CONCORDIO A. TRAZO, PETITIONER, VS. MANILA PENCIL CO., INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

On October 19, 1959, Judge Arsenio Solidum of the Court of First
Instance of Manila rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 39864 of said
court, entitled “Manila Pencil Company, Inc., petitioner, versus,
the Director of Lands, respondent,” ordering the respondent Director to
execute a deed of sale in favor of the petitioner therein of Lots Nos.
11 and 79 of the San Lazaro Friar Lands. From this decision, the
Director appealed to the Supreme Court, which appeal is docketed as G.
R. No. L-16272, but said appeal was dismissed upon motion of the
Solicitor General. (Memorandum of Respondent Manila Pencil Company
dated May 6, 1960) On November 6, 1959, Concordio A. Trazo, petitioner
herein, filed in said case an “Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to
Intervene To Set Aside the Decision of October 19, 1959 and for New
Trial”, alleging that he, not the respondent herein Manila Pencil
Company, is the actual occupant of 200 square meters of Lot No. 79;
that he occupied the same since 1949, by virtue of a contract of
sublease with the Manila Pencil Company; that the decision in Civil
Case No. 39864 was obtained by means of fraud, because the Manila
Pencil Company misrepresented that it actually occupied said lot and
furthermore because said company failed to give him notice of the
pendency of said civil case; that the Director of Lands likewise acted
in bad faith in admitting actual occupancy of the lot by the company.
Trazo admits, however, that he received a letter dated August 17, 1959,
notifying him of the pendency of the case in the Court of First
Instance, but he claims to have received it only on the first week of
October, 1959. On November 7, 1959, Judge Solidum denied the omnibus
motion filed by Trazo, for the reason that intervention in a case is no
longer permitted after judgment has been rendered. In the same order,
respondent judge approved the record on appeal presented by the
Director of Lands.

The present petition for mandamus and
certiorari was filed in this Court by Concordio A. Trazo to annul the
judgment of the respondent court in Civil Case No. 39864, to suspend
the proceedings in said case, and to reopen the case, allowing
petitioner herein to intervene. In his petition, Trazo reiterates the
allegations in his omnibus motion to intervene, and contends that,
being an indispensable party, his intervention should have been
allowed, citing the case of Falcasantos vs. Falcasantos, G. R. No. L-4627, May 13, 1952.

Respondent Director of Lands and Manila Pencil Company filed separate
answers to the petition. Respondent Director alleges that his
co-respondent, the Manila Pencil Company, filed a sales application
with the Bureau sometime in 1958, earlier than that of petitioner
herein, and the latter’s application was treated only as a protest,
that in the case of “The Philippine Consolidated Freight Lines vs.
Emiliano Ajon, et al., (103 Phil., 318; 55 Off. Gaz., [1] 22), the
Supreme Court confirmed possession of Lots Nos. 11 and 79 in the
Philippine Consolidated Freight Lines, which is the
predecessor-in-interest of the respondent company; that the Director
personally notified petitioner herein by mail of the case pending
before the Court of First Instance. The Director, however, has no
objection to the suspension of the proceedings, nor to petitioner’s
intervention in the case.

In its answer to the petition,
respondent company alleges, as a special defense, that petitioner
herein is only a tenant of the company, and as such he cannot deny the
company’s title; that as decided by the Supreme Court in the case of
“The Philippine Consolidated Freight Lines vs. Ajon, etc., supra,
sublessees have no right better than the original lessee; that
petitioner’s occupancy of the area in question inures to the benefit of
the respondent company. Claiming further that the respondent court did
not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for intervention,
respondent company prays for dismissal of the petition.

The petition is without merit. Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provide, as follows:

“Section
1. A person may, at any period of a trial, be permitted by the court,
in its discretion, to intervene in an action, if he has legal interest
in the matter in litigation, or an interest against both, or when he is
so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other
disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer
thereof.”
“Section 3. In allowing or disallowing a motion for
intervention, the court, in the exercise of discretion, shall consider
whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the rights of the original parties and whether or not
the intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in a separate
proceeding.”

The case of petitioner herein does not come within the purview of the
above-quoted provisions of the rule he invoked in the court below.
Section 1 of Rule 13 provides that intervention may be permitted “at
any period of a trial”. The phrase “at any period of a trial” has been
construed to mean the period for the presentation of evidence by both
parties (Felismeno vs. Gloria, 47 Phil. 967; Bool vs. Mendoza, 92 Phil., 892). Therefore, intervention may not be permitted after trial has been concluded (Goan vs. Azores, 76 Phil., 363; El Hogar Filipino vs.
National Bank, 64 Phil., 582). The motion for intervention was filed
after the trial and decision of the original case and therefore out of
time.

It is not true that petitioner is an indispensable
party with respect to the right of action of the Manila Pencil Company
against the Director of Lands. Petitioner had absolutely no part in the
agreement between these two. It is evident therefore, that the
intervention of petitioner would unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the rights of the original parties. Furthermore, the
decision in Civil Case No. 39864 is already final and executory, the
said case has been dismissed in this Court.

If the herein
petitioner has any right of action at all, his rights can be fully
protected in a separate proceeding. If he feels aggrieved, he should
file an independent action to protect the same.

The petition is hereby denied. With costs against petitioner.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.