THIRD DIVISION
|
SM PRIME HOLDINGS, INC., Petitioner, - versus - ANGELA
V. MADAYAG, Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 164687
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: February
12, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) dated March 19, 2004 and Resolution dated July 15,
2004, which set aside the lower court’s order to suspend the proceedings on
respondent’s application for land registration.
On July 12, 2001, respondent Angela
V. Madayag filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta, Pangasinan an
application for registration of a parcel of land with an area of 1,492 square
meters located in Barangay Anonas,
On August 20, 2001, petitioner SM
Prime Holdings, Inc., through counsel, wrote the Chief, Regional Survey
Division, DENR, Region I, demanding the cancellation of the respondent’s survey
plan because the lot encroached on the properties it recently purchased from
several lot owners and that, despite being the new owner of the adjoining lots,
it was not notified of the survey conducted on June 8, 2001.[3]
Petitioner then manifested its
opposition to the respondent’s application for registration. The Republic of
the
On February 6, 2002, petitioner filed
its formal opposition. Petitioner alleged that it had recently bought seven
parcels of land in Barangay Anonas,
Urdaneta, delineated as Lots B, C, D, E, G, H and I in
Consolidation-Subdivision Plan No. (LRC) Pcs-21329, approved by the Land
Registration Commission on August 26, 1976, and previously covered by Survey
Plan No. Psu-236090 approved by the Bureau of Lands on December 29, 1970. These
parcels of land are covered by separate certificates of title, some of which
are already in the name of the petitioner while the others are still in the
name of the previous owners.
On February 20, 2002, the RTC
declared a general default, except as to the petitioner, the Republic, and the
heirs of Romulo Visperas. Thereafter, respondent commenced the presentation of
evidence.
Meanwhile, acting on petitioner’s
request for the cancellation of the respondent’s survey plan, DENR Assistant
Regional Executive Director for Legal Services and Public Affairs, Allan V.
Barcena, advised the petitioner to file a petition for cancellation in due form
so that the DENR could properly act on the same.[4]
Accordingly, petitioner formally filed with the DENR a petition[5]
for cancellation of the survey plan sometime in March 2002, alleging the
following grounds:
I.
THERE IS NO SUCH
THING AS ALIENABLE OR DISPOSABLE PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT
II.
NO NOTICE WAS MADE
UPON PETITIONER (AS ADJOINING LANDOWNER AND WHO BEARS INTEREST OVER THE SUBJECT
III.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES EVIDENTLY SHOW THAT BAD FAITH AND/OR MALICE ATTENDED THE APPROVAL OF (PLAN WITH PSU NO. 01-008438).[6]
On July 17, 2002, petitioner filed an
Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings[7] in
the land registration case, alleging that the court should await the DENR resolution
of the petition for the cancellation of the survey plan “as the administrative
case is prejudicial to the determination” of the land registration case.
On October 8, 2002, the RTC issued an
Order granting the motion, thus:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court hereby GRANTS the instant motion and suspends the proceedings herein. In the meantime, and until receipt by this Court of a copy of the resolution of the petition for cancellation by the DENR, the instant case is hereby ARCHIVED.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Emphasizing that a survey plan is one
of the mandatory requirements in land registration proceedings, the RTC agreed
with the petitioner that the cancellation of the survey plan would be
prejudicial to the petition for land registration.[9]
On February 13, 2003, the RTC denied
the respondent’s motion for reconsideration of its order.[10]
Respondent thereafter filed a petition for certiorari
with the CA assailing the order suspending the proceedings.
On March 19, 2004, finding that the
RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in suspending the proceedings, the CA
granted the petition for certiorari, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The challenged Orders dated October 8, 2002 and February 13, 2003 of the respondent Court are declared NULL and VOID.
The Court a quo is directed to continue the proceedings until its final determination. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[11]
The CA ratiocinated that the survey
plan which was duly approved by the DENR should be accorded the presumption of
regularity, and that the RTC has the power to hear and determine all questions
arising from an application for registration.[12]
On July 15, 2004, the CA issued a
Resolution[13] denying
the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner was, thus, compelled to
file this petition for review, ascribing the following errors to the CA:
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED MANIFEST ERROR IN NOT FINDING THAT THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE LAND REGISTRATION CASE IS LEGAL AND PROPER PENDING THE DETERMINATION AND RESOLUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES-REGION 1.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED MANIFEST
ERROR IN FAILING TO FIND THAT THE ASSAILED ORDERS OF THE
III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED MANIFEST
ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE
IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED MANIFEST ERROR IN FAILING TO FIND THAT THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, UNDER RULE 65 OF THE REVISED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, IS NOT THE ONLY PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW ON THE PART OF HEREIN RESPONDENT.[14]
The petition has no
merit.
Petitioner
contends that, since the respondent’s cause of action in the land registration
case depends heavily on the survey plan, it was only prudent for the RTC to
suspend the proceedings therein pending the resolution of the petition for
cancellation of the survey plan by the DENR.[15]
It, therefore, insists that recourse to a petition for certiorari was not proper considering that respondent was not
arbitrarily deprived of her right to prosecute her application for
registration.[16]
Undeniably, the power to stay proceedings is an incident to
the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the cases in
its dockets, with economy of time and effort for the court, counsel and
litigants. But courts should be mindful of the right of every party to a speedy
disposition of his case and, thus, should not be too eager to suspend
proceedings of the cases before them. Hence, every order suspending proceedings
must be guided by the following precepts: it shall be done in order to avoid
multiplicity of suits and prevent vexatious litigations, conflicting judgments,
confusion between litigants and courts,[17]
or when the rights of parties to the second action cannot be properly
determined until the questions raised in the first action are settled.[18]
Otherwise, the suspension will be regarded as an arbitrary exercise of the
court’s discretion and can be corrected only by a petition for certiorari.
None
of the circumstances that would justify the stay of proceedings is present. In
fact, to await the resolution of the petition for cancellation would only delay
the resolution of the land registration case and undermine the purpose of land
registration.
The fundamental purpose of the Land Registration Law (Presidential
Decree No. 1529) is to finally settle title to real property in order to
preempt any question on the legality of the title – except claims that were
noted on the certificate itself at the time of registration or those that arose
subsequent thereto. Consequently, once the title is registered under the said
law, owners can rest secure on their ownership and possession.[19]
Glaringly, the petition for
cancellation raises practically the very same issues that the herein petitioner
raised in its opposition to the respondent’s application for registration.
Principally, it alleges that the survey plan should be cancelled because it
includes portions of the seven properties that it purchased from several
landowners, which properties are already covered by existing certificates of
title.
Petitioner posits that it is the DENR that has the sole
authority to decide the validity of the survey plan that was approved by the
LMS.[20]
It cites Section 4(15), Chapter 1, Title XIV, Administrative Code of 1987 which
provides that the DENR shall
(15) Exercise (of)
exclusive jurisdiction on the management and disposition of all lands of the
public domain and serve as the sole agency responsible for classification,
sub-classification, surveying and titling of lands in consultation with
appropriate agencies.
However, respondent argues that the land registration court
is clothed with adequate authority to resolve the conflicting claims of the
parties, and that even if the DENR cancels her survey plan, the land
registration court is not by duty bound to dismiss the application for
registration based solely on the cancellation of the survey plan.[21]
Without
delving into the jurisdiction of the DENR to resolve the petition for
cancellation, we hold that, as an incident to its authority to settle all
questions over the title of the subject property, the land registration court
may resolve the underlying issue of whether the subject property overlaps the
petitioner’s properties without necessarily having to declare the survey plan as
void.
It is well to note at this point that, in its bid to avoid
multiplicity of suits and to promote the expeditious resolution of cases, Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 eliminated the distinction between the general
jurisdiction vested in the RTC and the latter’s limited jurisdiction when
acting merely as a land registration court. Land registration courts, as such, can now hear and decide even
controversial and contentious cases, as well as those involving substantial
issues.[22] When the law confers jurisdiction
upon a court, the latter is deemed to have all the necessary powers to exercise
such jurisdiction to make it effective.[23] It may, therefore, hear and determine all
questions that arise from a petition for registration.
In
view of the nature of a
Should the
court find it difficult to do so, the court may require the filing of
additional papers to aid in its determination of the propriety of the
application, based on Section 21 of P.D. No. 1529:
SEC. 21. Requirement
of additional facts and papers; ocular inspection. – The court may require facts to
be stated in the application in addition to those prescribed by this Decree not
inconsistent therewith and may require the filing of any additional
papers.
The court may
also directly require the DENR and the Land Registration Authority to submit a
report on whether the subject property has already been registered and covered
by certificates of title, like what the court did in Carvajal v. Court of Appeals.[28] In
that
case, we commended such move by
the land
registration court for being “in accordance with the purposes of the Land
Registration Law.”[29]
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the petition is DENIED. The
Court of Appeals Decision dated March 19, 2004 and Resolution dated July 15,
2004 are AFFIRMED. The Regional
Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan is DIRECTED
to continue with the proceedings in L.R.C. Case No. U-1134 and to resolve the
same with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
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
C E R T I F I C A T I O
N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice
Eliezer R. de los
[2] CA
rollo, pp. 33-34.
[3] Rollo, pp. 44-46.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] Security Bank Corporation v. Victorio, G.R. No. 155099, August 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 609, 628.
[18] Quiambao v. Osorio, No. L-48157, March
16, 1988, 158 SCRA 674, 679.
[19] Tichangco v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 150629,
June 30, 2004, 433 SCRA 324, 333-334.
[20] Rollo, pp. 230-232.
[21]
[22] Talusan v. Tayag, 408 Phil. 373, 386 (2001).
[23] Carvajal v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 582, 591 (1997).
[24] Id at 592.
[25] Fil-Estate Management, Inc. v. Trono, G.R. No. 130871, February 17, 2006, 482 SCRA 578, 584.
[26] Section 48 of Presidential
Decree No. 1529 provides:
Sec. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral
attack. - A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral
attack. It cannot be altered, modified,
or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
[27] Del Rosario v. Republic, 432 Phil. 824, 834 (2002).
[28] Supra note 24.
[29]