Republic vs. Mangatora, GR No. 170375, 7 July 2010

8/13/2019 Republic vs. Mangatora, GR No. 170375, 7 July 2010

1/128

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme CourtManila

FIRST DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF

THEPHILIPPINES,

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,

G.R. N&. )23425

G.R. N&. )23535


2/128

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

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,

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

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

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


3/128

- versus-

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


4/128

Respondents.

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

D E C I S I O N

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,J.?

efore the Court are se/en consolidated Petitions for Re/ie0

on Certiorariand a Petition for Certiorariunder 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 Certiorariand for Certiorariunder Rules 12and 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 Resolution9dated "ul( *, *++2 0hich, in part, dismissed the

Complaint for propriation of the Republic for the latter;s 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.
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#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn1


5/128

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

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

Corporation 6!AN#$RA#7, $eofilo Cacho, and=or Att(. >odofredo

Cabildo assail the #ecision9?dated "anuar( @, *++) and Resolution91dated "ul( 1,

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

affirmed the #ecision92dated "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 ABimuth %nternational #e/elopment Corporation 6A&%M$D7 a'ainst $eofiloCacho and Att(. >odofredo Cabildo.

G.R. N&. )23535is a Petition for Re/ie0 on Certiorariunder 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

Nos. E2)1 and E2E1. $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 Order9)dated Au'ust

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

Frit of ecution9Edated Au'ust +, *++1< 6?7 t0o Notices of >arnishment 9@both

dated Au'ust , *++1, and 617 Notification9+dated Au'ust , *++1. $hese

issuances of the R$C-ranch 2 allo0ed and=or enabled eecution pendin' appeal

of the #ecision9dated Gebruar( ), *++1 of the Municipal $rial Court in Cities

6M$CC7, ranch * of %li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte, fa/orin' !AN#$RA# in

Ci/il Case No. 1)2-AG, the e5ectment case said corporation instituted a'ainst the
http://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#_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#_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#_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#_ftn11


6/128

National Po0er Corporation 6NAPOCOR7 and the National $ransmission

Corporation 6$RANSCO7.

G.R. N&s. )24455-5: an" )245:4-:;are t0o Petitions for Certiorariand

Prohibition under Rule 32 of the Rules of Court 0ith pra(er for the immediate

issuance of a $emporar( Restrainin' Order 6$RO7 and=or Frit of Preliminar(

%n5unction filed separatel( b( NAPOCOR and $RANSCO. oth Petitions see8 to

annul the Resolution9*dated "une ?+, *++3 of the Court of Appeals in the

consolidated cases of CA->.R. SP Nos. ++E21 and ++EE@, 0hich 67 'ranted theOmnibus 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 denied

the 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

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

!AN#$RA#.

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

12 of the Rules of Court filed b( the Republic, 0hich raises pure 4uestions of la0

and 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.

33E3, an action for cancellation of titles and re/ersion: 67 Order91dated #ecember
http://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#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn14


7/128

?, *++2 dismissin' the Complaint in Ci/il Case No. 33E3< and 6*7 Order92dated

Ma( 3, *++3, den(in' the Motion for Reconsideration of the Republic.

I

THE PRECEDING CASES

$he consolidated se/en cases ha/e for their common 'enesis the @1 case

of Cacho v. Government of the United States9361914 Cacho case7.

Th! 1914 Cacho Case

Sometime in the earl( @++s, the late #oHa #emetria Cacho 6#oHa

#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!

h!cta!s 6!ot 7< and 6*7 !ot * of Plan %%-?)?*, the lar'er parcel 0ith an area

of 42=,232 s@%a!

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

Nunucan, then r'(. SuareB, in %li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte. #oHa #emetria;s

applications for re'istration 0ere doc8eted as >!RO Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@.

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

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

SalBos 6SalBos7. SalBos, in turn, bou'ht !ot from #atto #arondon and his 0ife

Alan'a, e/idenced b( a deed of sale in fa/or of SalBos si'ned solel( b( Alan'a, on

behalf of #atto #arondon.


8/128

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

parcel of land. #oHa #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 #oHa #emetria;s applications for re'istration

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

States and formed part of a militar( reser/ation, 'enerall( 8no0nas Camp O/erton.

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

#ecision in >!RO Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@.

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 thes


9/128

!#istati&n it is &"!!" that a "!!" '&< Datt& Da&n"&n, h%s8an"

&' A(an#a, 8! p!s!nt!", !n&%ncin# a(( his i#hts in th! s3=, in 'a7& &' th! app(icant.9)6mphases supplied.7

%n GLRO R!c&" N&. :>3>, the !RC obser/ed and concluded that:

A tract of land ?) hectares in area, 0hich is the etent of the land

under discussion, is lar'er than is culti/ated ordinaril( b( the ChristianGilipinos. %n the &amboan'a cadastral case of thousands of parcels no0on trial before this court, the a/era'e siBe of the parcels is not abo/e ? or1 hectares, and the court doubts /er( much if a Moro 0ith all his famil(

could culti/ate as etensi/e a parcel of land as the one in 4uestion. $he court is also con/inced from the proofs that the s

5urisdiction, and that it is the class of land that Act No. )E prohibits thesale 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 #atoAnando', and that the Moro 0oman Alan'a, 'rantor of the small parcel,is the sister of #atto Anando', and that he died 0ithout issue.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn17


10/128

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

as also the pro/isions of the I!u0aran Code; of the Moros, the Moro0oman Alan'a has an interest in the portion of land left b( her deceasedbrother, #atto Anando'. ( article !JJJV, section ?, of the I!u0aranCode,; it 0ill be seen that the brothers and sisters of a deceased Moroinherit his propert( to the eclusion of the more distantrelati/es. $herefore #atto un'la( had no le'al interest 0hate/er in theland to sell to the applicant, #oHa #emetria Cacho. ut the Moro0oman, Alan'a, ha/in' appeared as a 0itness for the applicant 0ithoutha/in' made an( claim to the land, the court finds from this fact that shehas ratified the sale made b( her nephe0.

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

Cach& is &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 &'expedienteN&. :>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!

c&nn!ctin# th!s! '&% p&ints. et0een the portion culti/ated b( #attoAnando' and the mouth of the Ri/er A'us there is a hi'h steep hill and


11/128

the court does not belie/e it possible to culti/ate said hill, it bein'co/ered 0ith roc8s and forest.9E6mphases supplied.7

$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 thenitedStates, and that the applicant present the correspondin' deed from #atto#arondon on or before the abo/e-mentioned ?+thda( of March,@?. Ginal decision in these cases is reser/ed until the presentation ofthe said deed and the ne0 plan.9@

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

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

affirmed in totothe !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 *@, @)E, $eofilo Cacho 6$eofilo7, claimin' to be the late #oHa

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


12/128

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

Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@.

$eofilo;s 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 $eofilo;s 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 Kit is undisputed that in Cases No.

3@+E and 3@+@, #ecrees No. +?31 and E@3@, respecti/el(, 0ere issued.L $eofilo

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

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

>.R. No. E21@2, the Court resol/ed to remand the case to the R$C, 0ith an order

to the said trial court to accept $eofilo;s amended petition and to hear it as one for

re-issuance of decrees.

%n opposin' $eofilo;s petition, the Republic and NSC ar'ued that the same

suffered from 5urisdictional infirmities< that $eofilo 0as not the real part(-in-

interest< that $eofilo 0as 'uilt( of laches< that #oHa #emetria 0as not the

re'istered o0ner of the sub5ect parcels of land< that no decrees 0ere e/er issued in

#oHa #emetria;s name< and that the issuance of the decrees 0as dubious and

irre'ular.


13/128

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

$eofilo;s petition and orderin' the reconstitution and re-issuance of #ecree Nos.

+?31 and E@3@. $he R$C held that the issuance of #ecree No. +?31 in >!RO

No. 3@+E on Ma( @, @? and #ecree No. E@3@ in >!RO Record No. 3@+@ on

"ul( E, @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 E@3@

because: 67 re-issuance of #ecree No. E@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 Cacho

case< 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 E@3@. $he Court

found that such decrees had in fact been issued and had attained finalit(, as

certified b( the Actin' Commissioner, #eput( Cler8 of Court %%%, >eodetic

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


14/128

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

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

9$o sustain the Court of Appeals rulin' as re'ards re4uirin' petitionersto fulfill the conditions set forth inCacho vs. U.S.0ould constitute adero'ation of the doctrine ofres judicata. Si'nificantl(, the issuance ofthe sub5ect decrees presupposes a prior final 5ud'ment because theissuance of such decrees is a mere ministerial act on part of the !andRe'istration Commission 6no0 the NA!$#RA7, upon presentation of afinal 5ud'ment. %t is also 0orth notin' that the 5ud'ment in Cacho vs.U.S.could not ha/e ac4uired finalit( 0ithout the prior fulfillment of theconditions in >!RO Record No. 3@+E, 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 decisionof "ud'e "or'e on #ecember +, @* and affirmed b( this Court on#ecember +, @1 6upon 0hich #ecree No. E@3@ 0as issued on "ul(E, @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 Cachovs. U.S.case nu'ator(, thus, /iolatin' the fundamental rule re'ardin' res

judicata. %t must be stressed that the 5ud'ment and the resultin' decreeareres judicata, and these are bindin' upon the 0hole 0orld, theproceedin's bein' in the nature of proceedin'sin rem. esides, such are4uirement is an impermissible assault upon the inte'rit( and stabilit(of the $orrens S(stem of re'istration because it also effecti/el( rendersthe 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.


15/128

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 $eofilo;s Affida/it of Ad5udication as #oHa

#emetria;s sole heir, 0hich he eecuted before the Philippine Consulate >eneral

in Chica'o, nited States of America 6.S.A.7< as 0ell as the publication in the

$imes "ournal of the fact of ad5udication of #oHa #emetria;s 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(. >odofredo

Cabildo 6Att(. Cabildo7 0ho represented him in this case. $he Court stressed thatthe eecution of public documents is entitled to the presumption of re'ularit( and

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

%n the Resolution dated "ul( *E, @@),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

#oHa #emetria;s name. OC$ No. +-*++ 6a.f.7 0as based on re-issued #ecree No.

N-*@131 in >!RO Record No. 3@+E, 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


16/128

$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. )E))@ and )EE@1< 6?7 the 5ectment or

nla0ful #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

quountil the( reached this 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, @E? b(

the %ron and Steel Authorit( 6%SA7, no0 the NSC, a'ainst Maria Cristina GertiliBer

Corporation 6MCGC7, and the latter;s 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#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn23


17/128

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

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

the Philippines. %ts eistence 0as etended until October +, @EE.

On No/ember 3, @E*, durin' the eistence of %SA, then President

Gerdinand . Marcos issued Presidential Proclamation No. **?@, 9*2reser/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. MCGC occupied certain portions of this parcel of land. Fhenne'otiations 0ith MCGC failed, %SA 0as compelled to file a Complaint for

propriation.

Fhen the statutor( eistence of %SA epired durin' the pendenc( of Ci/il

Case No. +3, MCGC 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 @, @EE. %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. %nIron

and Steel uthorit! v. Court o" ##eals 9*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 theIS caseon Au'ust ?,

@@E. %n an Order9*)dated No/ember 3, *++, the R$C-ranch allo0ed the

substitution of the Republic for %SA as plaintiff in Ci/il Case No. +3.
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#_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#_ftn27


18/128

Alle'in' that !ots and * in/ol/ed in the 1997 Cacho caseencroached 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 Gile Supplemental Complaint dated

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

September *E, *++19*Esee8in' to implead in Ci/il Case No. +3 $eofilo Cacho

and #emetria Vidal and their respecti/e successors-in-interest, !AN#$RA# and

A&%M$D.

MCGC 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. MCGC ar'ued that the

Republic failed to mo/e for the eecution of the decision in theIS 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. MCGC 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 Orderdated 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-


19/128

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

eecution of the 5ud'ment of this Court in theIS 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 .

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

the Republic to implead indispensable parties because MCGC insisted it 0as notthe 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 the

re/ersion of the same parcels sub5ect of the instant case for epropriation.

"ud'e Man'otara of R$C-ranch issued a Resolution 9*@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( MCGC. "ud'e Man'otara 5ustified the dismissal of the propriation

Case thus:

Fhat the Republic see8s 9herein is the epropriation of the

sub5ect parcels of land. Since the eercise of the po0er of eminentdomain in/ol/es the ta8in' of pri/ate lands intended for public use uponpa(ment of 5ust compensation to the o0ner , then a complaint forepropriation must, of necessit(, be directed a'ainst the o0ner of theland sub5ect thereof. %n the case at bar, the decision of the SupremeCourt inCacho v. &overnment o" the United States , decreein' there'istration of the sub5ect parcels of land in the name of the late #oHa#emetria Cacho has lon' attained finalit( and is conclusi/e as to the


20/128

4uestion of o0nership thereof. Since MCGC, the onl( defendant left inthis case, is not a proper part( defendant in this complaint forepropriation, 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 ofland, doc8eted as Case No. 33E3 pendin' before the Re'ional $rialCourt of !anao del Norte, %li'an Cit( ranch 1. 9$he Republic,ho0e/er, did not state such fact in its KVerification and Certification ofNon-Gorum Shoppin'L attached to its Supplemental Complaint datedSeptember *E, *++1. 9%t is therefore 'uilt( of forumshoppin'. Moreo/er, considerin' that in the Re/ersion case, 9theRepublic asserts o0nership o/er the sub5ect parcels of land, it cannot beallo0ed 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?datedOctober *1, *++2.

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

Petition for Re/ie0 on Certiorariand Petition forCertiorariunder 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&%M$D filed on No/ember E, @@E, a

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


21/128

#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 #oHa

#emetria;s 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 Grancisco

Cacho Vidal 6Grancisco7 and Gidela Arellano Confesor. Grancisco 0as the onl(

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

A&%M$D, for its part, filed the Petition as Vidal;s successor-in-interest

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

Memorandum of A'reement dated April *, @@E and #eed of Conditional

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

$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 the

claim 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


22/128

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 Vidals 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&%M$D submitted testimonial and documentar( e/idence

durin' 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 #ecision9??in Ci/il Case

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

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

7 #C!AR%N>:a.7 Petitioner #emetria C. Vidal the sole sur/i/in' heir ofthe late #oHa #emetria Cachoodofredo Cabildo and=or an( of theirtransferees=assi'nees, includin' theinter/enors.ii7 Grom cancelin' or causin' the cancellationof OC$s or an( certificate of title o/er theSub5ect Propert( in the name of #emetriaCacho or an( successor certificate of title, andfrom issuin' ne0 certificates of title in thename of respondent $eofilo Cacho,>odofredo Cabildo and=or an( of theirtransferees=assi'nees, includin' theinter/enors.iii7 Grom claimin' or representin' in an(manner that respondent $eofilo Cacho is theson or heir of #emetria Cacho or has ri'hts toor interest in the Sub5ect Propert(.

?7 OR#R%N> respondents $eofilo Cacho and Att(. >odofredo

Cabildo to pa( petitioners, 5ointl( and se/erall(, the follo0in':a7 Gor temperate dama'es - P E+,+++.++

b7 Gor nominal dama'es - P 3+,+++.++ c7 Gor moral dama'es - P2++,+++.++ d7 Gor eemplar( dama'es - P2++,+++.++ e7 Gor attorne(s fees 6ACCRA !a07-P,+++,+++.++ f7 Gor Attorne(s fees - P2++,+++.++ 6Att(. Voltaire Ro/ira7 '7 Gor liti'ation epenses - P?++,+++.++

Gor lac8 of factual and le'al basis, the counterclaim of $eofiloCacho and Att(. >odofredo Cabildo is hereb( dismissed.

!i8e0ise, the counterclaim of inter/enor %##=%n/esta is dismissed

for lac8 of basis as the petitioners succeeded in pro/in' their cause ofaction.


25/128

On the cross-claim of inter/enor %##=%n/esta, respondents $eofilo

Cacho and Att(. >odofredo Cabildo are OR#R# to pa( %##=%n/esta,5ointl( and se/erall(, the principal sum of P2,1??,+?3 0ith 2 interestper annum.

Gor lac8 of le'al basis, the counterclaim of %nter/enor !andtrade

Realt( #e/elopment Corporation is dismissed.!i8e0ise, %nter/enor Man'ueras counterclaim is dismissed for

lac8 of le'al basis.9?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?2of "anuar( @, *++), affirmed in totothe #ecision dated "ul( ),

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

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

resol/in' the issue on Vidal;s status, filiation, and hereditar( ri'hts as it isdeterminati/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 ?. Dence, 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(


26/128

laches for failin' to assail the 5urisdiction of the R$C-ranch ? at the first

opportunit( 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 caseonl(

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

eecuted before the Philippine Consulate >eneral in the .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 Vidal;s claim of bein' the

'randdau'hter and sole heiress of the late #oHa #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. Vidal;s ri'hts as #oHa #emetria;s successor-in-interest accrued upon the

latter;s death in @)1, and onl( *1 (ears thereafter, in @@E, Vidal alread( filed

the present Petition for uietin' of $itle. $hus, Vidal;s 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.


27/128

!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?3of the same court.

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

Re/ie0 on Certiorariunder Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, 0hich 0as doc8eted as

>.R. No. )E))@. On September 3, *++), $eofilo and Att(. Cabildo filed their

o0n Petition for Re/ie0 on Certiorariunder Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, 0hich

0as doc8eted as >.R. No. )EE@1.

Th! E!ct

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

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

consistin' of ?,2EE 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 ) Farehouse, both for the use of its A'us ) D(dro-lectric

Po0er Plant. Gor more than ?+ (ears, NAPOCOR occupied and possessed said

parcels of land pursuant to its charter, Republic Act No. [email protected]?) Fith the

enactment in *++ of Republic Act No. @?3, other0ise 8no0n as the lectric


28/128

Po0er %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 ) Farehouse are located, !AN#$RA# filed 0ith the M$CC on April

@, *++? a Complaint for nla0ful #etainer a'ainst NAPOCOR and $RANSCO,

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

%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, Guentes,

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?Edated

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

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

throu'h the tolerance of !AN#$RA#. pon 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 nla0ful #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


29/128

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

the le'al capacit( to sue.

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

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

FDRGOR, premises considered, 5ud'ment is hereb(

rendered in fa/or of Plaintiff !and $rade Realt( Corporation representedb( Att(. Ma C. $abimina and a'ainst defendant National Po0erCorporation represented b( its President, Mr. Ro'elio M. Mur'a and co-

defendant $RANSCO represented b( its President #r. Allan $. OrtiB andn'r. !orr(mir A. AdaBa, Mana'er, NAPOCOR-Mindanao, Re'ionalCenter, Ma. Cristina,%li'anCit(, orderin':

. #efendants National Po0er Corporation and $RANSCO, theira'ents or representati/es or an( person=s actin' on its behalf or under itsauthorit( to /acate the premisesarnishment912addressed 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,

Sheriff orres also issued a Notification913to NAPOCOR and $RANSCO for them
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#_ftn46http://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#_ftn46


33/128

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 *@, @)E until "une *@, *++1,

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

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

Appeals in Ca'a(an de Oro Cit( a Petition forCertiorari, 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. E2)1 and E2E1, 0eree/entuall( consolidated.

$he Court of Appeals issued on Au'ust E, *++1 a $RO 91)en5oinin' the

enforcement and implementation of the Order of ecution and Frit 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 #ecision91Edated No/ember *?, *++2,

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

allo0in' and=or effectin' the eecution of the M$CC 5ud'ment pendin' appeal,

since NAPOCOR and $RANSCO 0ere le'all( ecused from compl(in' 0ith the

re4uirements for a sta( of eecution specified in Rule )+, Section @ of the Rules

of Court, particularl(, the postin' of asu#ersedeasbond and periodic deposits of

rental pa(ments. $he decretal portion of said appellate court #ecision states:


34/128

ACCOR#%N>!, the t0o petitions at bench are >RAN$#< theOrder dated @ Au'ust *++1, the Frit of ecution Pendin' Appeal dated+ Au'ust *++1, the t0o Notices of >arnishment dated Au'ust *++1,and the Notification dated Au'ust *++1, are ANN!!# and S$AS%#.91@

#ispleased, !AN#$RA# ele/ated the case to this Court on "anuar( +,

*++3 viaa Petition for Re/ie0 on Certiorariunder Rule 12 of the Rules of Court,

0hich 0as doc8eted as >.R. No. )+2+2.

%n the meantime, 0ith the retirement of "ud'e !ibre and the inhibition92+of

"ud'e Oscar adelles, the ne0 presidin' 5ud'e of R$C-ranch 2, Ci/il Case No.

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 #ecision92in Ci/il Case No.

33? 0hich affirmed in totothe Gebruar( ), *++1 #ecision of the M$CC in Ci/il

Case No. 1)2-AG 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.R. SP Nos. ++E21 and ++EE@, respecti/el(. %n a


35/128

Resolution dated March *1, *++3, the Court of Appeals 'ranted the pra(er for $RO

of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO.

Fith the impendin' lapse of the effecti/it( of the $RO on Ma( *?, *++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 authoriBed the eecution pendin' appeal of the 5ud'ment of the

M$CC, affirmed b( the R$C-ranch , thus:

%N !%>D$ OG $D AOV #%S%S%$%ONS, this Court

resol/es to 'rant the 9!AN#RA#;s omnibus motion for eecutionpendin' appeal of the decision rendered in its fa/or 0hich is bein'assailed in these consolidated petitions for re/ie0. Accordin'l(, the9NAPOCOR and $RANSCO;s respecti/e applications for issuance of0rit of preliminar( in5unction are both denied for lac8 of factual andle'al bases. $he Municipal $rial Court in Cities, ranch *, %li'an Cit(,0hich at present has the custod( of the records of the casea quo, ishereb( ordered to cause the immediate issuance of a 0rit of eecution


36/128


37/128

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 #oHa

#emetria, represented b( her alle'ed heirs, Vidal and=or $eofilo, to'ether 0ith

A&%M$D and !AN#$RA#. $he Complaint, doc8eted as Ci/il Case No. 33E3,

0as raffled to the R$C-ranch 1.

$he Republic sou'ht the cancellation of OC$ 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' KCause of

ActionL:

2. On October 2, @@E, Ori'inal Certificates of $itle 6OC$s7

Nos. +-*++ 6a.f.7 and +-*+ 6a.f.7 0ere issued in the name ofK#emetria Cacho, 0ido0, no0 deceasedL consistin' of a total area of$hree Dundred Se/ent(-i'ht $housand Se/en Dundred and Se/en6?)E,)+)7 s4uare meters and $hree $housand Se/en Dundred $hirt(-Gi/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@+E and 3@+@ dated

#ecember +, @*, as affirmed b( the Donorable Supreme Court inCacho /. >o/ernment of the nited States, *E Phil. 33 6#ecember +,@17,

). $he decision in !RC 6>!RO7 Record Nos. 3@+E and

3@+@, upon 0hich the titles 0ere issued, did not 'rant the entire areaapplied for therein.


38/128

@. As e/ents turned out, the titles issued in connection 0ith

!RC 6>!RO7 Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@ Q i.e. OC$ Nos. +-*++ 6a.f.7and +-*+ 6a.f.7 Q co/er propert( MCD !AR>R in area than that'ranted b( the land re'istration court in its correspondin' decision,supra.

+. Fhile the !RC #ecision, as affirmed b( the Donorable

Supreme Court, 'ranted onl( the southern part of the ?).E) hectare landsub5ect ofLRC 0GLRO1 R!c&" Cas! N&. :>3>, theENTIRE42.=2hectares is indicated as the propert( co/ered b( OC$ +-*++6a.f.7. Forse, OC$ No. +-*++ 6a.f.7 made reference toCas! N&. :>3=asbasis thereof, (et, the decision in said case is clear:

6i7 $he parcel Kob5ect of Case No.:>3= is so/ernment of the nited States, *E Phil.33, p. 3@7

6ii7 K$he parcel of land claimed b( the applicant in

CaseN&. :>3>is the bi''er of t0o parcels andcontains42.=2 h!cta!sL

. More si'nificantl(, the technical description in Ori'inalCertificate of $itle No. +-*++ 6a.f.7 specifies the date of sur/e( asKAu'ust ? to September , @+,L 0hich is AR!%R than the date theSupreme Court, inCachosupra, resol/ed !RC 6>!RO7 Record No.3@+@ 6in/ol/in' ?).E) hectares7. %n resol/in' the application in/ol/in'the42.=2 h!cta!s, the Donorable Supreme Court declared that onl(thes&%th!n patof the ?).E) hectare propert( applied for is 'rantedand that an!6 s%7!yspecif(in' the Ksouthern partL thereof should besubmitted. Accordin'l(, an( sur/e( in/ol/in' the K'ranted southernpartL should bear a date subse4uent to the #ecember +, @1 Supreme

Court decision. *. $he Donorable Supreme Court further declared that the

#ecision in !RC 6>!RO7 Record No. 3@+@ 0as reser/ed:


39/128

KGinal decision in these case isreser/eduntil thepresentation of the ne0 plan.L 6*E Phil. 33, p. 3?!RO7 Record No.:>3>as the basis thereof 6seefront pa'e of OC$ No. +-*+ 6a.f.77. et, the technical descriptionma8es, as its reference,!ot, Plan %%-?)?*, !R Case No. +1),LRC0GLRO1 R!c&" N&. :>3=6see pa'e * of said title7. A title issuedpursuant to a decision ma( onl( co/er the propert( sub5ect of thecase. A title cannot properl( be issued pursuant to a decision in Case3@+@, but 0hose technical description is based on Case 3@+E.

1. $he decision in !RC 6>!RO7 Record Nos. 3@+E and3@+@ has become final and eecutor(, and it cannot be modified, muchless result in an increased area of the propert( decreed therein.

3. %n sum, Ori'inal Certificates of $itle Nos. +-*++ 6a.f.7and +-*+ 6a.f.7, as issued, are null and /oid since the technicaldescriptions /is--/is the areas of the parcels of land co/ered therein0ent be(ond the areas 'ranted b( the land re'istration court in !RC

6>!RO7 Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@[email protected]

Vidal and A&%M$D filed a Motion to #ismiss dated #ecember *?, *++1

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


40/128

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

to state a cause of action< 6?7 assumin' arguendothat the Republic has a cause

of action, the same is barred b( prior 5ud'ment< 617 assumin' further that the

Republic has a cause of action, the same 0as etin'uished b( prescription< and

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

pon motion of the Republic, the R$C-ranch 1 issued an Order92)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 theComplaint despite the proper ser/ice of summons upon them.

!AN#$RA# subse4uentl( filed its Ans0er 0ith Compulsor(

Counterclaim dated September *E, *++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 Order92Edismissin'

the Complaint of the Republic in Ci/il Case No. 33E3, completel( a'reein' 0ith

Vidal and A&%M$D.

$he R$C-ranch 1 reasoned that the Republic had no cause of action

because there 0as no sho0in' that the late #oHa #emetria committed an(

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

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


41/128

in the rulin' of the !RC in >!RO Record Nos. 3@+E 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

#oHa #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 Q 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 Q had been ans0ered s4uarel( in the 1997 Cacho

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

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

judicatabecause the 1914 Cacho case alread( decreed the re'istration of the

parcels of land in the late #oHa #emetria;s name and the 1997 Cacho

casesettled 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.


42/128


43/128

RSPON#N$ "#> >RAV! RR# %N OR#R%N> $D#%SM%SSA! OG $D JPROPR%A$%ON COMP!A%N$ %N C%V%!CAS NO. +3 CONS%#R%N> $DA$:

6a7 $D NON-"O%N#R OG PAR$%S %S NO$ A>RON# GOR $D #%SM%SSA! OG AN AC$%ONPRSAN$ $O SC$%ON , R! ? OG $D @@)R!S OG C%V%! PROC#R %S ANAC$%ON AS% %N RM FDR%N $D GAC$ $DA$$D OFNR OG $D PROPR$ %S MA# A PAR$$O $D AC$%ON %S NO$ SSN$%A!!

%N#%SPNSA!F%$D $D G%!%N> OG $D RVRS%ONCOMP!A%N$ #OC$# AS C%V%! CAS NO. 33E3FD%CD %S PN#%N> GOR RANCD 1 OG$DR>%ONA!$R%A!COR$OG%!%>ANC%$.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 toMetro#olitan -ater*ors and

Se*erage S!stem $M-SS% v. Court o" ##eals936M-SS case7.

$he reliance of the Republic on theM-SS caseto 5ustif( its mode of appeal

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


44/128

$he issue in theM-SS case0as 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 MFSS

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

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

parties in an appeal b( certiorariunder 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/ilaction ofcertiorariunder Rule 32 of the Rules of Court 0here the court or 5ud'e is

re4uired 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, thepetitioner-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. Fhile the Court ma( ha/e stated that in such an instance, Kthe petition

for re/ie0 on certiorariunder Rule 12 of the Rules of Court is at the same time a

petition for certiorariunder Rule 32,L 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


45/128

%nigon v. Court o" ##eals0here the therein petitionerdescribed her petition as Kan appeal under Rule 12 and at the same timeas a special ci/il action of certiorari under Rule 32 of the Rules ofCourt,L this Court, in fro0nin' o/er 0hat it described as a K chimera,Lreiterated that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutuall(eclusi/e and not alternati/e nor successi/e.

$o be sure, the distinctions bet0een Rules 12 and 32 are far and

0ide. Do0e/er, the most apparent is that errors of 5urisdiction are bestre/ie0ed in a special ci/il action for certiorari under Rule 32 0hileerrors of 5ud'ment can onl( be corrected b( appeal in a petition forre/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 apetition for certiorari as ha/in' been filed under Rule 12, more so if thesame 0as filed 0ithin the re'lementar( period for filin' a petition forre/ie0.93?

%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 Certiorariunder

Rule 12 and the alle'ations therein as errors of 5ud'ment. As the records sho0, thePetition 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 Resolution931dated

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


46/128

#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 *6c7 932of 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 certiorariunder 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 correct

application 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, as0ell as their relation to each other and to the 0hole, and the probabilit( of the

situation.93E
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn68http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/170375.htm#_ftn68


47/128

Dere, 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.

$he Court shall no0 consider the propriet( of the dismissal b( the R$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 theIS case. $he

dispositi/e portion of theIS casereads:

FDRGOR, for all the fore'oin', the #ecision of the Court of

Appeals dated E October @@ to the etent that it affirmed the trialcourt;s order dismissin' the epropriation proceedin's, is hereb(RVRS# and S$ AS%# and the case is RMAN## to the

courta quo0hich shall allo0 the substitution of the Republic of thePhilippines for petitioner %ron Steel Authorit( for further proceedin'sconsistent 0ith this #ecision. No pronouncement as to costs.93@


48/128


49/128

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

aside on the 'round of Khonest mista8e.L

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

another 'round: that MCGC 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 directeda'ainst the o0ner of the land sou'ht to be epropriated.

$he Republic insists, ho0e/er, that MCGC 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 that

non-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.Q $he ri'ht of eminent domain shall beeercised b( the filin' of a complaint 0hich shall state 0ith certaint( theri'ht and purpose of condemnation, describe the real or personalpropert( sou'ht to be condemned,an" &in as "!'!n"ants a(( p!s&ns&6nin# & c(ai


50/128

c&n"!


51/128

plant=factor( and related facilities of MCGC. %t 0as ordered in the same !etter of

%nstruction that:

67 NSC shall ne'otiate 0ith the o0ners of MCGC, for and on

behalf of the >o/ernment, for the compensation of MCGCspresent&cc%pancy i#htson the sub5ect lands at an amount of $hirt(6P?+.++7 Pesos per s4uare meter or e4ui/alent to the assessed /aluethereof 6as determined b( the Cit( Assessor of %li'an7, 0hiche/er ishi'her. NSC shall 'i/e MCGC the option to either remo/e its aforesaidplant, structures, e4uipment, machiner( and other facilities from thelands or to sell or cede o0nership thereof to NSC at a price e4ui/alent tothe fair mar8et /alue thereof as appraised b( the Asian Appraisal %nc. as

ma( be mutuall( a'reed upon b( NSC and MCGC.

6*7 %n the e/ent that NSC and MCGC fail to a'ree on thefore'oin' 0ithin sit( 63+7 da(s from the date hereof, the %ron and SteelAuthorit( 6%SA7 shall eercise its authorit( under Presidential #ecree6P#7 No. *)*, as amended, to initiate the epropriation of theaforementioned&cc%pancy i#htsof MCGC on the sub5ect lands as 0ellas the plant, structures, e4uipment, machiner( and related facilities, forand on behalf of NSC, and thereafter cede the same to NSC. #urin' thependenc( 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, MCGC

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 MCGC for

not bein' a proper part(.


52/128

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 MCGC, the

occupant of the sub5ect land, but not the o0ner=s of the said propert(.

#ismissal is not the remed( for mis5oinder or non-5oinder of

parties. Accordin' to Rule ?, Section of the Rules of Court:

SC. .Misjoinder and non8joinder o" #arties.Q Neither

mis5oinder nor non-5oinder of parties is 'round for dismissal of anaction. Pati!s


53/128

epropriation shall name as defendants Kall persons o0nin' or claimin' to o0n, &

&cc%pyin#, an( part thereof or interestL 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 theparcels of land reser/ed to NSC are part of the public domain, hence, o0ned b( the

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

MCGC 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/il

Case 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. %nda. 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:

9Gailure to implead an indispensable part( is not a 'round for thedismissal of an action. %n such a case, the remed( is to implead the non-


54/128

part( claimed to be indispensable. Parties ma( be added b( order of thecourt, on motion of the part( or on its o0n initiati/e at an( sta'e of theaction and=or such times as are 5ust. I' th! p!titi&n!9p(ainti'' !'%s!s t&i


55/128


56/128

case,re'ardless of 0hich part( issuccessful,0ouldamounttoresjudicatain the other case.Gorum-shoppin' is an act of malpractice because it abuses court processes. .

Dere, 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.

33E3.

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

purpose, its possessor(=occupanc( ri'hts o/er ?**,2?* s4uare meters or ?*.*2

hectares of land 0hich, at the time of the filin' of the ori'inal Complaint in @E?,

0as not (et co/ered b( an( certificate of title. On the other hand, Ci/il Case No.

33E3 sou'ht the cancellation of OC$ Nos. +-*++ 6a.f.7 and +-*+ 6a.f.7, 0hich

0as entered into re'istration on #ecember 1, @@E in #oHa #emetria;s name, on

the ar'ument that the parcels of land co/ered b( said certificates eceeded the

areas 'ranted b( the !RC to #oHa #emetria in >!RO Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@,

as affirmed b( this Court in the 1914 Cacho case.

(xpropriation vis)*)vis reversion

$he Republic is not en'a'in' in contradictions 0hen it instituted bothepropriation and re/ersion proceedin's for the same parcels of land. $he

epropriation and re/ersion proceedin's are distinct remedies that are not

necessaril( eclusionar( of each other.


57/128

$he filin' of a complaint for re/ersion does not preclude the institution of an

action for epropriation. /en if the land is re/erted bac8 to the State, the same

ma( still be sub5ect to epropriation as a'ainst the occupants thereof.

Also, Rule 3), Section of the Rules of Court allo0s the filin' of a

complaint for epropriation e/en 0hen Kthe title to an( propert( sou'ht to be

condemned appears to be in the Republic of the Philippines, althou'h occupied b(

pri/ate indi/iduals, or if the title is other0ise obscure or doubtful so that theplaintiff cannot 0ith accurac( or certaint( specif( 0ho are the real o0ners.L Rule

3), Section @ of the Rules of Court further pro/ides:

SC. @. Uncertain o*nershi#' con"licting claims. QI' th!

&6n!ship &' th! p&p!ty ta!n is %nc!tain, & th!! a! c&n'(ictin#

c(ai


58/128

land. $he Republic can still consistentl( assert, in both actions for epropriation

and re/ersion, that the sub5ect parcels of land are part of the public domain.

%n sum, the R$C-ranch erred in dismissin' the ori'inal Complaint and

disallo0in' the Supplemental Complaint in Ci/il Case No. +3. $he Court

re/erses and sets aside the Resolutions dated "ul( *, *++2 and October *1, *++2

of the R$C-ranch in Ci/il Case +3, and reinstates the Complaint for Re/ersion

of the Republic.

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

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

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

Rules of Court, !AN#$RA# and $eofilo, and=or Att(. Cabildo are callin' upon

this Court to determine 0hether the Court of Appeals, in its #ecision dated "anuar(

@, *++) in CA->.R. CV No. ++123, erred in 67 upholdin' the 5urisdiction of the

R$C-ranch ? to resol/e the issues on Vidals status, filiation, and heirship in Ci/il

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

A&%M$D 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 Vidal;s status as #oHa #emetria;s

'randdau'hter and sole sur/i/in' heir< and 617 not holdin' that Ci/il Case No.

112* 0as alread( barred b( prescription.


59/128

%n their Comment, Vidal and A&%M$D 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.

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

+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=or Att(.

Cabildo, re/eals that the( are both factual and le'al.

$he Court has held in a lon' line of cases that in a petition for re/ie0

on certiorariunder Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, onl( 4uestions of la0 ma( beraised as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. %t is settled that as a rule, the

findin's of fact of the Court of Appeals especiall( those affirmin' the trial court

are final and conclusi/e and cannot be re/ie0ed on appeal to the Supreme

Court. $he eceptions to this rule are: 6a7 0hen the conclusion is a findin'

'rounded entirel( on speculations, surmises or con5ectures< 6b7 0hen the inference

made is manifestl( mista8en, absurd or impossible< 6c7 0hen there is 'ra/e abuse

of discretion< 6d7 0hen the 5ud'ment is based on a misapprehension of facts< 6e7

0hen the findin's of fact are conflictin'< 6f7 0hen the Court of Appeals, in ma8in'

its findin's, 0ent be(ond the issues of the case and the same is contrar( to the

admissions of both appellant and appellee< 6'7 0here the Court of Appeals

manifestl( o/erloo8ed certain rele/ant facts not disputed b( the parties and 0hich,

if properl( considered, 0ould 5ustif( a different conclusion< and 6h7 0here the


60/128

findin's of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrar( to those of the trial court, or

are mere conclusions 0ithout citation of specific e/idence, or 0here the facts set

forth b( the petitioner are not disputed b( the respondent, or 0here the findin's of

fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on absence of e/idence but arecontradicted b( the e/idence on record.9E? None of these eceptions eists in the

Petitions at bar.

e that as it ma(, the Court shall address in full-len'th all the issues tendered

in the instant Petitions for Re/ie0, e/en 0hen factual, if onl( to bolster the

conclusions reached b( the R$C-ranch ? and the Court of Appeals, 0ith 0hich

the Court full( concurs.

Jurisdiction vis)*)vis exercise of

-urisdiction

!AN#$RA#, $eofilo, and=or Att(. Cabildo ar'ue that the R$C-ranch ?

hadno 5urisidiction to resol/e the issues of status, filiation, and heirship in an

action for 4uietin' of title as said issues should be /entilated and ad5udicated onl(

in special proceedin's under Rule @+, Section of the Rules of Court, pursuant to

the rulin' of this Court inga#a! v. (alang9E16ga#a! case7 and:eirs o" &uido

;a#tincha! and Isa


61/128

re'ardin' status, filiation, and heirship is not merel( a matter of procedure, but of

5urisdiction 0hich cannot be 0ai/ed b( the parties or b( the court.

$he aforementioned ar'uments fail to persuade.

%n the first place, 5urisdiction is not the same as the eercise of

5urisdiction. $he Court distin'uished bet0een the t0o, thus:

"urisdiction is not the same as the eercise of 5urisdiction. As

distin'uished from the eercise of 5urisdiction, 5urisdiction is theauthorit( to decide a cause, and not the decision renderedtherein. /h!! th!! is %is"icti&n &7! th! p!s&n an" th! s%8!ct


62/128

$he R$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.Q Re'ional $rial Courts shall eercise

eclusi/e ori'inal 5urisdiction: 6*7 %n all ci/il actions 0hichin7&(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

0P3,333.331or, for ci/il actions in Metro Manila, 0here such /alueeceeds Gift( thousand pesos 6P2+,+++.++7 ecept actions for forcibleentr( into and unla0ful detainer of lands or buildin's, ori'inal5urisdiction o/er 0hich is conferred upon the Metropolitan $rial Courts,Municipal $rial Courts, and Municipal Circuit $rial Courts.

Records sho0 that the parcels of land sub5ect of Ci/il Case No. 112* ha/e a

combined assessed /alue ofP45,4>=,>3.33,9EEundisputedl( fallin' 0ithin the

5urisdiction of the R$C-ranch ?.

$he R$C-ranch ? also ac4uired 5urisdiction o/er the person of $eofilo

0hen he filed his Ans0er to the Complaint of Vidal and A&%M$D< and o/er the

5uridical personalit( of !AN#$RA# 0hen the said corporation 0as allo0ed tointer/ene in Ci/il Case No. 112*.


63/128

Considerin' that the R$C-ranch ? had 5urisdiction o/er the sub5ect matter

and parties in Ci/il Case No. 112*, then it can rule on all issues in the case,

includin' those on Vidal;s status, filiation, and heirship, in eercise of its

5urisdiction. An( alle'ed erroneous findin' b( the R$C-ranch ? concernin'

Vidal;s status, filiation, and heirship in Ci/il Case No. 112*, is merel( an error of

5ud'ment sub5ect to the affirmation, modification, or re/ersal b( the appellate court

0hen appealed.

'he Aapa& and aptincha& cases

!AN#$RA#, $eofilo, and=or Att(. Cabildo cannot rel( on the cases

ofga#a!and ;a#tincha!to support their position that declarations on Vidal;s

status, filiation, and heirsip, should be made in special proceedin's and not in Ci/il

Case No. 112*.

%n theAapa& case, the deceased Mi'uel A'apa( 6Mi'uel7 contracted t0o

marria'es. Mi'uel married Carlina 6sometimes referred to as Cornelia7 in @1@,

and the( had a dau'hter named Derminia, 0ho 0as born in @2+. Mi'uel left

for Da0aii a fe0 months after his 0eddin' to Carlina. Fhen Mi'uel returned to

the Philippines in @)*, he did not li/e 0ith Carlina and Derminia. De married

rlinda in @)?, 0ith 0hom he had a son named ristopher, 0ho 0as born in

@)). Mi'uel died in @E. A fe0 months after Mi'uel;s death, Carlina and

Derminia filed a complaint for reco/er( of o0nership and possession 0ith

dama'es a'ainst rlinda o/er a riceland and house and lot in Pan'asinan, 0hich


64/128

0ere alle'edl( purchased b( Mi'uel durin' his cohabitation 0ith rlinda. $he

R$C dismissed the complaint, findin' little e/idence that the properties pertained

to the con5u'al propert( of Mi'uel and Carlina. $he R$C 0ent on to pro/ide for

the intestate shares of the parties, particularl( of ristopher, Mi'uel;s ille'itimate

son. On appeal, the Court of Appeals: 67 re/ersed the R$C 5ud'ment< 6*7 ordered

rlinda to /acate and deli/er the properties to Carlina and Derminia< and 6?7

ordered the Re'ister of #eeds to cancel the $ransfer Certificates of $itle 6$C$s7

o/er the sub5ect propert( in the name of rlinda and to issue ne0 ones in the

names of Carlina and Derminia. rlinda filed a Petition for Re/ie0 0ith thisCourt.

%n resol/in' rlinda;s Petition, the Court held in thega#a! casethat

Article 1E of the Gamil( Code applied to Mi'uel and rlinda. Article 1E

specificall( 'o/erns the propert( relations of a man and a 0oman 0ho are not

capacitated to marr( each other and li/e eclusi/el( 0ith each other as husband

and 0ife 0ithout the benefit of marria'e or under a /oid marria'e. nder said

pro/ision, onl( the properties ac4uired b( both parties throu'h their actual 5oint

contribution of mone(, propert(, or industr( shall be o0ned b( them in common in

proportion to their respecti/e contributions. %n this case, the Court found that the

mone( used to bu( the sub5ect properties all came from Mi'uel.

$he Court then proceeded to address an

Republic vs. Mangatora, GR No. 170375, 7 July 2010

Documents

Transcript of Republic vs. Mangatora, GR No. 170375, 7 July 2010