Facts:
The case pertains to a dispute over the reconstitution of Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) that were allegedly lost or destroyed. The chain of events began with OCTs, issued in November 1925 to Constancio S. Guzman and Isabel Luna, eventually being claimed by Helen P. Denila. The properties in question endured a complex history, including the wartime death of Guzman and Luna, leaving no direct heirs, and the conveyance of their properties through transactions with various stakeholders.
Denila filed an “Amended Petition for Reconstitution of Original Certificates of Titles” in 2004, asserting that she bought the lands from Bellie S. Artigas, who was entitled to a 40% share in Guzman’s estate. She claimed possession of the lands, lack of co-owners, and nonexistent interest or liens, amongst others. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the petitions for reconstitution based on a report indicating the concerned OCTs were neither lost nor destroyed but canceled due to subsequent transfers.
The case was escalated to the Supreme Court, which denied a petition by Heirs of Constancio Guzman, Inc. for review on certiorari due to blatant disregard for the hierarchy of courts and lack of proof of loss or destruction of OCTs. Subsequently, in her petition, Denila claimed the OCTs were unavailable, perhaps mutilated or destroyed, and successfully convinced the RTC to order their reconstitution in her name and have TCTs issued in her favor.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the Republic of the Philippines, intervened and filed motions seeking relief from the reconstitution judgment, arguing it was out of time, but the RTC, presided over by Judge Omelio, summarily denied these motions. The OSG then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals to annul RTC’s orders, where the Court of Appeals issued a Temporary Restraining Order followed by a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to prevent the execution of the RTC decision.
Issues:
1. Did the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in summarily denying the Republic’s petition for relief from judgment?
2. Did the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the RTC Decision granting the reconstitution through the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari?
3. Can subsequent occupants of the lots in question intervene in the certiorari proceedings initiated by the Republic?
4. Are there administrative sanctions appropriate for actions taken by Atty. Pangilinan, Atty. Velasco, and Atty. Biongan-Pescadera inconsistent with their duties as officers of the court?
Court’s Decision:
1. The Court of Appeals did not err in finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by summarily denying the Republic’s petition for relief from judgment given that Judge Omelio reclaimed jurisdiction without valid cause after previously inhibiting himself and circumvented the proper re-raffle procedure.
2. The Court of Appeals did not err in nullifying the RTC’s Decision granting the reconstitution, as the RTC’s grant was made without observing the statutory requirements under R.A. No. 26, which are jurisdictional. The CA acted within its discretion in correcting the jurisdictional errors committed by the RTC.
3. The Court of Appeals did not err in allowing the intervention as the intervenors, performers as actual occupants, had a direct legal interest which might be affected by the outcome of the reconstitution proceedings.
4. Administrative sanctions against Atty. Pangilinan, Atty. Velasco, and Atty. Biongan-Pescadera were warranted for their conduct, which was not in keeping with the standards expected of officers of the court.
Doctrine:
1. Compliance with jurisdictional requirements in special proceedings, such as reconstitution of title, is mandatory and not susceptible to liberal interpretation when jurisdiction over the subject matter is yet to be vested upon the court.
2. The doctrine of res judicata applies to in rem proceedings like reconstitution of title, as the object is to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make objections to the right sought to be enforced.
Class Notes:
– In any special proceeding, meticulous adherence to statutory requirements is critical to vest jurisdiction on the court.
– Service of notice to actual occupants or possessors of the property is necessary for jurisdictional validity in a petition for reconstitution.
– The doctrine of res judicata bars successive reconstitution of certificates that are already deemed cancelled and transferred based on a final and executory judgment in a prior in rem proceeding.
Historical Background:
This case highlights the challenges involved in land ownership disputes in the Philippines in light of lost or destroyed land titles during the World War II era. It underscores the rigid procedural requirement for reconstitution of lost or destroyed titles, the struggle between presumptive property owners and actual occupants, and the potential for abuse of the judicial reconstitution process. The historical backdrop stresses the importance of procedural safeguards to prevent fraudulent claims to land ownership and the protection of actual occupants or possessors against spurious reconstitution applications.
Leave a Reply