THIRD
DIVISION
|
HEIRS OF SOFIA NANAMAN LONOY, namely,
MANUEL N. LONOY, OSCAR N. LONOY, WARREN N. LONOY, EXCELINO N. LONOY, EDGAR N.
LONOY, VICTOR N. LONOY, APOLLO N. LONOY, GEMMA N. LONOY-SAMSON, HEIRS OF
RODOLFO N. LONOY (ISABEL A. LONOY, ISABELITA A. LONOY-YOUNG, WINONA A. LONOY,
RODERICK A. LONOY, NANCY A. LONOY-PAYNAEN, ROBERT LONOY, ROMMEL A. LONOY,
RAFAEL A. LONOY, ZENAIDA LONOY-OPADA, HONEYLYN A. LONOY, MARITES LONOY
CABURNAY, and RODOLFO LONOY, JR.), HEIRS OF CORNELIA NANAMAN
ADIS/ASEQUIA, namely, HEIRS OF ELSA N. ADIS, BRICCIO N. ADIS, TOMAS N. ADIS,
ROMY N. ADIS, JUSTINO N. ADIS, MERCITA N. ASEQUIA, and TOMASITA N. ASEQUIA, HEIRS OF VICENTE NANAMAN (LUDEM
NANAMAN, ET AL.), HEIRS OF MANUELA NANAMAN AMARGA,
namely, HEIRS OF CLARITA AMARGA-UBGUIA (VERLITO A. UBGUIA, DANILO A. UBGUIA,
ASTERIO A. UBGUIA, and CARLO A. UBGUIA), HEIRS OF ACOLON AMARGA (ALMIRANTE
AMARGA, SPARTACUS AMARGA, MELVIN AMARGA, and RODRIGO AMARGA), ALONSO N.
AMARGA, HERDA N. AMARGA, DELOS MIMBA AMARGA-TOGONON, HEIRS OF ASCONA AMARGA
UBAGAN (DEMOSTHENES A. UBAGAN, ET AL.), HEIRS OF NICODEMO N. AMARGA (JIMMY
AMARGA, MARIETTA AMARGA, BENIGNO AMARGA, NICODEMO AMARGA, JR., ALMA AMARGA,
FELIX AMARGA, ADOR AMARGA, LYDIA AMARGA, JUDY AMARGA, LOLOT AMARGA, and
MADONNA AMARGA), HEIRS OF ATANACIO NANAMAN AMARGA
(GLORIOSA A. APOR, NESTOR AMARGA, NORVILLA AMARGA, GENITA AMARGA, and GILMA
AMARGA), HEIRS OF OLIVA AMARGA-BADELLES (JOSE
I. BADELLES, JIMBO BADELLES, JOHNSON BADELLES, ALITA BADELLES-JALAGAT, NINIAN
BADELLES, JONA A. BADELLES, CEFERINO A. BADELLES, OLIVER BADELLES, OHARA A.
BADELLES, MARIA BADELLES, SARAH A. BADELLES, JEBA A. BADELLES, and MICHAELA
A. BADELLES), and HEIRS OF MANSUETO N. AMARGA (EDNA
AMARGA – surviving spouse of JESSE AMARGA, DEÑA AMARGA-MAGHINAY, and MARLON
AMARGA), HEIRS OF GENARA NANAMAN SAKALL,
namely, AMPARO SAKALL-DURANO, BENEDICTO N. SAKALL, ISABELITA N. SAKALL,
FRANCISCA SAKALL MARQUINA, HONORIO N. SAKALL, VIRGINIA SAKALL ESTANISLAO, and
NORMA N. SAKALL, HEIRS OF JULIETA NANAMAN, namely,
HEIRS OF JAIME NANAMAN/RIVERA (ANASTASIA LAUGAM NANAMAN – surviving spouse,
DULSORA NANAMAN, and GUILLERMO NANAMAN), HEIRS OF PIO NANAMAN/ROA (WILMA
NANAMAN, ALFREDO NANAMAN, DELIA NANAMAN, SALVADOR NANAMAN, HEIRS OF RAUL
NANAMAN, EVELYN NANAMAN, VIOLA NANAMAN, EDITHA NANAMAN, PINKY NANAMAN, and
ALEXANDER NANAMAN), HEIRS OF GREGORIO NANAMAN/DACAMPO
(VICTOR NANAMAN, VICENTE NANAMAN, GREGORIO NANAMAN, JR., and VIRGIE NANAMAN),
and HEIRS OF ORLANDO NANAMAN (EMILIA G.
NANAMAN – surviving spouse, ALEX NANAMAN, EMMA NANAMAN, HEIRS OF GEORGINA
NANAMAN, GEORGE NANAMAN, RAMIL NANAMAN, and CAROLYN NANAMAN), HEIRS OF ROSARIO NANAMAN RUEDAS,
namely, HEIRS OF BERNARDO N. RUEDAS (JULIA RUEDAS, JONATHAN RUEDAS, MARLON
RUEDAS, MARIVIC RUEDAS, EDITHA RUEDAS, and MARGIE RUEDAS-POGOY), and HEIRS OF
JOSE “FEBE” NANAMAN (SOCORRO NANAMAN, AIDA NANAMAN, LERMA NANAMAN-MORALES,
EDUARDO NANAMAN, JOSEFA NANAMAN, MARISA NANAMAN, ARTURO NANAMAN, and MARYFLOR
NANAMAN), and ATTY. ELPEDIO CABASAN as Administrator of the Intestate Estate
of Gregorio Nanaman, Petitioners, - versus
- SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, LAND
REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD
(DARAB), LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, HEIRS OF NECIFORO CABALUNA, HEIRS OF
ABDON MANREAL, TRANQUILINA C. MANREAL, TITO L. BALLER, HEIRS OF HERCULANO C.
BALORIO, ALICIA B. MANREAL, FELIPE D. MANREAL, SALVACION MANREAL, HEIRS OF
DOMINGO N. RICO, HEIRS OF DOMINGO V. RICO, MACARIO VELORIA, HEIRS OF CUSTODIO
M. RICO, HEIRS OF CLEMENTE M. RICO, MARTILLANO D. OBESO, HEIRS OF PABLO F.
RICO, Respondents, CITY OF ILIGAN, HEIRS OF JUAN
NANAMAN, HEIRS OF LIMBANIA CABILI MERCADO, HEIRS OF MARIANO ANDRES CABILI, Respondents/Unwilling
Co-Petitioners. |
|
G.R. No. 175049 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, CARPIO, * AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
seeking (a) the reversal of the Resolution[1]
dated 13 July 2005 of the Twenty-Second (22nd) Division of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00365, which dismissed the Special Civil Action
for Prohibition, Declaration of Nullity of Emancipation Patents, Injunction
with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order; and (b) the
reversal of the Resolution[2]
of the Twenty-First (21st) Division of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 00365 dated 22 September 2006, which denied the Motion for
Reconsideration of the aforementioned Resolution.
The factual
and procedural antecedents of the case are set forth hereunder.
Action for
Reversion of Title
The spouses
Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria Tabuclin (Hilaria) were the owners of a
parcel of agricultural land situated in Tambo, Iligan City, consisting of 34.7
hectares (subject property), upon which they likewise erected their
residence. Living with them on the
subject property were Virgilio Nanaman (Virgilio), Gregorio’s son by another
woman, and fifteen tenants.
When
Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria administered the subject property with
Virgilio. On 16 February 1954, Hilaria
and Virgilio executed a Deed of Sale[3]
over the subject property in favor of Jose C. Deleste (Deleste).
Upon
Hilaria’s death on 15 May 1954, Juan Nanaman (Juan), Gregorio’s brother, was
appointed as special administrator of the estate of the deceased spouses
Gregorio and Hilaria (joint estate). On
16 June 1956, Edilberto Noel (Noel) was appointed as the regular administrator of
the joint estate.
The subject
property was included in the list of assets of the joint estate. However, Noel could not take possession of
the subject property since it was already in Deleste’s possession. Thus, on
Through the
years, Civil Case No. 698 was heard, decided, and appealed all the way to this
Court in Noel v. Court of Appeals.
On 11 January 1995, the Court rendered its Decision[4]
in Noel, affirming the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the subject
property was the conjugal property of the late spouses Gregorio and Hilaria,
such that the latter could only sell her one-half (1/2) share therein to
Deleste. Consequently, the intestate
estate of Gregorio and Deleste were held to be the co-owners of the subject
property, each with a one-half (1/2) interest in the same.
While Civil
Case No. 698 was still pending before the CFI, Presidential Decree No. 27[5]
was issued on 21 October 1972, which mandated that tenanted rice and corn lands
be brought under the Operation Land Transfer Program and be awarded to farmer
beneficiaries. In accordance therewith,
the subject property was placed under the Operation Land Transfer Program.
On 12
February 1984, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Certificates of
Land Transfer (CLTs) in the names of herein private respondents, the tenants
and actual cultivators of the subject property. The CLTs were registered on 15
July 1986.
Subsequently,
on
|
Private
Respondents |
OCT/ EP
Nos. |
Areas (has.) |
Registration
Dates |
|
1. Heirs of Neciforo A.
Cabaluna |
OCT
No. P-01 (a.f.)/ EP
No. 190251 |
1.08 |
21 Sept. 2001 |
|
2. Heirs of Abdon P.
Manreal |
OCT
No. P-02 (a.f.)/ EP
No. 00032029 |
2.5799 |
21 Sept 2001 |
|
3. Tranquilina C. Manreal |
OCT
No. P-03(a.f.)/ EP
No. 190253 |
1.3612 |
1 October 2001 |
|
4. Tito L. Baller |
OCT
No. P-04 (a.f.)/ EP
No. 190254 |
.4409 |
1 October 2001 |
|
5. Heirs of Herculano
Balorio |
OCT
No. P-05 (a.f.)/ EP
No. 190255 |
1.7937 |
1 October 2001 |
|
6. Alicia B. Manreal |
OCT
No. P-06 (a.f.)/ EP
No. 190256 |
1.5233 |
1 October 2001 |
|
7. Felipe D. Manreal |
OCT
No. P-07 (a.f.)/ EP
No. 190257 |
.9760 |
1 October 2001 |
|
8. Salvacion Manreal |
OCT
No. P-08 (a.f.)/ EP
No. 190258 |
.5502 |
1 October 2001 |
|
9. Heirs of Domingo N. Rico |
OCT
No. P-09 (a.f.)/ EP
No. 190261 |
2.7850 |
1 October 2001 |
|
10. Macario Veloria |
OCT
No. P-10 (a.f.)/ EP
No. 190262 |
.5778 |
1 October 2001 |
|
11. Heirs of Custodio M. Rico |
OCT
No. P-11 (a.f.)/ EP
No. 190263 |
1.4499 |
1 October 2001 |
|
12. Heirs of Clemente M. Rico |
OCT
No. P-12 (a.f.)/ EP
No. 190264 |
.7320 |
1 October 2001 |
|
13. Martillano D. Obeso |
OCT
No. P-13 (a.f.)/ EP
No. 190265 |
2.0492 |
1 October 2001 |
|
14. Heirs of Pablo F. Rico |
OCT
No. P-14 (a.f.)/ EP
No. 190266 |
.2608 |
1 October 2001 |
|
15. Heirs of Domingo V. Rico |
OCT
No. P-15 (a.f.)/ EP
No. 190267 |
1.8036 |
|
Expropriation Case
Deleste
passed away sometime in 1992.
About a
year earlier, in 1991, the subject property was surveyed. The survey of a portion of the land
consisting of 20.2611 hectares, designated as Lot No. 1407, was approved on
On P27,343,000.00 was deposited with the
Development Bank of the Philippines in Iligan City, in trust for RTC Branch 4.
Petition for Nullification of the Emancipation Patents (Heirs of Deleste)
On
The
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) rendered a Decision[9]
on 21 July 2003 declaring that the EPs were null and void in view of the
pending issues of ownership and the subsequent reclassification of the subject
property into a residential/commercial land.
On appeal,
docketed as DARAB Case No. 12486, the DARAB reversed the ruling of the PARAD in
its Decision[10]
dated 15 March 2004. The DARAB held, inter
alia, that the EPs were valid, since it was the Heirs of Deleste who should
have informed the DAR of the pendency of Civil Case No. 698 at the time the
subject property was placed under the coverage of the Operation Land Transfer
Program. It further found that the
question of exemption from the Operation Land Transfer Program lay within the
jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary or his authorized representative. The Heirs of Deleste filed a Motion for
Reconsideration[11]
of the aforementioned Decision, but the Motion was denied by the DARAB in its Resolution dated
The Heirs
of Deleste thereafter filed a Petition for Review[12]
with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 85471, challenging the
Decision and Resolution in DARAB Case No. 12486. The Petition was denied by the Court of
Appeals in a Resolution[13] dated 28 October 2004 as material portions of the record and
other supporting papers were not attached thereto, in accordance with Section 6
of Rule 43.[14] The Motion for Reconsideration[15]
of the Heirs of Deleste was likewise denied by the appellate court in a Resolution[16]
dated 13 September 2005 for being pro forma.[17]
Petition for Prohibition
During the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No.
85471 before the Court of Appeals, a Petition for Prohibition, Declaration of Nullity of
Emancipation Patents Issued by DAR and the Corresponding [Original Certificates
of Title] Issued by the [Land Registration Authority], Injunction with Prayer
for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)[18]
was filed on 7 June 2005 by herein petitioners Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy, et
al. with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00365.
Petitioners are more than one hundred
twenty (120) individuals who claim to be the descendants of Fulgencio Nanaman,
Gregorio’s brother, and who collectively assert their right to a share in
Gregorio’s estate. Arguing that they
were deprived of their inheritance by virtue of the improper issuance of the
EPs to private respondents without notice to them, petitioners prayed that a
TRO be forthwith issued, prohibiting the DAR Secretary, the Land Registration
Authority (LRA), the DARAB, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), as well as
the RTC, Branch 4 of Iligan City, from enforcing the EPs and OCTs in the names
of private respondents until CA-G.R. SP No. 00365 was resolved. Petitioners further prayed that judgment be
subsequently rendered declaring the said EPs and the OCTs null and void.
In a Resolution[19]
dated 13 July 2005, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition in CA-G.R. SP
No. 00365 on the following grounds:
A perusal, however, of the instant petition disclose
the following defects and/or infirmities which constrain us to dismiss the
petition:
(a.) Annexes “V”, “W”, “HH”, “LL”, “NN”, “QQ”, “UU” and
“VV” are not duplicate originals or certified true copies in violation to
Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, hence, sufficient ground for the
dismissal of the petition.
(b.) There is no explanation why personal service was not
resorted to by petitioner in serving copies of the petition to adverse parties
contrary to the provision of Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court which
provides:
Sec. 11.
Priorities in modes of service and filing. – Whenever practicable, the
service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from
the court, a resort to other modes must
be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done
personally. A violation of this Rule
may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.
(c.) Petitioners in the instant case are not parties to
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) case who’s (sic)
Decision they now seek to be nullified in this present petition for
prohibition.
(d.) Although a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) was
obtained in favor of Rodolfo Lonoy who signed in the verification and
certification of non-forum shopping, it can be gleaned, however, that other
heirs whose names appeared in the SPA have not signed therein. It is also apparent that there was only one
person who signed for the first four (4) heirs of Donny Ruedas and only one
person who signed in some of the heirs of Jose Febe Nanaman in the Special
Power of Attorney executed in favor of Rodolfo Lonoy.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[20]
of the afore-quoted Resolution, but the said Motion was denied by the appellate
court in another Resolution[21]
dated
After a careful evaluation
of petitioners’ arguments vis-à-vis
public respondents’ comment, We resolve to deny the instant motion.
While litigation is not a game of technicalities, and the
rules should not be enforced strictly at the cost of substantial justice, still
it does not follow that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random
to the prejudice of the orderly presentation, assessment and just resolution of
the issues. Procedural rules should not
be belittled or dismissed simply because they may have resulted in prejudice to
a party’s substantial rights. Like all
rules, they are required to be followed except only for compelling reasons.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, petitioners’ Motion
for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED and Our July 13, 2005 Resolution is
MAINTAINED.
Aggrieved, petitioners now come to this Court via the present Petition for Review, raising the following issues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF
APPEALS ACTED CONTRARY TO LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE OR COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN HASTILY DISMISSING
THE PETITIONERS’ PETITION FOR PROHIBITION, ETC. IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 00365 ON
PURELY TECHNICAL GROUNDS SOME OF WHICH ARE PATENTLY ERRONEOUS OR UNTRUE.
II.
IN THE EVENT THAT THE
OUTRIGHT AND HASTY DISMISSAL OF CA-G.R. SP NO. 00365 WILL BE SET ASIDE, WHETHER
OR NOT THE OTHER ISSUES SHOULD BE RESOLVED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT INSTEAD OF
REMANDING THE CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT
SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN PLACING THE RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL
IV.
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS
SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, LRA, AND DARAB VIOLATED PETITIONERS’
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS BY DEPRIVING THEM OF THEIR INHERITANCE
SHARES IN
V.
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS
SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, LRA, AND DARAB VIOLATED SECTION 6, RA 6657 –
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW, BY PLACING THE INDIVIDUAL INHERITANCE SHARES
OF PETITIONERS IN LOT 1407 WHEN THE SAME IS WAY BELOW THE LANDOWNER’S RETENTION
LIMIT OF FIVE (5) HECTARES [OR SEVEN (7) HECTARES UNDER PD 27].
VI.
WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC
RESPONDENTS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN MAKING PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES
DESPITE THE UNDISPUTABLE ABSENCE OF CONSENT, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, SHARING
OF HARVESTS, AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF A LEGITIMATE TENANCY RELATIONSHIP.
VII.
WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC
RESPONDENTS ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN REVIEWING [AND]
OVERRULING JUDICIAL DECISIONS CONSIDERING THAT THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
OVER ACTS OF THE EXECUTIVE OR LEGISLATIVE BRANCH BELONGS TO THE JUDICIARY AND
NOT VICE VERSA.
[VIII.]
WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC
RESPONDENTS ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN REVIEWING AND OVERRULING THE EARLIER
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION BY RTC BRANCH 4,
[IX.]
WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC
RESPONDENTS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN EXPROPRIATING THROUGH
It should be recalled that petitioners initiated before the Court of Appeals, in its original jurisdiction, CA-G.R. SP No. 00365, a Petition for Prohibition.
It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies
together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy
intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied
by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the
judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions
of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or
pertinent thereto. The certification shall be accomplished by the proper clerk
of court or by his duly authorized representative, or by the proper officer of
the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by his duly authorized
representative. The other requisite number of copies of the petition shall be
accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all documents attached to the
original.
Reference
is also made to Section 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, particularly
governing petitions for prohibition, which pertinently provides:
Section 3
of Rule 46 does not require that all supporting papers and documents
accompanying a petition be duplicate originals or certified true copies. What it explicitly directs is that all
petitions originally filed before the Court of Appeals shall be accompanied by
a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment,
order, resolution or ruling subject thereof.
Similarly, under Rule 65, governing the remedies of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, petitions for the same need to be accompanied only by
duplicate originals or certified true copies of the questioned judgment, order
or resolution.[23] Other relevant documents and pleadings
attached to such petitions may be mere machine copies thereof.[24] As to petitioners’ Petition for Prohibition
in CA-G.R. SP No. 00365, the
attached annexes that were not duplicate originals or certified true copies,
namely, Annexes “V,”[25]
“W,”[26]
“HH,”[27]
“LL,”[28]
“NN,”[29]
“QQ,”[30]
“UU”[31]
and “VV,”[32]
were mere supporting documents and pleadings referred to in the petition and were
not themselves the judgments, orders or resolutions being challenged in said
Petition. At any rate, petitioners were
able to attach certified true copies of these annexes to their Motion for
Reconsideration of the dismissal of their Petition.
Another
ground for which CA-G.R.
SP No. 00365 was dismissed by the Court of Appeals was the alleged failure by
petitioners to provide an explanation as to why the Petition therein was served
upon adverse parties by registered mail instead of personal service, as required
by Section 11, Rule 13[33]
of the Rules of Court. To the contrary, petitioners
provided such an explanation,[34]
except that it was incorporated into the main body of the Petition, right
before the statement of the Relief prayed for.
It was clearly stated therein that:
EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE BY
MAIL
Copies of this petition were served upon
respondents SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, LRA, DARAB, LBP, and counsels of
other respondents to save time and costs considering the number of parties to
be served and the far distance of [the] LBP Office in Cagayan de Oro City, the
DAR/DARAB offices in Diliman, Quezon City, and the LRA office in East Ave.
corner NIA Road, Diliman, Quezon City.
The Court,
however, agrees with the Court of Appeals that the failure of all the
petitioners to sign the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of Rodolfo
Lonoy, authorizing him to sign the verification and certification against forum
shopping on their behalf, was fatal to their Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 00365.
Section 5 of Rule 7 of the
Rules of Court explicitly provides:
Failure to comply with the foregoing
requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other
initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The
submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without
prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel
clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be
ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct
contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
In PET Plans, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[35] this Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the petition, since the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed by the company’s vice president for legal affairs/corporate secretary without any showing that he was authorized to do so.
Indeed,
ample jurisprudence exists to the effect that subsequent and substantial
compliance of a petitioner may call for the relaxation of the rules of
procedure in the interest of justice. But to merit the Court's liberal consideration, petitioner
must show reasonable cause justifying non-compliance with the rules and must
convince the Court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the
administration of justice.[36] Hence, deviation from the requirements of
verification and certification against forum shopping may only be allowed in
special circumstances.
In the
present case, petitioners failed to provide the Court with sufficient
justification for the suspension or relaxation of the rules in their
favor. In their Motion for
Reconsideration of the 13 July 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals,
petitioners merely claimed that some of them signed for their co-petitioners,
while others were at work so that they could not sign the SPA in favor of
Rodolfo Lonoy. Needless to say, the
reason is flimsy and unsatisfactory.
That other petitioners were at work does not make it impossible to
secure their signatures, only a little more inconvenient. It is not, therefore, unreasonable for the
Court to demand in this case compliance with the requirements for proper
verification of the Petition and execution of the certificate against
shopping.
Furthermore,
the Court takes note of another procedural lapse committed by petitioners
justifying the dismissal of their Petition for Prohibition in CA-G.R. SP No. 00365, for it
was the wrong remedy for them to pursue.
According
to Section 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a petition for prohibition may
be availed of under the following circumstances:
Sec. 2. Petition for
prohibition. –
When the
proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts
with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified
therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice
may require.
In this case, a close reading of
the Petition for Prohibition filed by the petitioners before the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 00365 would reveal that the same is essentially more of an action
for the nullification of the allegedly invalid EPs and OCTs issued in the names
of private respondents. The writ of
prohibition is only sought by petitioners to prevent the implementation of the
EPs and OCTs. Considering that such EPs
and OCTs were issued in 2001, they had become indefeasible and incontrovertible
by the time petitioners instituted CA-G.R. SP No. 00365 in 2005, and may no longer be judicially
reviewed.
Section 32 of the Property
Registration Decree unequivocally provides:
Sec. 32. Review of
decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value.
The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason
of absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely affected
thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments, subject,
however, to the right of any person, including the government and the branches
thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such
adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance
[now Regional Trial Court] a petition for reopening and review of the
decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the
entry of such decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition be
entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for value has acquired the
land or an interest therein, whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the
phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or an equivalent phrase occurs
in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or
other encumbrancer for value. Upon the expiration of said period of
one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued shall
become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in
any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or
any other persons responsible for the fraud.
In Estribillo v. Department of
Agrarian Reform,[40]
the Court affirmed the long-settled doctrine that certificates of title issued
in administrative proceedings are as indefeasible as certificates of title
issued in judicial proceedings. In the
case at bar, the DAR had already issued the corresponding OCTs after granting
EPs to the tenant-beneficiaries in compliance with Presidential Decree No. 27
and Section 105[41]
of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration
Decree. Hence, the OCTs issued to
petitioners pursuant to their EPs have already acquired the same protection
accorded to other certificates of title issued judicially or administratively.
A certificate of title becomes indefeasible
and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the
issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent. Land covered by such title may no longer be
the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding, nor can it be decreed to another
person.[42]
Private respondents’ EPs were
issued in their favor on 1 August 2001 and their OCTs were correspondingly
issued and subsequently registered with the Register of Deeds of Iligan City on
21 September 2001 and 1 October 2001.
Petitioners directly went to the Court of Appeals, instead to the
Regional Trial Court as mandated by Section 32 of the Property Registration
Decree, to seek the nullification of the said EPs and OCTs and only on
After the expiration of the
one-year period, a person whose property has been wrongly or erroneously
registered in another’s name may bring an ordinary action for reconveyance,[43]
or if the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value,
Section 32 of the Property Registration Decree gives petitioners only one other
remedy, i.e., to file an action for damages against those responsible
for the fraudulent registration.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for
Review is hereby DENIED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
RUBEN T.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
* Justice
Antonio T. Carpio was designated to sit as additional member replacing Justice
Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per Raffle dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag with Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Normandie B. Pizarro, concurring; rollo, pp. 350-352.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. with Associate Justices Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and Mario V. Lopez, concurring; rollo, pp. 387-388.
[3] Records, pp. 132-133.
[4] Noel v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 89 (1995).
[5] DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS FROM THE BONDAGE OF THE SOIL TRANSFERRING TO THEM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THEY TILL AND PROVIDING THE INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISM THEREFOR.
[6] Rollo, pp. 158-216.
[7]
[8] Josefa L. Deleste, Jose Ray L. Deleste, Raul Hector L. Deleste and Ruben Alex L. Deleste.
[9] Rollo, pp. 542-553.
[10] Penned by Assistant Secretary Augusto P. Quijano with Undersecretary Rolando G. Mangulabnan, Assistant Secretary Lorenzo R. Reyes and Assistant Secretary Rustico T. de Belen, concurring; rollo, pp. 217-232.
[11] Rollo, pp. 659-674.
[12]
[13]
[14] Sec. 6. Contents of the petition. – The petition for review shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein.
[15] Rollo, pp. 707-730.
[16]
[17] On 25 January 2006, the Heirs of Deleste filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Court, which was docketed as G.R. No. 169913. As of the writing of this decision, the above-mentioned case is still pending with the Second Division.
[18] Rollo, pp. 65-143.
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 171098,
[24]
[25] Opposition and/or Manifestation on the Joint Motion of Atty. Zaide.
[26] Certified Copy of 22 April 2005 Order of RTC Branch 1 in Spl. Proc. 596 granting the joint motion filed by Atty. Cabili, et al. to complete partition of the NANAMAN share in Lot No. 1407, etc. consisting of 11.6259 hectares, more or less, among the numerous heirs of GREGORIO NANAMAN.
[27] Letter of Regional Officer Rajah,
Housing & Land Use Regulatory Board,
[28] Ordinance No. 99-3653.
[29] Cash Deposit Slip from the Development Bank of the Philippines.
[30] Copy of the Decision and Entry of Judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 55370 entitled City of Iligan v. Hon. Macarambon.
[31] Business Permit No. 001947-0 issued to Fortunata Lira.
[32] Business Permit No. 002333-0 issued to Fortunata Lira.
[33] Sec. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. – Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.
[34] Rollo, p. 139.
[35] G.R. No. 148287,
[36] United Paragon Mining Corporation
v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 150959,
[37] Feria, “Civil Procedure Annotated,” Vol. II (2001 ed.), pp. 475-476.
[38] Cabañero and Mangornong v. Torres, 61 Phil. 522, 525 (1935).
[39] Aguinaldo v. Commission on Elections, 368 Phil. 253, 263 (1999).
[40] G.R. No. 159674,
[41] Sec. 105. Certificates of Land Transfer Emancipation Patents. - The Department of Agrarian Reform shall pursuant to P. D. No. 27 issue in duplicate, a Certificate of Land Transfer for every land brought under "Operation Land Transfer," the original of which shall be kept by the tenant-farmer and the duplicate, in the Registry of Deeds. After the tenant-farmer shall have fully complied with the requirements for a grant of title under P.D. No. 27, an Emancipation Patent which may cover previously titled or untitled property shall be issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform.
The Register of Deeds shall complete the entries on the aforementioned Emancipation Patent and shall assign an original certificate of title number in case of unregistered land, and in case of registered property, shall issue the corresponding transfer certificate of title without requiring the surrender of the owner's duplicate of the title to be cancelled.
In case of death of the grantee, the Department of Agrarian Reform shall determine his heirs or successors-in-interest and shall notify the Register of Deeds accordingly. In case of subsequent transfer of property covered by an Emancipation Patent or a Certificate of Title emanating from an Emancipation Patent, the Register of Deeds shall affect the transfer only upon receipt of the supporting papers from the Department of Agrarian Reform.
No fee, premium, of tax of any kind shall be charged or imposed in connection with the issuance of an original Emancipation Patent and for the registration or related documents.
[42] Estribillo v. Department of Agrarian Reform, supra note 40 at 236-237.
[43] Gonzales
v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 69622,