GLORIA M. ESTIPONA AND MANUEL ESTIPONA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. MIGUEL R. NAVARRO, AS JUDGE OF THE CFI OF PILI, CAMARINES SUR, BRANCH VI AND ROBERTO MIGUEL, RESPONDENTS.

Estipona versus Navarro

The Case

This is a special civil action of certiorari brought by the spouses Gloria Estipona and Manuel Estipona against Judge Miguel Navarro of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Pili Branch Six, and against Roberto Miguel, the applicant in a land registration case. The Estiponas ask the Supreme Court to annul the order of injunction issued by the trial court restraining them, as oppositors, from disturbing Miguel's alleged possession of the land under registration. The case matters for two reasons: it settles the procedural rule on notices of hearing, and it confirms that a Court of First Instance sitting as a land registration court may issue injunctions to protect the subject matter of the registration proceedings.

Procedural History

Roberto Miguel filed an application for registration of nine lots before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, sitting as a land registration court. The Estipona spouses opposed the application as to two parcels. During the pendency of the proceedings, Miguel moved for a preliminary preventive and mandatory injunction to restrain the oppositors from disturbing his possession. The trial court issued a restraining order, later issued the order of injunction dated May 24, 1975, and denied the Estiponas' amended motion for reconsideration. The Estiponas then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, raising a procedural ground and a jurisdictional ground against the injunction order.

Facts

On February 2, 1967, Roberto Miguel filed an application for the registration of nine lots with a total area of 249 hectares. The Estipona spouses filed an opposition with respect to two parcels with areas of 73 hectares and 23 hectares. There were allegedly thirty-two oppositors in all.

On January 23, 1975, the trial court announced that a committee of four persons would make an ocular inspection of the land to verify the portions actually occupied by the oppositors. On February 11, 1975, Mrs. Estipona and a group of eight persons allegedly entered the land, destroyed Miguel's barbed wire fence, coconuts and fruit trees, and started building shanties. The following day, other persons allegedly entered Lot Seven and built shanties at the instigation of the oppositors. Miguel insinuated that these acts were done in anticipation of the ocular inspection, to show a semblance of possession.

On March 3, 1975, Miguel filed a verified motion asking the trial court to issue a preliminary preventive and mandatory injunction. The Estiponas opposed the motion on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, contending that to maintain the status quo their possession should be respected. The trial court issued a restraining order dated March 19, 1975, finding that an armed confrontation and consequent loss of lives and limbs might occur. It later issued the order of injunction dated May 24, 1975, ruling that the injunction was ancillary to its primary jurisdiction as a land registration court. It restrained the Estipona spouses from disturbing Miguel's possession and ordered those who had surreptitiously entered the land to vacate it, fixing a bond of ten thousand pesos. Miguel has not filed the bond. The hearing of the main case was already terminated and the case submitted for decision.

Issues

• Whether or not the motion for injunction was a mere scrap of paper because the notice of hearing was not addressed to the oppositors or their lawyers.
• Whether or not the trial court, sitting as a land registration court with limited jurisdiction, has the power to issue an injunction.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court provides:

Notice of a motion shall be served by the applicant to all parties concerned, at least three (3) days before the hearing thereof, together with a copy of the motion, and of any affidavits and other papers accompanying it.

This provision fixes the service requirement that the Court treats as mandatory and vital to procedural due process.

Section 5 of Rule 15 provides:

The notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion.

The Court treats the requirement that the notice be directed to the parties concerned as merely directory, while the statement of time and place of hearing is essential.

Section 17 of Act Number 496, as amended, provides:

The Court of Land Registration, in all matters over which it has jurisdiction, may issue an injunction for the protection of either or any of the parties in interest, in the following cases: (1) When it appears by the application, by verified petition, or by affidavits that the commission or continuance of some act during the proceedings for registration of title would produce waste or great or irreparable injury to the subject-matter of the registration proceedings. (2) When it appears during the pendency of the proceedings that either or any of the parties in interest is doing, or is about to do, or is threatening to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation or to the prejudice of the rights of another party to the action respecting the subject-matter of the proceedings and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

This provision is the source of the power to issue injunctions in land registration cases, which Act Number 2347 transferred to the Courts of First Instance.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of due process. The notice of hearing is an integral component of procedural due process, intended to afford the adverse parties a chance to be heard before the motion is resolved. What matters is that the adverse parties are served with a copy of the motion and are seasonably informed of the time and place of hearing. The Court held that the requirement that the notice be directed to the parties concerned is not mandatory but merely directory. Service of a copy of the motion on the opposing lawyers and indicating the time and place of hearing are the mandatory requirements. In this case, the notice stated the time and place of hearing, the adverse parties were served copies of the motion more than three days before the hearing, the Estipona spouses filed their opposition, and they were heard before the motion was resolved. They were not denied due process of law.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction. Section 17 of Act Number 496, as amended, empowered the Court of Land Registration to issue injunctions, and Act Number 2347 transferred that power to the Courts of First Instance. Although section 17 in its original form was expressly repealed by Act Number 2711, the Court had already held in prior cases that the repeal did not abrogate the amendatory laws, Acts Numbers 1108, 1648 and 1680, which empowered land registration courts to issue injunctions and writs of possession. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

Injunction; Authority of the Court of First Instance in land registration cases. Section 17 of Act No. 496, as amended by section 3 of Act No. 1680, confers upon Courts of First Instance authority to issue injunctions in registration cases. The latter Act (meaning Act No. 1680) has not been entirely repealed by the final section (b) of Act No. 2711 and its amendments (Revised Administrative Code).

Since the lower court acted within its jurisdiction, certiorari does not lie to annul the injunction order. Appeal would be the proper remedy in the event that Miguel's application for registration is granted and the opposition of the Estipona spouses is overruled.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the notice of hearing is an integral component of procedural due process, but the requirement that it be directed to the parties concerned is merely directory. What is mandatory is service of a copy of the motion on the opposing lawyers and a statement of the time and place of hearing. Second, a Court of First Instance sitting as a land registration court has the power to issue injunctions to protect either or any of the parties in interest during the pendency of the registration proceedings, under section 17 of Act Number 496 as amended. Third, the repeal of section 17 in its original form by Act Number 2711 did not repeal the amendatory laws that granted the power to issue injunctions. Fourth, where the trial court acts within its jurisdiction, certiorari does not lie; appeal is the proper remedy.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed with costs against the Estipona spouses, and the injunction order of the trial court was sustained.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a notice of hearing addressed to the Clerk of Court, but stating the time and place of hearing and served on the opposing counsel at least three days before, substantially complies with due process. Examiners like to use this case on the procedural requirement for notices of hearing and on the power of a land registration court to issue injunctions.