaintiff in Ci/il Case No. +3,

but the motion 0as denied b( R$C-ranch . $he dismissal of Ci/il Case No. +3

0as affirmed b( the Court of Appeals, thus, %SA appealed to this Court. %n Iron and

Steel uthorit! v. Court o" ##eals9*3 $IS case%, the Court remanded the case to

R$C-ranch , 0hich 0as ordered to allo0 the substitution of the Republic for

%SA as plaintiff. ntr( of "ud'ment 0as made in the IS case on Au'ust >,??D. %n an Order 9*) dated No/ember 3, *++, the R$C-ranch allo0ed the

substitution of the Republic for %SA as plaintiff in Ci/il Case No. +3.

Alle'in' that !ots and * in/ol/ed in the 1997 Cacho case encroached and

o/erlapped the parcel of land sub5ect of Ci/il Case No. +3, the Republic filed

0ith the R$C-ranch a Motion for !ea/e to File Supplemental Complaint dated

October ), *++1 and to Admit the Attached Supplemental Complaint dated

September *D, *++1

9*D

see8in' to implead in Ci/il Case No. +3 $eofilo Cacho and#emetria Vidal and their respecti/e successors-in-interest, !AN#$RA# and

A&%MB$.

MCFC opposed the Motion for lea/e to file and to admit the Supplemental

Complaint on the 'round that the Republic 0as 0ithout le'al personalit( to file the

same because %SA 0as the plaintiff in Ci/il Case No. +3. MCFC ar'ued that the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn28


14/96

Republic failed to mo/e for the eecution of the decision in the IS case 0ithin the

prescripti/e period of fi/e (ears, hence, the onl( remed( left 0as for the Republic

to file an independent action to re/i/e the 5ud'ment. MCFC further pointed out

that the unreasonable dela( of more than si (ears of the Republic in see8in' the

substitution and continuation of the action for epropriation effecti/el( barred an(further proceedin's therein on the 'round of estoppel b( laches.

%n its Repl(, the Republic referred to the Order dated No/ember 3, *++ of

the R$C-ranch allo0in' the substitution of the Republic for %SA.

%n an Order dated April 1, *++2, the R$C-ranch denied the Motion of the

Republic for lea/e to file and to admit its Supplemental Complaint. $he R$C-

ranch a'reed 0ith MCFC that the Republic did not file an( motion for

eecution of the 5ud'ment of this Court in the IS case. Since no such motion for eecution had been filed, the R$C-ranch ruled that its Order dated No/ember

3, *++, 0hich effected the substitution of the Republic for %SA as plaintiff in

Ci/il Case No. +3, 0as an honest mista8e. $he Republic filed a Motion for

Reconsideration of the April 1, *++2 Order of the R$C-ranch .

MCFC then filed a Motion to #ismiss Ci/il Case No. +3 for: 67 failure of the

Republic to implead indispensable parties because MCFC insisted it 0as not the

o0ner of the parcels of land sou'ht to be epropriated; and 6*7 forum shoppin'

considerin' the institution b( the Republic on October >, *++1 of an action for there/ersion of the same parcels sub5ect of the instant case for epropriation.

"ud'e Man'otara of R$C-ranch issued a Resolution9*? on "ul( *, *++2,

den(in' for lac8 of merit the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated April

1, *++2 filed b( the Republic, and 'rantin' the Motion to #ismiss Ci/il Case No.

+3 filed b( MCFC. "ud'e Man'otara 5ustified the dismissal of the propriation

Case thus:

Ehat the Republic see8s 9herein is the epropriation of the sub5ect

parcels of land. Since the eercise of the po0er of eminent domain in/ol/es theta8in' of pri/ate lands intended for public use upon pa(ment of 5ust

compensation to the o0ner , then a complaint for epropriation must, of

necessit(, be directed a'ainst the o0ner of the land sub5ect thereof. %n the case at bar, the decision of the Supreme Court in Cacho v. &overnment o" the United

States , decreein' the re'istration of the sub5ect parcels of land in the name

of the late #oa #emetria Cacho has lon' attained finalit( and is conclusi/e as to

the 4uestion of o0nership thereof. Since MCFC, the onl( defendant left in this



15/96

case, is not a proper part( defendant in this complaint for epropriation, the

present case should be dismissed.

$his Court notes that the Republic 9has filed re/ersion proceedin's dated

September *), *++1, in/ol/in' the same parcels of land, doc8eted as Case No.

33D3 pendin' before the Re'ional $rial Court of !anao del Norte, %li'an Cit(ranch 1. 9$he Republic, ho0e/er, did not state such fact in its Verification and

Certification of Non-Forum Shoppin' attached to its Supplemental Complaint

dated September *D, *++1. 9%t is therefore 'uilt( of forum shoppin'. Moreo/er,considerin' that in the Re/ersion case, 9the Republic asserts o0nership o/er the

sub5ect parcels of land, it cannot be allo0ed to ta8e an inconsistent position in

this epropriation case 0ithout ma8in' a moc8er( of 5ustice.9>+

$he Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated "ul( *,

*++2, insofar as it dismissed Ci/il Case No. +3, but said Motion 0as denied b(

"ud'e Man'atora in a Resolution9> dated October *1, *++2.

On "anuar( 3, *++3, the Republic filed 0ith this Court the consolidated Petition

for Re/ie0 on Certiorari and Petition for Certiorari under Rules 12 and 32 of the

Rules of Court, respecti/el(, doc8eted as =.R. No. )+>)2.

Th! %i!tin# &' Tit(! Cas!

0G.R. N&s. )2=22> an" )2==>;1

#emetria Vidal 6Vidal7 and A&%MB$ filed on No/ember D, ??D, a

Petition9>* for @uietin' of $itle a'ainst $eofilo, Att(. Cabildo, and the Re'ister of

#eeds of %li'an Cit(, 0hich 0as doc8eted as Ci/il Case No. 112* and raffled to

R$C-ranch >.

%n the Petition, Vidal claimed that she, and not $eofilo, 0as the late #oa

#emetrias sole sur/i/in' heir, entitled to the parcels of land co/ered b( OC$ Nos.

+-*++ 6a.f.7 and +-*+ 6a.f.7. She a/erred that she is the dau'hter of FranciscoCacho Vidal 6Francisco7 and Fidela Arellano Confesor. Francisco 0as the onl(

child of #on #ionisio Vidal and #oa #emetria.

A&%MB$, for its part, filed the Petition as Vidals successor-in-interest

0ith respect to a *>-hectare portion of the sub5ect parcels of land pursuant to the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn32


16/96

Memorandum of A'reement dated April *, ??D and #eed of Conditional

Con/e(ance dated Au'ust >, *++1, 0hich Vidal eecuted in fa/or of A&%MB$.

$eofilo opposed the Petition contendin' that it stated no cause of action

because there 0as no title bein' disturbed or in dan'er of bein' lost due to theclaim of a third part(, and Vidal had neither le'al nor beneficial o0nership of the

parcels of land in 4uestion; that the matter and issues raised in the Petition had

alread( been tried, heard, and decided b( the R$C of %li'an Cit( and affirmed 0ith

finalit( b( this Court in the 1997 Cacho case; and that the Petition 0as barred b(

the Statute of !imitations and laches.

!AN#$RA#, amon' other parties, 0as allo0ed b( the R$C-ranch > to

inter/ene in Ci/il Case No. 112*. !AN#$RA# alle'ed that it is the o0ner of a portion of the sub5ect parcels of land, measurin' *)+,*22 s4uare meters or about

*).+> hectares, 0hich it purportedl( ac4uired throu'h a #eed of Absolute Sale

dated October , ??3 from $eofilo, represented b( Att(. Cabildo. !AN#$RA#

essentiall( ar'ued that VidalHs ri'ht as heir should be ad5udicated upon in a separate

and independent proceedin' and not in the instant @uietin' of $itle Case.

#urin' the pre-trial conference, the parties manifested that there 0as no

possibilit( of an( amicable settlement amon' them.

Vidal and A&%MB$ submitted testimonial and documentar( e/idencedurin' the trial before the R$C-ranch >. $eofilo and Att(. Cabildo failed to

present an( e/idence as the( did not appear at all durin' the trial, 0hile

!AN#$RA# 0as declared b( the R$C-ranch > to ha/e 0ai/ed its ri'ht to

present e/idence on its defense and counterclaim.

On "ul( ), *++1, the R$C-ranch > rendered its #ecision 9>> in Ci/il Case

No. 112* in fa/or of Vidal and A&%MB$, the dispositi/e portion of 0hich reads:

ERFOR, 5ud'ment is hereb( rendered in fa/or of the petitionersand a'ainst the respondents and inter/enors:

7 #C!AR%N=:

a.7 Petitioner #emetria C. Vidal the sole sur/i/in' heir of the late

#oa #emetria Cacho;



17/96

b.7 Petitioner #emetria C. Vidal alone has the hereditar( ri'ht to

and interest in the Sub5ect Propert(;

c.7 Petitioner Aimuth %nternational #e/elopment Corporation isthe successor-in-interest of petitioner #emetria C. Vidal to a

portion of the Sub5ect Propert( to the etent pro/ided in their *

April ??D Memorandum of A'reement and > Au'ust ??D #eedof Conditional Con/e(ance;

d.7 Respondent $eofilo Cacho is not a son or heir of the late #ona

#emetria Cacho; ande.7 Respondent $eofilo Cacho, =odofredo Cabildo and an( of their

transferees


18/96

ii7 From cancelin' or causin' the cancellation of

OC$s or an( certificate of title o/er the Sub5ect

Propert( in the name of #emetria Cacho or an(successor certificate of title, and from issuin' ne0

certificates of title in the name of respondent

$eofilo Cacho, =odofredo Cabildo and++,+++.++

For lac8 of factual and le'al basis, the counterclaim of $eofilo Cacho and

Att(. =odofredo Cabildo is hereb( dismissed.

!i8e0ise, the counterclaim of inter/enor %##1

$he 5oint appeal filed b( !AN#$RA#, $eofilo, and Att(. Cabildo 0ith the

Court of Appeals 0as doc8eted as CA-=.R. CV No. ++123. $he Court of Appeals,

in its #ecision9>2 of "anuar( ?, *++), affirmed in toto the #ecision dated "ul( ),

*++1 of the R$C-ranch >.



19/96

Accordin' to the Court of Appeals, the R$C-ranch > did not err in

resol/in' the issue on Vidals status, filiation, and hereditar( ri'hts as it is

determinati/e of the issue on o0nership of the sub5ect properties. %t 0as

indubitable that the R$C-ranch > had 5urisdiction o/er the person of $eofilo and 5uridical personalit( of !AN#$RA# as the( both filed their Ans0ers to the

Petition for @uietin' of $itle thereb( /oluntaril( submittin' themsel/es to the

5urisdiction of said trial court. !i8e0ise, the Petition for @uietin' of $itle is in

itself 0ithin the 5urisdiction of the R$C-ranch >. ence, 0here there is

5urisdiction o/er the person and sub5ect matter, the resolution of all other

4uestions arisin' in the case is but an eercise b( the court of its

5urisdiction. Moreo/er, $eofilo and !AN#$RA# 0ere 'uilt( of estoppel b(

laches for failin' to assail the 5urisdiction of the R$C-ranch > at the firstopportunit( and e/en acti/el( participatin' in the trial of the case and see8in'

affirmati/e reliefs.

%n addition, the Court of Appeals held that the 1997 Cacho case onl(

determined the /alidit( and efficac( of the Affida/it of Ad5udication that $eofilo

eecuted before the Philippine Consulate =eneral in the B.S.A. $he decision of

this Court in the 1997 Cacho case, 0hich had become final and eecutor(, did not

/est upon $eofilo o0nership of the parcels of land as it merel( ordered the re-

issuance of a lost duplicate certificate of title in its ori'inal form and condition.

$he Court of Appeals a'reed in the findin' of the R$C-ranch > that the

e/idence on record preponderantl( supports Vidals claim of bein' the

'randdau'hter and sole heiress of the late #oa #emetria. $he appellate court

further ad5ud'ed that Vidal did not dela( in assertin' her ri'hts o/er the sub5ect

parcels of land. $he prescripti/e period for real actions o/er immo/ables is >+

(ears. Vidals ri'hts as #oa #emetrias successor-in-interest accrued upon the

latters death in ?)1, and onl( *1 (ears thereafter, in ??D, Vidal alread( filed the present Petition for @uietin' of $itle. $hus, Vidals cause of action had not (et

prescribed. And, 0here the action 0as filed 0ithin the prescripti/e period

pro/ided b( la0, the doctrine of laches 0as also inapplicable.

!AN#$RA#, $eofilo, and Att(. Cabildo filed separate Motions for

Reconsideration of the "anuar( ?, *++) #ecision of the Court of Appeals, 0hich

0ere denied in the "ul( 1, *++) Resolution9>3 of the same court.



20/96

On Au'ust *1, *++), !AN#$RA# filed 0ith this Court a Petition for Re/ie0

on Certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, 0hich 0as doc8eted as =.R.

No. )D))?. On September 3, *++), $eofilo and Att(. Cabildo filed their o0n

Petition for Re/ie0 on Certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, 0hich 0asdoc8eted as =.R. No. )DD?1.

Th! E!ct

On Au'ust ?, ?2*, NAPOCOR too8 possession of t0o parcels of land in

Sitio Nunucan, O/erton, Fuentes, %li'an Cit(, denominated as !ots *+*? and *+1>,

consistin' of >,2DD s4uare meters 6or +.>3 hectares7 and >,)) s4uare meters 6or

+.>* hectares7, respecti/el(. On !ot *+*?, NAPOCOR constructed its po0er sub-

station, 8no0n as the O/erton Sub-station, 0hile on !ot *+1>, it built a 0arehouse,

8no0n as the A'us ) Earehouse, both for the use of its A'us ) (dro-lectric

Po0er Plant. For more than >+ (ears, NAPOCOR occupied and possessed said

parcels of land pursuant to its charter, Republic Act No. 3>?2.9>) Eith the

enactment in *++ of Republic Act No. ?>3, other0ise 8no0n as the lectricPo0er %ndustr( Reform Act 6P%RA7, $RANSCO assumed the functions of

NAPOCOR 0ith re'ard to electrical transmissions and too8 o/er possession of the

O/erton Sub-station.

Claimin' o0nership of the parcels of land 0here the O/erton Sub-station

and A'us ) Earehouse are located, !AN#$RA# filed 0ith the M$CC on April

?, *++> a Complaint for Bnla0ful #etainer a'ainst NAPOCOR and $RANSCO,

0hich 0as doc8eted as Ci/il Case No. 1)2-AF.

%n its Complaint, !AN#$RA# alle'ed that it ac4uired from $eofilo,

throu'h Att(. Cabildo, t0o parcels of land at Sitio Nunucan, O/erton, Fuentes,

r'(. Maria Cristina,%li'an Cit(, 0ith a combined area of *)+,*22 s4uare meters or

around *).+> hectares, as e/idenced b( a #eed of Absolute Sale9>D dated October

, ??3. Certain portions of said parcels of land 0ere bein' occupied



21/96

b( the O/erton Sub-station and A'us ) Earehouse of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO,

throu'h the tolerance of !AN#$RA#. Bpon failure of NAPOCOR and

$RANSCO to pa( rentals or to /acate the sub5ect properties after demands to do

so, !AN#$RA# filed the present Complaint for Bnla0ful #etainer, plus

dama'es in the amount of P12+,+++.++ as (earl( rental from date of the first etra- 5udicial demand until NAPOCOR and $RANSCO /acate the sub5ect properties.

%n their separate Ans0ers, NAPOCOR and $RANSCO denied the material

alle'ations in the Complaint and countered, b( 0a( of special and affirmati/e

defenses, that the Complaint 0as barred b( res judicata' that the M$CC has no

5urisdiction o/er the sub5ect matter of the action; and that !AN#$RA# lac8ed

the le'al capacit( to sue.

On Februar( ), *++1, the M$CC rendered its #ecision9>? in fa/or of

!AN#$RA#. $he M$CC disposed:

ERFOR, premises considered, 5ud'ment is hereb( rendered in fa/or of Plaintiff !and $rade Realt( Corporation represented b( Att(. Ma C. $abimina

and a'ainst defendant National Po0er Corporation represented b( its President,

Mr. Ro'elio M. Mur'a and co-defendant $RANSCO represented b( its President#r. Allan $. Orti and n'r. !orr(mir A. Adaa, Mana'er, NAPOCOR-Mindanao,

Re'ional Center, Ma. Cristina, %li'an Cit(, orderin':

. #efendants National Po0er Corporation and $RANSCO, their a'ents or

representati/es or an( person


22/96

occupanc( of the premises for the precedin' month or period on or before the

tenth da( of each succeedin' month or period.91+

NAPOCOR and $RANSCO seasonabl( filed a "oint Notice of Appeal. $heir

appeal, doc8eted as Ci/il Case No. 33>, 0as initiall( assi'ned to the R$C-ranch2, presided o/er b( "ud'e Maimino Ma'no !ibre 6"ud'e !ibre7.

!AN#$RA# filed on "une *1, *++1 a Motion for ecution, assertin' that

NAPOCOR and $RANSCO had neither filed a su#ersedeas bond 0ith the M$CC

nor periodicall( deposited 0ith the R$C the monthl( rental for the properties in

4uestion, so as to sta( the immediate eecution pendin' appeal of the M$CC

5ud'ment. o0e/er, the said Motion failed to compl( 0ith the re4uired notice of

hearin' under Rule 2, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. !AN#$RA# then filed aMotion to Eithdra0 and.

!AN#$RA# filed on "ul( ?, *++1 another Motion for ecution, 0hich

0as heard to'ether 0ith the "oint Motion to Suspend Proceedin's of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO. After said hearin', the R$C-ranch 2 directed the parties to file

their memoranda on the t0o pendin' Motions.

!AN#$RA#, in its Memorandum, maintained that the pendenc( of Ci/il

Case No. 112*, the @uietin' of $itle Case, should not preclude the eecution of the



23/96

M$CC 5ud'ment in the Bnla0ful #etainer Case because the issue in/ol/ed in the

latter 0as onl( the material possession or #ossession de "acto of the parcels of land

in 4uestion.!AN#$RA# also reported that Ci/il Case No. 33++, the action for

annulment of the #eed of Sale dated October , ??3 instituted b( $eofilo, 0as

alread( dismissed 'i/en that the R$C-ranch 1 had appro/ed the CompromiseA'reement eecuted bet0een !AN#$RA# and $eofilo.

NAPOCOR and $RANSCO li8e0ise filed their respecti/e

Memoranda. Subse4uentl(, NAPOCOR filed a Supplement to its Memorandum to

brin' to the attention of the R$C-ranch 2 the #ecision rendered on "ul( ), *++1

b( the R$C-ranch > in Ci/il Case No. 112*, the @uietin' of $itle Case,

cate'oricall( declarin' $eofilo, the predecessor-in-interest of !AN#$RA#, as

ha/in' no ri'ht at all to the sub5ect parcels of land. Resultantl(, the ri'ht of !AN#$RA# to the t0o properties, 0hich merel( emanated from $eofilo, 0as

effecti/el( declared as non-eistent too.

On Au'ust 1, *++1, the R$C-ranch 2 issued an Order 91* den(in' the "oint

Motion to Suspend Proceedin's of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO. $he R$C held that

the pendenc( of other actions in/ol/in' the same parcels of land could not sta(

eecution pendin' appeal of the M$CC 5ud'ment because NAPOCOR and

$RANSCO failed to post the re4uired bond and pa( the monthl( rentals.

Fi/e da(s later, on Au'ust ?, *++1, the R$C-ranch 2 issued

another Order 91> 'rantin' the Motion of !AN#$RA# for eecution of the

M$CC 5ud'ment pendin' appeal.

$he net da(, on Au'ust +, *++1, the Actin' Cler8 of Court, Att(. "oel M.

Macara(a, "r., issued a Erit of ecution Pendin' Appeal911 0hich directed Sheriff

%V Alberto O. orres 6Sheriff orres7 to eecute the M$CC #ecision dated

Februar( ), *++1.

A da( later, on Au'ust , *++1, Sheriff orres issued t0o Notices of

=arnishment912 addressed to PN and !and an8 of the Philippines in %li'an Cit(,

'arnishin' all the 'oods, effects, stoc8s, interests in stoc8s and shares, and an(

other personal properties belon'in' to NAPOCOR and $RANSCO 0hich 0ere

bein' held b( and under the possession and control of said ban8s. On e/en date,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn45


24/96

Sheriff orres also issued a Notification913 to NAPOCOR and $RANSCO for them

to /acate the sub5ect parcels of land; and to pa( !AN#$RA# the sums of

6a7 P23,+++,+++.++, representin' the total fair rental /alue for the said properties,

computed at P2++,+++.++ per month, be'innin' "une *?, ?)D until "une *?, *++1,

or for a period of *3 (ears, and 6b7 P*+,+++.++ as attorne(Hs fees.

$hereafter, NAPOCOR and $RANSCO each filed before the Court of Appeals in

Ca'a(an de Oro Cit( a Petition for Certiorari, under Rule 32 of the Rules of Court,

0ith pra(er for the issuance of a $RO and 0rit of preliminar( in5unction. $he

Petitions, doc8eted as CA-=.R. SP Nos. D2)1 and D2D1, 0ere e/entuall(

consolidated.

$he Court of Appeals issued on Au'ust D, *++1 a $RO

91)

en5oinin' theenforcement and implementation of the Order of ecution and Erit of ecution

Pendin' Appeal of the R$C-ranch 2 and Notices of =arnishment and Notification

of Sheriff orres.

$he Court of Appeals, in its #ecision91D dated No/ember *>, *++2,

determined that public respondents did commit 'ra/e abuse of discretion in

allo0in' and


25/96

33> 0as re-raffled to the R$C-ranch , presided o/er b( "ud'e Man'otara. $he

R$C-ranch promul'ated on #ecember *, *++2 a #ecision92 in Ci/il Case No.

33> 0hich affirmed in toto the Februar( ), *++1 #ecision of the M$CC in Ci/il

Case No. 1)2-AF fa/orin' !AN#$RA#.

NAPOCOR and $RANSCO filed 0ith the R$C-ranch t0in Motions, namel(:

67 Motion for Reconsideration of the #ecision dated #ecember *, *++2; and 6*7

Motion for %nhibition of "ud'e Man'otara. $he R$C-ranch denied both

Motions in a Resolution dated "anuar( >+, *++3.

NAPOCOR and $RANSCO filed 0ith the Court of Appeals separate

Petitions for Re/ie0 0ith pra(er for $RO and, *++3,

NAPOCOR filed on Ma( 2, *++3 0ith the Court of Appeals a Manifestation and

Motion pra(in' for the resolution of its application for preliminar( in5unction.

On Ma( *>, *++3, the same da( the $RO lapsed, the Court of Appeals 'ranted the

motions for etension of time to file a consolidated comment of !AN#$RA#. $0o da(s later, !AN#$RA# filed an Omnibus Motion see8in'

the issuance of 67 a 0rit of eecution pendin' appeal, and 6*7 the desi'nation of a

special sheriff in accordance 0ith Rule )+, Section * of the Rules of Court.

%n a Resolution92* dated "une >+, *++3, the Court of Appeals 'ranted the Omnibus

Motion of !AN#$RA# and denied the applications for the issuance of a 0rit of

preliminar( in5unction of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO. %n effect, the appellate court

authoried the eecution pendin' appeal of the 5ud'ment of the M$CC, affirmed b( the R$C-ranch , thus:

%N !%=$ OF $ AOV #%S@B%S%$%ONS, this Court resol/es to

'rant the 9!AN#RA#s omnibus motion for eecution pendin' appeal of thedecision rendered in its fa/or 0hich is bein' assailed in these consolidated

petitions for re/ie0. Accordin'l(, the 9NAPOCOR and $RANSCOs respecti/e

applications for issuance of 0rit of preliminar( in5unction are both denied for lac8



26/96

of factual and le'al bases. $he Municipal $rial Court in Cities, ranch *, %li'an

Cit(, 0hich at present has the custod( of the records of the case a quo, is hereb(

ordered to cause the immediate issuance of a 0rit of eecution relati/e to itsdecision dated ) Februar( *++1 in Ci/il Case No. 1)2-AF.92>

On "ul( *+, *++3, NAPOCOR filed 0ith this Court a Petition

for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 32 of the Rules of Court 0ith an ur'ent

plea for a $RO, doc8eted as =.R. No. )>>22-23. On Au'ust *, *++3, $RANSCO

filed 0ith this Court its o0n Petition for Certiorari, doc8eted as =.R. No. )>23>-

31.

On "ul( *, *++3, NAPOCOR filed an Br'ent Motion for the %ssuance of a

$RO in =.R. No. )>>22-23. %n a Resolution 921 dated "ul( *3, *++3, the Court

'ranted the Motion of NAPOCOR and issued a $RO,922 effecti/e immediatel(,

0hich en5oined public and pri/ate respondents from implementin' the Resolution

dated "une >+, *++3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-=.R. SP Nos. ++D21 and ++DD?

and the #ecision dated Februar( ), *++1 of the M$CC in Ci/il Case No. 1)2-

AF.

On "ul( >, *++3, Vidal and A&%MB$ filed a Motion for !ea/e to %nter/ene and

to Admit Attached Comment-in-%nter/ention, contendin' therein that Vidal 0as the

la0ful o0ner of the parcels of land sub5ect of the Bnla0ful #etainer Case as

confirmed in the #ecision dated "ul( ), *++1 of the R$C-ranch > in Ci/il Case

No. 112*. %n a Resolution dated September >+, *++3, the Court re4uired the partiesto comment on the Motion of Vidal and A&%MB$, and deferred action on the

said Motion pendin' the submission of such comments.

Th! Canc!((ati&n &' Tit(!s an" R!7!si&n Cas!

0G.R. N&. )24;3)1

On October >, *++1, the Republic filed a Complaint for the Cancellation of

OC$ Nos. +-*++ 6a.f.7 and +-*+ 6a.f.7 and Re/ersion a'ainst the late #oa#emetria, represented b( her alle'ed heirs, Vidal and


27/96

$he Republic sou'ht the cancellation of OC$ Nos. +-*++ 6a.f.7 and +-*+

6a.f.7 and the re/ersion of the parcels of land co/ered thereb( to the =o/ernment

based on the follo0in' alle'ations in its Complaint, under the headin' Cause of

Action:

2. On October 2, ??D, Ori'inal Certificates of $itle 6OC$s7 Nos. +-*++

6a.f.7 and +-*+ 6a.f.7 0ere issued in the name of #emetria Cacho, 0ido0, no0

deceased consistin' of a total area of $hree undred Se/ent(-i'ht $housand

Se/en undred and Se/en 6>)D,)+)7 s4uare meters and $hree $housand Se/enundred $hirt(-Fi/e 6>,3>27 s4uare meters, respecti/el(, situated in %li'an Cit(,

3. $he afore-stated titles 0ere issued in implementation of a decision

rendered in !RC 6=!RO7 Record Nos. 3?+D and 3?+? dated #ecember +, ?*,as affirmed b( the onorable Supreme Court in Cacho /. =o/ernment of the

Bnited States, *D Phil. 33 6#ecember +, ?17,

). $he decision in !RC 6=!RO7 Record Nos. 3?+D and 3?+?, upon 0hich

the titles 0ere issued, did not 'rant the entire area applied for therein.

?. As e/ents turned out, the titles issued in connection 0ith !RC 6=!RO7Record Nos. 3?+D and 3?+? i.e. OC$ Nos. +-*++ 6a.f.7 and +-*+ 6a.f.7 co/er

propert( MBC !AR=R in area than that 'ranted b( the land re'istration courtin its correspondin' decision, supra.

+. Ehile the !RC #ecision, as affirmed b( the onorable Supreme

Court, 'ranted onl( the southern part of the >).D) hectare land sub5ect of LRC

0GLRO1 R!c&" Cas! N&. :>3>, the ENTIRE 42.=2 hectares is indicated as the propert( co/ered b( OC$ +-*++ 6a.f.7. Eorse, OC$ No. +-*++ 6a.f.7 made

reference to Cas! N&. :>3= as basis thereof, (et, the decision in said case is clear:

6i7 $he parcel ob5ect of Case No. :>3= is s3> is the bi''er of t0o parcels and contains 42.=2h!cta!s

. More si'nificantl(, the technical description in Ori'inal Certificate of

$itle No. +-*++ 6a.f.7 specifies the date of sur/e( as Au'ust > to September ,

?+, 0hich is AR!%R than the date the Supreme Court, in Cacho supra,


28/96

resol/ed !RC 6=!RO7 Record No. 3?+? 6in/ol/in' >).D) hectares7. %n resol/in'

the application in/ol/in' the 42.=2 h!cta!s, the onorable Supreme Court

declared that onl( the s&%th!n pat of the >).D) hectare propert( applied for is'ranted and that a n!6 s%7!y specif(in' the southern part thereof should be

submitted.Accordin'l(, an( sur/e( in/ol/in' the 'ranted southern part should

bear a date subse4uent to the #ecember +, ?1 Supreme Court decision.

*. $he onorable Supreme Court further declared that the #ecision in

!RC 6=!RO7 Record No. 3?+? 0as reser/ed:

Final decision in these case is reser/ed until the presentation of the ne0 plan. 6*D Phil. 33, p. 3>; Bnderscorin' supplied7

%n other 0ords, as of #ecember +, ?1, 0hen the onorable Supreme Court

rendered its #ecision on appeal in !RC 6=!RO7 Record No. 3?+?, final decisionof the case 0as still reser/ed until the presentation of a n!6 p(an. $he metes and

bounds of OC$ No. +-*++ 6a.f.7 could not ha/e been the technical description of the propert( 'ranted b( the court described as the southern part of the lar'e parcel

ob5ect of epediente 3?+? onl( 6Cach& 7s. G&7!n)3 or before the Supreme Court

decision 0as rendered in )>);.

>. %n the same /ein, Ori'inal Certificate of $itle No. +-*+ 6a.f.7 specifies !RC6=!RO7 Record No. :>3> as the basis thereof 6see front pa'e of OC$ No. +-*+

6a.f.77. Jet, the technical description ma8es, as its reference, !ot , Plan %%->)>*,

!R Case No. +1), LRC 0GLRO1 R!c&" N&. :>3= 6see pa'e * of said title7. Atitle issued pursuant to a decision ma( onl( co/er the propert( sub5ect of the

case. A title cannot properl( be issued pursuant to a decision in Case 3?+?, but

0hose technical description is based on Case 3?+D.

1. $he decision in !RC 6=!RO7 Record Nos. 3?+D and 3?+? has become final

and eecutor(, and it cannot be modified, much less result in an increased area of

the propert( decreed therein.

3. %n sum, Ori'inal Certificates of $itle Nos. +-*++ 6a.f.7 and +-*+ 6a.f.7, as

issued, are null and /oid since the technical descriptions /is--/is the areas of the

parcels of land co/ered therein 0ent be(ond the areas 'ranted b( the landre'istration court in !RC 6=!RO7 Record Nos. 3?+D and 3?+?.923



29/96

Vidal and A&%MB$ filed a Motion to #ismiss dated #ecember *>, *++1

on the 'rounds that 67 the Republic has no cause of action; 6*7

assumin' arguendo that the Republic has a cause of action, its Complaint failed

to state a cause of action; 6>7 assumin' arguendo that the Republic has a cause

of action, the same is barred b( prior 5ud'ment; 617 assumin' further that theRepublic has a cause of action, the same 0as etin'uished b( prescription; and

617 the Republic is 'uilt( of forum shoppin'.

Bpon motion of the Republic, the R$C-ranch 1 issued an Order 92) dated

October 1, *++2, declarin' !AN#$RA# and $eofilo, as represented b( Att(.

Cabildo, in default since the( failed to submit their respecti/e ans0ers to the

Complaint despite the proper ser/ice of summons upon them.

!AN#$RA# subse4uentl( filed its Ans0er 0ith Compulsor(Counterclaim dated September *D, *++2. %t also mo/ed for the settin' aside and

reconsideration of the Order of #efault issued a'ainst it b( the R$C-ranch 1 on

October *+, *++2.

On #ecember >, *++2, the R$C-ranch 1 issued an Order 92D dismissin'

the Complaint of the Republic in Ci/il Case No. 33D3, completel( a'reein' 0ith

Vidal and A&%MB$.

$he R$C-ranch 1 reasoned that the Republic had no cause of action because there 0as no sho0in' that the late #oa #emetria committed an(

0ron'ful act or omission in /iolation of an( ri'ht of the Republic. #oa #emetria

had sufficientl( pro/en her o0nership o/er the parcels of land as borne in the

rulin' of the !RC in =!RO Record Nos. 3?+D and 3?+?. On the other hand, the

Republic had no more ri'ht to the said parcels of land. $he Re'alian doctrine

does not appl( in this case because the titles 0ere alread( issued to #oa

#emetria and se're'ated from the mass of the public domain.

$he R$C-ranch 1 li8e0ise held that the Republic failed to state a cause

of action in its Complaint. $he ar'uments of the Republic i.e., the absence of a

ne0 sur/e( plan and deed, the titles co/ered properties 0ith much lar'er area

than that 'ranted b( the !RC had been ans0ered s4uarel( in the 1997 Cacho

case. Also, the Complaint failed to alle'e that fraud had been committed in



30/96

ha/in' the titles re'istered and that the #irector of !ands re4uested the re/ersion

of the sub5ect parcels of land.

$he R$C-ranch 1 0as con/inced that the Complaint 0as barred b( res

judicata because the 1914 Cacho case alread( decreed the re'istration of the parcels of land in the late #oa #emetrias name and the 1997 Cacho case settled

that there 0as no merit in the ar'ument that the conditions imposed in the first

case ha/e not been complied 0ith.

$he R$C-ranch 1 0as li8e0ise persuaded that the cause of action or

remed( of the Republic 0as lost or etin'uished b( prescription pursuant to

Article +3 of the Ci/il Code and Section >* of Presidential #ecree No. 2*?,

other0ise 8no0n as the !and Re'istration #ecree, 0hich prescribes a one-(ear period 0ithin 0hich to file an action for the re/ie0 of a decree of re'istration.

Finall(, the R$C-ranch 1 found the Republic 'uilt( of forum shoppin'

because there is bet0een this case, on one hand, and the 1914 and 1997 Cacho

cases, on the other, identit( of parties, as 0ell as ri'hts asserted and reliefs

pra(ed for, as the contendin' parties are claimin' ri'hts of o0nership o/er the

same parcels of land.

$he Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of its

Complaint but the same 0as denied b( the R$C-ranch 1 in its Order 92? datedMa( 3, *++3.

Assailin' the Orders dated #ecember >, *++2 and Ma( 3, *++3 of the

R$C-ranch 1, the Republic filed on Au'ust , *++3 a Petition for Re/ie0

on Certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, 0hich 0as doc8eted as =.R.

No. )>1+.

III

ISSUES AND DISCUSSIONS

Ep&piati&n Cas!

0G.R. N&. )234251



31/96

$he Republic, in its consolidated Petitions challen'in' the Resolutions dated

"ul( *, *++2 and October *1, *++2 of the R$C-ranch in Ci/il Case No. +3,

made the follo0in' assi'nment of errors:

RSPON#N$ "B#= =RAV!J RR# %N OR#R%N= $ #%SM%SSA!OF $ GPROPR%A$%ON COMP!A%N$ %N C%V%! CAS NO. +3

CONS%#R%N= $A$:

6a7 $ NON-"O%N#R OF PAR$%S %S NO$ A =ROBN# FOR $ #%SM%SSA! OF AN AC$%ON PBRSBAN$ $O SC$%ON

, RB! > OF $ ??) RB!S OF C%V%! PROC#BR;

6b7 AN GPROPR%A$%ON PROC#%N= %S AN AC$%ON

@BAS% %N RM ER%N $ FAC$ $A$ $ OENR OF

$ PROPR$J %S MA# A PAR$J $O $ AC$%ON %S NO$

SSN$%A!!J %N#%SPNSA!;

6c7 P$%$%ONR #%# NO$ COMM%$ ANJ FORBMSOPP%N= E%$ $ F%!%N= OF $ RVRS%ON

COMP!A%N$ #OCK$# AS C%V%! CAS NO. 33D3 E%C

%S PN#%N= FOR RANC 1 OF

$ R=%ONA! $R%A! COBR$ OF %!%=AN C%$J.93+

Filin of consolidated petitions under !oth

"ules 4# and $#

At the outset, the Court notes that the Republic filed a pleadin' 0ith the

caption Consolidated (etitions "or )evie* on Certiorari $Under )ule 4+% and

Certiorari $Under )ule +% o" the )ules o" Court . $he Republic eplains that it

filed the Consolidated Petitions pursuant to Metro#olitan -ater*ors and

Se*erage S!stem $M-SS% v. Court o" ##eals936 M-SS case7.

$he reliance of the Republic on the M-SS case to 5ustif( its mode of appeal is

misplaced, ta8in' the pronouncements of this Court in said case out of contet.

$he issue in the M-SS case 0as 0hether a possessor in 'ood faith has the ri'ht to

remo/e useful impro/ements, and not 0hether consolidated petitions under both

Rules 12 and 32 of the Rules of Court can be filed. $herein petitioner MESS

simpl( filed an appeal b( certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, but

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn61


32/96

named the Court of Appeals as a respondent. $he Court clarified that the onl(

parties in an appeal b( certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court are the

appellant as petitioner and the appellee as respondent.$he court 0hich rendered the

5ud'ment appealed from is not a part( in said appeal. %t is in the special ci/il action

of certiorari under Rule 32 of the Rules of Court 0here the court or 5ud'e isre4uired to be 5oined as part( defendant or respondent. $he Court, ho0e/er, also

ac8no0led'ed that there ma( be an instance 0hen in an appeal b( certiorariunder

Rule 12, the petitioner-appellant 0ould also claim that the court that rendered the

appealed 5ud'ment acted 0ithout or in ecess of its 5urisdiction or 0ith 'ra/e abuse

of discretion, in 0hich case, such court should be 5oined as a part(-defendant or

respondent. Ehile the Court ma( ha/e stated that in such an instance, the petition

for re/ie0 oncertiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court is at the same time a

petition for certiorari under Rule 32, the Court did not hold that consolidated petitions under both Rules 12 and 32 could or should be filed.

$he Court, in more recent cases, had been stricter and clearer on the

distinction bet0een these t0o modes of appeal. %n /une0 v. &SIS amil! 2an ,93* the Court elucidated3

%n igon v. Court o" ##eals 0here the therein petitioner described her

petition as an appeal under Rule 12 and at the same time as a special ci/il action

of certiorari under Rule 32 of the Rules of Court, this Court, in fro0nin' o/er

0hat it described as a chimera, reiterated that the remedies of appeal andcertiorari are mutuall( eclusi/e and not alternati/e nor successi/e.

$o be sure, the distinctions bet0een Rules 12 and 32 are far and0ide. o0e/er, the most apparent is that errors of 5urisdiction are best re/ie0ed

in a special ci/il action for certiorari under Rule 32 0hile errors of 5ud'ment can

onl( be corrected b( appeal in a petition for re/ie0 under Rule 12.

ut in the same case, the Court also held that:

$his Court, , in accordance 0ith the liberal spirit 0hich per/ades the

Rules of Court and in the interest of 5ustice ma( treat a petition for certiorari as

ha/in' been filed under Rule 12, more so if the same 0as filed 0ithin the

re'lementar( period for filin' a petition for re/ie0.93>



33/96

%t is apparent in the case at bar that the Republic a/ailed itself of the 0ron'

mode of appeal b( filin' Consolidated Petitions for Re/ie0 under Rule 12 and

for Certiorariunder Rule 32, 0hen these are t0o separate remedies that are

mutuall( eclusi/e and neither alternati/e nor successi/e. Ne/ertheless, the Court

shall treat the Consolidated Petitions as a Petition for Re/ie0 on Certiorari under Rule 12 and the alle'ations therein as errors of 5ud'ment. As the records sho0, the

Petition 0as filed on time under Rules 12. efore the lapse of the 2-da(

re'lementar( period to appeal under Rule 12, the Republic filed 0ith the Court a

motion for etension of time to file its petition. $he Court, in a Resolution 931 dated

"anuar( *>, *++3, 'ranted the Republic a >+-da( etension, 0hich 0as to epire on

#ecember *?, *++2. $he Republic 0as able to file its Petition on the last da( of the

etension period.

%ierarch& of courts$he direct filin' of the instant Petition 0ith this Court did not /iolate the

doctrine of hierarch( of courts.

Accordin' to Rule 1, Section *6c7932 of the Rules of Court, a decision or order of

the R$C ma( be appealed to the Supreme Court b( petition for re/ie0

on certiorari under Rule 12, pro/ided that such petition raises onl( 4uestions of

la0.933

A 4uestion of la0 eists 0hen the doubt or contro/ers( concerns the correctapplication of la0 or 5urisprudence to a certain set of facts; or 0hen the issue does

not call for an eamination of the probati/e /alue of the e/idence presented, the

truth or falsehood of facts bein' admitted.93) A 4uestion of fact eists 0hen the

doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or 0hen the 4uer(

in/ites calibration of the 0hole e/idence considerin' mainl( the credibilit( of the

0itnesses, the eistence and rele/anc( of specific surroundin' circumstances, as

0ell as their relation to each other and to the 0hole, and the probabilit( of the

situation.93D

ere, the Petition of the Republic raises pure 4uestions of la0, i.e., 0hether

Ci/il Case No. +3 should ha/e been dismissed for failure to implead

indispensable parties and for forum shoppin'. $hus, the direct resort b( the

Republic to this Court is proper.



34/96

$he Court shall no0 consider the propriet( of the dismissal b( the R$C-

ranch of the Complaint for propriation of the Republic.

'he proper parties in the expropriation

proceedins

$he ri'ht of the Republic to be substituted for %SA as plaintiff in Ci/il Case

No. +3 had lon' been affirmed b( no less than this Court in the IS case. $he

dispositi/e portion of the IS case reads:

ERFOR, for all the fore'oin', the #ecision of the Court of Appeals

dated D October ?? to the etent that it affirmed the trial courts order dismissin'

the epropriation proceedin's, is hereb( RVRS# and S$ AS%# and thecase is RMAN## to the court a quo 0hich shall allo0 the substitution of the

Republic of the Philippines for petitioner %ron Steel Authorit( for further

proceedin's consistent 0ith this #ecision. No pronouncement as to costs.93?

$he IS case had alread( become final and eecutor(, and entr( of 5ud'ment

0as made in said case on Au'ust >, ??D. $he R$C-ranch , in an Order dated No/ember 3, *++, effected the substitution of the Republic for %SA.

$he failure of the Republic to actuall( file a motion for eecution does not

render the substitution /oid. A 0rit of eecution re4uires the sheriff or other proper

officer to 0hom it is directed to enforce the terms of the 0rit. 9)+ $he No/ember 3,

*++ Order of the R$C-ranch should be deemed as /oluntar( compliance 0ith

a final and eecutor( 5ud'ment of this Court, alread( renderin' a motion for and

issuance of a 0rit of eecution superfluous.

esides, no substanti/e ri'ht 0as /iolated b( the /oluntar( compliance b(

the R$C-ranch 0ith the directi/e in the IS case e/en 0ithout a motion for

eecution ha/in' been filed. $o the contrar(, the R$C-ranch merel( enforced

the 5udiciall( determined ri'ht of the Republic to the substitution. Ehile it is

desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfull( and e/en meticulousl( obser/ed,



35/96

courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses that do not reall( impair the

administration of 5ustice. %f the rules are intended to insure the orderl( conduct of

liti'ation it is because of the hi'her ob5ecti/e the( see8 0hich is the protection of

the substanti/e ri'hts of the parties.9)

$he Court also obser/es that MCFC did not see8 an( remed( from the Order

dated No/ember 3, *++ of the R$C-ranch . Conse4uentl(, the said Order

alread( became final, 0hich e/en the R$C-ranch itself cannot re/erse and set

aside on the 'round of honest mista8e.

$he R$C-ranch dismissed the Complaint in Ci/il Case No. +3 on

another 'round: that MCFC is not a proper part( to the epropriation proceedin's,

not bein' the o0ner of the parcels of land sou'ht to be epropriated. $he R$C-ranch ratiocinated that since the eercise of the po0er of eminent domain

in/ol/es the ta8in' of pri/ate land intended for public use upon pa(ment of 5ust

compensation to the o0ner, then a complaint for epropriation must be directed

a'ainst the o0ner of the land sou'ht to be epropriated.

$he Republic insists, ho0e/er, that MCFC is a real part(-in-interest,

impleaded as a defendant in the Complaint for propriation because of its

possessor( or occupanc( ri'hts o/er the sub5ect parcels of land, and not b( reason

of its o0nership of the said properties. %n addition, the Republic maintains thatnon-5oinder of parties is not a 'round for the dismissal of an action.

Rule 3), Section of the then Rules of Court 9)* described ho0 epropriation

proceedin's should be instituted:

Section . 5he com#laint. $he ri'ht of eminent domain shall be eercised

b( the filin' of a complaint 0hich shall state 0ith certaint( the ri'ht and purpose

of condemnation, describe the real or personal propert( sou'ht to be

condemned, an" &in as "!'!n"ants a(( p!s&ns &6nin# & c(ai


36/96

For sure, defendants in an epropriation case are not limited to the o0ners of the

propert( to be epropriated, and 5ust compensation is not due to the propert( o0ner

alone. As this Court held in 6e necht v. Court o" ##eals9)1:

Th! "!'!n"ants in an !p&piati&n cas! a! n&t (i,

possessor(+.++7 Pesos per s4uare meter or

e4ui/alent to the assessed /alue thereof 6as determined b( the Cit( Assessor of

%li'an7, 0hiche/er is hi'her. NSC shall 'i/e MCFC the option to either remo/e its

aforesaid plant, structures, e4uipment, machiner( and other facilities from thelands or to sell or cede o0nership thereof to NSC at a price e4ui/alent to the fair

mar8et /alue thereof as appraised b( the Asian Appraisal %nc. as ma( be mutuall(

a'reed upon b( NSC and MCFC.

6*7 %n the e/ent that NSC and MCFC fail to a'ree on the fore'oin' 0ithin

sit( 63+7 da(s from the date hereof, the %ron and Steel Authorit( 6%SA7 shalleercise its authorit( under Presidential #ecree 6P#7 No. *)*, as amended, to

initiate the epropriation of the aforementioned &cc%pancy i#hts of MCFC on

the sub5ect lands as 0ell as the plant, structures, e4uipment, machiner( and



37/96

related facilities, for and on behalf of NSC, and thereafter cede the same to NSC.

#urin' the pendenc( of the epropriation proceedin's, NSC shall ta8e possession

of the properties, sub5ect to bondin' and other re4uirements of P.#. 2>>.6mphasis supplied.7

ein' the occupant of the parcel of land sou'ht to be epropriated, MCFC could

/er( 0ell be named a defendant in Ci/il Case No. +3. $he R$C-ranch

e/identl( erred in dismissin' the Complaint for propriation a'ainst MCFC for

not bein' a proper part(.

Also erroneous 0as the dismissal b( the R$C-ranch of the ori'inal Complaint

for propriation for ha/in' been filed onl( a'ainst MCFC, the occupant of the

sub5ect land, but not the o0ner


38/96

&cc%pyin#, an( part thereof or interest in the propert( sou'ht to be

condemned. Clearl(, 0hen the propert( alread( appears to belon' to the Republic,

there is no sense in the Republic institutin' epropriation proceedin's a'ainst

itself. %t can still, ho0e/er, file a complaint for epropriation a'ainst the pri/ate

persons occup(in' the propert(. %n such an epropriation case, the o0ner of the propert( is not an indispensable part(.

$o recall, Presidential Proclamation No. **>? eplicitl( states that the

parcels of land reser/ed to NSC are part of the public domain, hence, o0ned b( the

Republic. !etter of %nstructions No. *)) reco'nied onl( the occupanc( ri'hts of

MCFC and directed NSC to institute epropriation proceedin's to determine the

5ust compensation for said occupanc( ri'hts. $herefore, the o0ner of the propert(

is not an indispensable part( in the ori'inal Complaint for propriation in Ci/ilCase No. +3.

Assumin' for the sa8e of ar'ument that the o0ner of the propert( is an

indispensable part( in the epropriation proceedin's, the non-5oinder of said part(

0ould still not 0arrant immediate dismissal of the complaint for

epropriation. %n da. 6e Manguerra v. )isos,9)) the Court applied Rule >, Section

of the Rules of Court e/en in case of non-5oinder of an indispensable part(, vi0 :

9Failure to implead an indispensable part( is not a 'round for the dismissal of anaction. %n such a case, the remed( is to implead the non-part( claimed to be

indispensable. Parties ma( be added b( order of the court, on motion of the part(

or on its o0n initiati/e at an( sta'e of the action and


39/96

consideration. %nstead, it dismissed outri'ht the ori'inal Complaint for

propriation a'ainst MCFC.

Forum shoppin

$he R$C-ranch further erred in findin' that the Republic committed forum

shoppin' b( 67 simultaneousl( institutin' the actions for epropriation 6Ci/il Case

No. +37 and re/ersion 6Ci/il Case No. 33D37 for the same parcels of land; and 6*7

ta8in' inconsistent positions 0hen it conceded lac8 of o0nership o/er the parcels

of land in the epropriation case but asserted o0nership of the same properties in

the re/ersion case.

$here is no dispute that the Republic instituted re/ersion proceedin's 6Ci/ilCase No. 33D37 for the same parcels of land sub5ect of the instant propriation

Case 6Ci/il Case No. +37. $he Complaint for Cancellation of $itles and

Re/ersion9)D dated September *), *++1 0as filed b( the Republic 0ith the R$C on

October >, *++1. $he records, ho0e/er, do not sho0 0hen the Supplemental

Complaint for propriation9)? dated September *D, *++1 0as filed 0ith the

R$C. Apparentl(, the Supplemental Complaint for propriation 0as

filed a't! the Complaint for Cancellation of $itles and Re/ersion since the

Republic mentioned in the former the fact of filin' of the latter.9D+ /en then, the

Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shoppin'9D attached to theSupplemental Complaint for propriation did not disclose the filin' of the

Complaint for Cancellation of $itles and Re/ersion. Not0ithstandin' such non-

disclosure, the Court finds that the Republic did not commit forum shoppin' for

filin' both Complaints.

%n /2I8Microso"t Cor#oration v :*ang ,9D* the Court laid do0n the

circumstances 0hen forum shoppin' eists:

Forum-shoppin' ta8es place 0hen a liti'ant files multiple suits in/ol/in'the same parties, either simultaneousl( or successi/el(, to secure a fa/orable

5ud'ment. $hus, it eists 0herethe elements of litis #endentia are present, namel(

? 6a7 identit( of parties, or at least such parties 0ho represent the same interests in both actions; 6b7 identit( of ri'hts asserted and relief pra(ed for, the relief bein'

founded on the same facts; and 6c7 the identit( 0ith respect to the t0o precedin'

particulars in the t0o cases is such that an( 5ud'ment that ma( be rendered in the



40/96

pendin' case, re'ardless of 0hich part( is

successful, 0ould amount to res judicata in the other case. Forum-shoppin' is an

act of malpractice because it abuses court processes. .

ere, the elements of litis #endencia are 0antin'. $here is no identit( of ri'hts asserted and reliefs pra(ed for in Ci/il Case No. +3 and Ci/il Case No.

33D3.

Ci/il Case No. +3 0as instituted a'ainst MCFC to ac4uire, for a public purpose,

its possessor(


41/96

SC. ?. Uncertain o*nershi#' con"licting claims. I' th! &6n!ship &' th!p&p!ty ta!n is %nc!tain, & th!! a! c&n'(ictin# c(ai;1

ssentiall(, in their Petitions for Re/ie0 on Certiorari under Rule 12 of the

Rules of Court, !AN#$RA# and $eofilo, and to resol/e the issues on VidalHs status, filiation, and heirship in Ci/il

Case No. 112*, the action for 4uietin' of title; 6*7 not holdin' that Vidal and

A&%MB$ ha/e neither cause of action nor le'al or e4uitable title or interest in the parcels of land co/ered b( OC$ Nos. +-*++ 6a.f.7 and +-*+ 6a.f.7; 6>7 findin'

the e/idence sufficient to establish Vidals status as #oa #emetrias 'randdau'hter

and sole sur/i/in' heir; and 617 not holdin' that Ci/il Case No. 112* 0as alread(

barred b( prescription.


42/96

%n their Comment, Vidal and A&%MB$ insisted on the correctness of the

Court of Appeals #ecision dated "anuar( ?, *++), and 4uestioned the propriet( of

the Petition for Re/ie0 filed b( !AN#$RA# as it supposedl( raised onl( factual

issues.

$he Court rules in fa/or of Vidal and A&%MB$.

*etitions for revie+ under "ule 4#

A scrutin( of the issues raised, not 5ust in the Petition for Re/ie0 of

!AN#$RA#, but also those in the Petition for Re/ie0 of $eofilo and and the Court of Appeals, 0ith 0hich the Court full(

concurs.



43/96

Jurisdiction vis))vis exercise of ,urisdiction

!AN#$RA#, $eofilo, and


44/96

an(bod( other than b( the le'islature throu'h the enactment of a la0. $he po0er to

chan'e the 5urisdiction of the courts is a matter of le'islati/e enactment, 0hich

none but the le'islature ma( do. Con'ress has the sole po0er to define, prescribe

and apportion the 5urisdiction of the courts.9D)

$he R$C has 5urisdiction o/er an action for 4uietin' of title under the

circumstances described in Section ?6*7 of atas Pambansa l'. *?, as

amended:

SC. ?. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Re'ional $rial Courts shall eercise

eclusi/e ori'inal 5urisdiction:

6*7 %n all ci/il actions 0hich in7&(7! th! tit(! t&, & p&ss!ssi&n &', !a(p&p!ty, & any int!!st th!!in, 6h!! th! ass!ss!" 7a(%! &' th! p&p!ty

in7&(7!" !c!!"s T6!nty th&%san" p!s&s 0P3,333.331 or, for ci/il actions in

Metro Manila, 0here such /alue eceeds Fift( thousand pesos 6P2+,+++.++7ecept actions for forcible entr( into and unla0ful detainer of lands or buildin's,

ori'inal 5urisdiction o/er 0hich is conferred upon the Metropolitan $rial Courts,

Municipal $rial Courts, and Municipal Circuit $rial Courts.

Records sho0 that the parcels

Republic v. Mangotara

Documents

Transcript of Republic v. Mangotara