Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

  View printer friendly version

Court of Appeals
The Case

Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari^[1] assailing the Orders dated June 04, 2008,^[2] September 10, 2008,^[3] and November 06, 2008^[4] of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon City^[5] (“RTC”) in SP Proc. No. 2008-7893 entitled “PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF ENTRY/IES UPON ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. P-9010 OF THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF SORSOGON, NEDIE DE VERA; ALLAN DE VERA; BENJAMIN DE VERA; LANA DE VERA LIM; CONCEPCION D. DAYRIT, Petitioners.”, the dispositive portions of which read:

(1) Order dated June 04, 2008:

“As the instant petition failed to implead the said indispensable parties whose hereditary rights to the property subject of this petition may be affected if the same is granted, the petition is hereby dismissed motu proprio, without prejudice to whatever other remedy the petitioners may choose to avail of in this instant.

SO ORDERED.”^[6];

(2) Order dated September 10, 2008:

“WHEREFORE, finding merit in the Motion for Reconsideration, the same is hereby GRANTED. The order of dismissal dated June 4, 2008 is therefore cancelled or set aside. However, the petitioners are ordered to amend the petition impleading the indispensable parties.

SO ORDERED.”^[7]; and

(3) Order dated November 06, 2008:

“Accordingly, the Partial Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.”^[8] (emphasis supplied)

The Facts

Petitioners Nedie de Vera, Allan de Vera, Benjamin de Vera, Lana de Vera Lim and Concepcion C. Dayrit (hereinafter referred to as the “De Veras”) claim that they are the known surviving legitimate heirs of Alfredo Y. de Vera (“Alfredo”) and Dolores Lim-de Vera (“Dolores”), a.k.a. Dayche Lim de Vera a.k.a. Dolores Lim Le Chi. The De Veras allege that on July 31, 1936, Alfredo and Dolores were legally married in Amoy, China. Subsequently, Alfredo and Dolores came to the Philippines and were married anew in Manila on September 15, 1951. In the course of their marriage, Alfredo acquired two parcels of land in Barrio Buenavista, Sorsogon, Sorsogon which was covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-9010 and Original Certificate of Title No. P-9011.

Petitioners further allege that when OCT No. P-9010 was issued on December 04, 1968, Alfredo was inadvertently described as “xxx married to Rosalina Ayo xxx” when in truth and in fact he was not.^[9]

Alfredo de Vera died^[10] intestate on December 31, 1986 while Dolores died^[11] intestate on September 13, 1995.

Meanwhile, on October 10, 1991, Rosalina Ayo and the purported heirs of Alfredo de Vera (“Ayo, et al.”) with her, filed a Complaint^[12] against the De Veras for Partition, Accounting, Specific Performance with Prayer for Receivership and Damages with the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon City, docketed as Civil Case No. 91- 5668. The complaint sought the partition of that parcel of land covered by OCT No. P-9011, which allegedly was a conjugal property of Alfredo de Vera and Rosalina Ayo.

On March 21, 1997, the RTC rendered a Decision^[13] in favor of Ayo, et al., the dispositive portion of which reads:

“ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered:

1/ Declaring the plaintiffs as the owners of one-half (1/2) of the land described in paragraphs 4 of the complaint (sic) covered by OCT No. P-9011, Lot 191 and declaring the defendants as the owners of the other half (1/2) of the said land and ordering the parties to partition the land in this proportion;

2/ Ordering the defendants to reimburse the plaintiffs produce of the land in question P8,000.00 a year from 1988 until the property is partitioned and possession delivered to plaintiffs;

3/ Ordering the defendants jointly to pay plaintiffs P12,000.00 for attorney’s fee and P5,000.00 for expenses of litigation and costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.”^[14]

Aggrieved, the De Veras appealed said decision to this Court. After the parties filed their briefs, this Court through its Special Third Division, rendered on July 31, 2006 a Decision^[15] reversing the March 21, 1997 RTC Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated March 21, 1997 ordering partition of the subject lot between appellants and appellees is SET ASIDE. As prayed for in appellants’ brief, the Register of Deeds of the Province of Sorsogon is hereby directed to correct the description of Alfredo De Vera in OCT No. P-9011 from “married to Rosalina Ayo” to “married to Dolores Lim.” However, appellants’ prayer for an award of P2,000.000.00 moral damages, attorney’s fees and incidental expenses are denied for being devoid of merit.

SO ORDERED.”^[16]

The July 31, 2006 Decision of this Court became final and executory on August 24, 2006 as per its Entry of Judgment^[17] dated October 27, 2006. Consequently, on November 6, 2006, said Decision and Entry of Judgment were inscribed^[18] in OCT No. P-9011.

On March 18, 2008, the De Veras filed the subject petition for correction of entry/ies of OCT No. P-9010.^[19] The same was raffled off to Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon City and docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 2008-7893.

The Orders of the RTC

On June 04, 2008, the RTC issued the first assailed Order^[20] dismissing Sp. Proc. No. 2008-7893 motu proprio due to the failure of the De Veras to implead Ayo, et al. as indispensable parties, viz.:

“Upon perusal of the records of the petition filed before this Court and the attached decision in CA-GR CV No. 58035, it would appear that it is not only the herein petitioners who have an interest over the subject property but their half-siblings who were the plaintiffs-appellees in the aforementioned case, as well. After all, the Original Certificate of Title subject of this case is registered in the name of the petitioners’ father, in this wise, 'Alfredo Y. De Vera married to Rosalina Ayo', the latter being the mother of the said half-siblings. It is the opinion of this Court that the children of Rosalina Ayo must be impleaded as indispensable parties in order to have a judicious adjudication of this case, but not in the present petition which is an action against the whole world, so to speak. The Court of Appeals in its decision in CA-GR CV No. 58035, even hinted that if filiation between the petitioners’ father, Alfredo Y. De Vera and the children of Rosalina Ayo was proven, the latter would have an interest over the property subject in that case as heirs of Alfredo de Vera. Said the Court of Appeals:

'This Court is not unmindful of the principle that due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child. However, the Sworn Statement of Alfredo de Vera is short of establishing appellees’ filiation because he failed to identify the names of the nine (9) children he sired with Rosalina Ayo. Illegitimate children are allowed to establish their claimed filiation by “any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws”, like his baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name has been entered, common reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Unfortunately, none of the aforementioned evidence was utilized by the appellees to substantiate their contention that they are the legal heirs of Alfredo de Vera.'

The Original Certificate of Title of the property subject of the present petition for correction is also in the name of Alfredo Y. De Vera married to Rosalina Ayo and obviously, would have been included in the suit of Rosalina Ayo’s children against the petitioners in this case if they had known about its existence. In the course of the trial in the lower court and in the appealed case, the present petitioners never mentioned the existence of a second title in the name of Alfredo Y. De Vera and Rosalina Ayo either through inadvertence or by design. However, the more obvious reason for their reticence is that they were keeping said existence from their alleged half-siblings because if the said second title to the property is included for adjudication in the original case and in the event of an adverse decision against them, they would have at least retained the whole possession of the property covered by the unrevealed title since their alleged half-siblings were unaware about it. But fortunately or unfortunately for them, depending on the context in which the Court of Appeals decision is to be viewed, they won their appealed case which became the basis for their cause of action in this petition. But said Court of Appeals decision is only res judicata as regards the property covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-9011 and such cannot be the basis of the grant of their prayer for correction of Original Certificate of Title No. P-9010 in the present petition, said property being unknown to the Court of Appeals at the time it decided the case, and hence could not have adjudicated upon it.”^[21] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The De Veras moved for reconsideration^[22] and for the inhibition/disqualification of Hon. Judge Victor C. Gella as well as the re-raffle of the petition.^[23]

On July 21, 2008, Judge Gella issued an Order^[24] inhibiting himself from the case. As a result, the petition for correction of OCT No. P-9010 was re-raffled to Branch 51 of the RTC of Sorsogon City.

On September 10, 2008, the RTC issued the second assailed Order^[25] which, though granting the De Veras’ motion for reconsideration, still ordered them to amend the petition and implead Ayo, et. al. as indispensable parties. Explained the trial court:

“This Court holds that the dismissal of the case on the ground that the indispensable parties, particularly the heirs of one Rosalina Ayo, were not impleaded, was at best premature for it deprived the petitioners their day in Court and their opportunity to present evidence to substantiate their petition. A close scrutiny of the petitioners’ petition and annexes would show that petitioners anchored their cause of action essentially on the ruling of the Court of Appeals dated July 31. 2006 (Annex 'F') where the dispositive portion thereof directed the Register of Deeds of Sorsogon to correct the entry in OCT No. P-9011 from ‘MARRIED TO ROSALINA AYO' to 'MARRIED TO DOLORES LIM'. Said decision has become final and executory. In the said decision, the Court of Appeals had made a definitive ruling to the effect that appellees (who were the heirs of Rosalina Ayo) failed to prove by convincing evidence that Alfredo de Vera was married to Rosalina Ayo. The Court of Appeals declared that appellees failed to establish the fact of marriage between Rosalina Ayo and Alfredo de Vera, as well as their filiation with the latter.

Applying the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, the Court holds that petitioners have amply demonstrated their cause of action for the correction of entries in another document which is OCT NO. P-9011. Conclusiveness of judgment states that a fact or question which was in issue in a former suit and it was judicially passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the judgment therein as far as the parties to that action and persons in privity with them are concerned and cannot be again litigated in any future action between such parties or their parties on their the same [sic] or different cause of action, while the judgment remains unreversed by proper authority.

At any rate, such ruling of the Court of Appeals is still evidentiary and needs to be presented as evidence in this proceeding but there is really no compelling reason for the dismissal of the case. However, in the interest of justice, this case should not be deemed as an ex-parte proceeding as the petitioners sought this to be. This case should be considered adversarial in nature by applying by analogy the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. It is indeed evident that there are persons who may have claim or interest which would be affected should this petition be granted. Thus, the Office of the Register of Deeds of Sorsogon and the legal heirs of Rosalina Ayo, who will be affected by this proceeding concerning the cancellation of correction of the entries in the aforementioned Original Certificate of Title, should be impleaded as indispensable parties and should be duly notified of the proceedings. Indeed, the requirements of fair play and due process should be upheld and complied [with] in this case.”^[26]

Again, the petitioners moved for partial reconsideration but the same was denied in the third assailed November 06, 2008 Order, viz.:

“The instant case does not only involve the simple correction of erroneous entry in the certificate of Title subject of this case; this case, if the same would be granted, will result to affect the proprietary rights of the heirs of ROSALINA AYO, that if not to implead them as indispensable parties in the instant case would deprive them their day in Court to contest the same. In the interest of justice and fair play, the proceedings of the case should be therefore an adversarial one, but nor [sic] merely an ex parte proceeding.”^[27]

Hence, this petition.

Issues

The De Veras, now petitioners, argue that the RTC committed jurisdictional errors, viz.:

“I.

THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION AND A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE MERELY SEEKING THE CORRECTION OF THE WRONG ENTRY/IES UPON OCT NO. P-9010 AND THEY WERE NOT AS YET SETTLING THE ESTATE OF THEIR DECEASED FATHER ALFREDO DE VERA

II.

THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION AND A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT) OVER THE DECISION IN CA-G.R. CV NO. 58035 WITH RESPECT TO SP PROC NO. 2008-7893”^[28]

Such are the issues which We shall resolve in this case.

Our Ruling

The petitioners claim that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering them to implead Ayo, et. al. in the petition below for correction of entry/ies and in failing to apply the doctrine of res judicata against Ayo, et al.

On the other hand, in its Comment^[29] and Memorandum,^[30] the Office of the Solicitor General argues that notice to all parties in interest is necessary before a court may act on petitions for correction,^[31] and since the records reveal that neither the Register of Deeds nor Ayo, et. al. were notified of the subject petition, the court a quo failed to acquire jurisdiction over the petition below.^[32]

The law in point, particularly Section 112 of Act No. 496, otherwise known as The Land Registration Act (now Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, or the Property Registration Decree), provides:

“SEC. 112. No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same by the clerk or any register of deeds, except by order of the court. Any registered owner or other person in interest may at any time apply by petition to the court, upon the ground that registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; or that the new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate, or that any error, omission, or mistake was made in entering a certificate; or that the name of any person on the certificate has been changed; or that the registered owner has been married; or, if registered as married, that the marriage has been terminated; or that a corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved has not conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry of a new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security if necessary, as it may deem proper; Provided, however, That this section shall not be construed to give the court authority to open the original decree of registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court which shall impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs or assigns, without his or their written consent.

Any petition filed under this section and all petitions and motions filed under the provisions of this Act after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered.”^[33] (italics supplied, emphasis Ours)

From the foregoing, it is clear that notice to all parties in interest is necessary before a court may act on petitions for correction.^[34] Yet, a cursory review of the records reveals that the petitioners failed to notify the appropriate Register of Deeds and Ayo, et al. when they instituted the subject petition, explaining – that the instant petition for correction of entry/ies is merely an ex-parte proceeding. However, an ex parte proceeding presupposes the existence of an enforceable right of petitioners with no adverse party to oppose it.^[35] An ex parte proceeding merely means that it is taken or granted at the instance of and for the benefit of one party, and without notice to or contestation by any party who may be adversely affected^[36] by it.

But contrarily, and far from it, a petition to alter or amend a certificate of title entails compliance of certain requisites: (1) It must be filed and entitled in the original registration case; (2) by the registered owner or a person in interest; (3) on the grounds enumerated in Sec. 108; (4) all the parties in interest must be notified; (5) there should be unanimity among them; and (6) the original decree of registration must not be opened nor the title or other interest of a purchaser for value in good faith or his heirs or assignees, impaired without his or their written consent.^[37]

As early as Patingo vs. Pelayo,^[38] it was already held that while any registered owner or person in interest may petition the court for the correction of a title on the ground that an error, omission, or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or on any duplicate certificate, the court can only act on it after notice to all parties in interest has been made, which notice may be served either by the petitioner or by order of the court. Such notice is necessary to give jurisdiction to the court over the petition. It in fact, is mandated by Section 112 of Act No. 496, as amended, which says that “the court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest.”^[39]

In sum, the RTC's assailed Orders are null and void, not because of infirmities raised by the petitioners in this petition but on the basic ground that it failed to comply with the notice requirement as mandated by law.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DISMISSED. However, the assailed Orders dated June 04, 2008, September 10, 2008 and November 06, 2008 are hereby SET ASIDE for having been rendered without jurisdiction. Let this case be remanded to the court below for its appropriate action.

SO ORDERED.

Acosta, and Bueser,^[*] JJ., concur.

---

^[*] Acting Junior Member; Per Office Order No. 34-10-ABR dated March 30, 2010.

^[1] Rollo, pp. 10-35.

^[2] Ibid., pp. 40-41.

^[3] Ibid., pp. 38-39.

^[4] Ibid., p. 37.

^[5] Branches 51and 52.

^[6] Rollo, p. 41.

^[7] Ibid., p. 39.

^[8] Ibid., p. 37.

^[9] Rollo, p. 14.

^[10] Ibid., p. 81.

^[11] Ibid., p. 82.

^[12] Rollo, pp. 48-51.

^[13] Ibid., pp. 56-61.

^[14] Ibid., p. 61.

^[15] Rollo, pp. 62-76.

^[16] Ibid., p. 75.

^[17] Ibid., p. 77.

^[18] Ibid., p. 80.

^[19] Ibid., pp. 83-88.

^[20] Note 2, supra.

^[21] Rollo, pp. 40-41.

^[22] Ibid., pp. 89-94.

^[23] Ibid., pp. 95-99.

^[24] Ibid., p. 100.

^[25] Note 3, supra.

^[26] Rollo, pp. 38-39.

^[27] Ibid., p. 37.

^[28] Rollo, pp. 27-28.

^[29] Ibid., pp. 119-127.

^[30] Ibid., pp. 179-187.

^[31] Rollo, p. 122.

^[32] Ibid., p. 125.

^[33] Chan vs. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 713, 732-733 (1998).

^[34] Ibid.

^[35] Arquiza vs. Court of Appeals, 459 SCRA 753, 766 (2005), citing Janin v. Logan, 273 SW 531 (1925).

^[36] Ibid., citing Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I, 5th ed., p. 235.

^[37] Noblejas, Antonio, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 1992 Revised Edition, p. 233.

^[38] G.R. No. L-10288, April 15, 1957.

^[39] Ibid.