A. Eland Philippines vs. Garcia

7/25/2019 A. Eland Philippines vs. Garcia

1/23

G.R. No. 173289 February 17, 2010

ELAND PHILIPPINES, INC.,Petitioner, vs.AZCENA GARCIA,ELIN! FA"ARD!, AND HEIR !F #I$RCI! %ALA$ANAN

NA%ED #ERESA %ALA$ANAN,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERAL#A, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of theRules of Court, seein! to reverse and set aside the de"ision#

dated $e%ruar& '(, '))* of the Court of +ppeals C+- in C+/.R.C0 No. *14#1, whi"h dis2issed the appeal of petitioner Eland

Philippines, In". and affir2ed the Resolutions dated Nove2%er 3,# and une '(, '))* of 6ran"h #(, Re!ional Trial Court RTC-of Ta!a&ta& Cit&.

The fa"ts of the "ase, as shown in the re"ords, are the followin!7

Re&'o()e(*& +8u"ena /ar"ia, Elino $a9ardo, and Teresa:ala%anan, the heir of Ti%ur"io :ala%anan, +-e) a Co'-a(*2

)a*e) %ar/ 2, 1998 +or ue*( o+ #*-e * 4r* o+

Pre-(ary I(5u(/*o( * *e R#C, $ra(/ 6III, #aay*ayC*y aa(&* 'e**o(er E-a() P-''(e&, I(/.

Re&'o()e(*& /-ae) *a* *ey are *e o(er&, ( +ee &'-e**-e, o+ a 'ar/e- o+ -a()identified as ;ot '5) Cad355, Ta!a&ta&Cadastre, Plan +p)4))(3*1, situated in 6aran!a& Iruhin,Ta!a&ta& Cit&, "ontainin! an area of Two purposes.

#ey +ou() ou* *a* *e -o* a& *e &ub5e/* o+ a -a()re&*ra*o( 'ro/ee)( *a* a) a-rea)y bee( )e/)e) by *e


2/23

&ae /our*ere *er /o'-a(* a& +-e). #ey a-&o +ou()ou* *a* De/ree No. N*r(&/ +rau).Thus, the& ar!ued that the& were also entitled to a writ ofpreli2inar& in9un"tion in order to restrain or en9oin petitioner, itsprivies, a!ents, representatives, and all other persons a"tin! on its%ehalf, to refrain fro2 "o22ittin! a"ts of dispossession on thesu%9e"t lot.

Su22ons, to!ether with a "op& of the "o2plaint, were served onthe petitioner on +pril 1, #(. On +pril ', #(, petitioner filed anEntr& of +ppearan"e with :otion for E>tension of Ti2e,5whi"h thetrial "ourt !ranted*for a period of ten #)- da&s within whi"h to filea responsive pleadin!. Petitioner filed a Se"ond :otion forE>tension of Ti2e to $ile +nswer1dated +pril ', #(, whi"h thetrial "ourt liewise !ranted.(

Thereafter, 'e**o(er +-e) a %o*o( *o D&&&9 dated :a& ,

#(, statin! that the pleadin! assertin! the "lai2 of respondentsstated no "ause of a"tion, and that the latter were not entitled tothe issuan"e of a writ of preli2inar& in9un"tion, settin! the sa2e forhearin! on :a& '#, #(. On the date of the hearin!, the trial "ourtissued an Order,#)whi"h !ranted the respondents ten #)- da&sfro2 that da& to file a "o22ent, and set the date of the hearin! onul& '3, #(. Respondents filed a :otion to +d2itCo22ent@Opposition to Defendant Eland,## to!ether with the"orrespondin! Co22ent@Opposition#'dated une (, #(.

On the s"heduled hearin! of Septe2%er '3, #(, the trial "ourtissued an Order,#3"onsiderin! the :otion to Dis2iss su%2itted forresolution due to the nonappearan"e of the parties and theirrespe"tive "ounsels. The said 2otion was eventuall& denied %& thetrial "ourt in an Order#4dated Septe2%er '5, #(, rulin! that thealle!ations in the "o2plaint esta%lished a "ause of a"tion anden9oined petitioner Eland to file its answer to the "o2plaint withinten #)- da&s fro2 re"eipt of the sa2e. Petitioner then filed two:otions for E>tension to $ile an +nswer.#5

Pe**o(er, on Nove2%er , #(, filed a :otion for


3/23

Re"onsideration#*of the trial "ourtAs Order dated Septe2%er '5,#(, den&in! the for2erAs :otion to Dis2iss. +!ain, petitionerfiled a :otion for $inal E>tension of Ti2e to $ile +nswer#1 datedNove2%er *, #(. Re&'o()e(*& +-e)their Co22ent@Opposition

to :otion for Re"onsideration dated Nove2%er '4, #(.Su%se=uentl&, the trial "ourt denied petitionerAs 2otion forre"onsideration in an Order#(dated anuar& ##, #.

:eanwhile, respondents filed a :otion to De"lare Defendant Elandin Default# dated Nove2%er #1, #(. On De"e2%er 4, #(Petitioner Eland filed its Co22ent on PlaintiffAs :otion to De"lareDefendant Eland in Default-') dated De"e2%er ', #(, whilerespondents filed a Repl& to Co22ent on PlaintiffAs :otion toDe"lare Defendant Eland in Default-'#dated De"e2%er ', #(.Thereafter, the trial "ourt issued an Order''dated anuar& ##, #de"larin! the petitioner in default and allowed the respondents topresent eviden"e ex parte. Petitioner filed a :otion forRe"onsideration of the Order dated ## anuar& #-'3 dated$e%ruar& 5, # on the trial "ourtAs denial of its 2otion to dis2issand in de"larin! it in default. The trial "ourt in an Order'4 dated:ar"h #(, #, denied the for2er and !ranted the latter. In thesa2e Order, the trial "ourt ad2itted petitionerAs +nswer AdCautelam.

Earlier, petitioner filed its +nswerAd Cautelam Bith Co2pulsor&Counter"lai2-'5 dated Nove2%er #', #(. Respondents"ountered %& filin! a :otion to E>pun!e ElandAs +nswer fro2 theRe"ords'*dated De"e2%er ', #(. Petitioner filed its Oppositionto PlaintiffAs :otion to E>pun!e ElandAs +nswer fro2 theRe"ords-'1dated De"e2%er '#, #(, as well as a Co22ent onPlaintiffAs :otion to E>pun!e ElandAs +nswer fro2 the Re"ords-'(

dated anuar& '*, #.

Conse=uentl&, respondents filed a :otion to Set Presentation ofEviden"e Ex Parte'dated anuar& #(, #, whi"h was !ranted inan Order3)dated anuar& '', #.

On anuar& '(, #, respondents presented their eviden"e%efore the Cler of Court of the trial "ourt whi"h ended on$e%ruar& 3, #? and, on $e%ruar& #), #, respondents filedtheir $or2al Offer of Eviden"e.3#


4/23

issued an Order33dated $e%ruar& ##, # dire"tin! the Cler ofCourt to suspend the pro"eedin!s.

On :a& #4, #, respondents filed a :otion for Clarifi"ation34as

to whether or not the eviden"e presented ex partewas nullified %&the ad2ission of petitionerAs +nswerAd Cautelam. Petitioner filedits Co22ent35 dated :a& #3, # on the said 2otion for"larifi"ation.

+ pretrial "onferen"e was s"heduled on :a& '1, #, whereinthe parties su%2itted their pretrial %riefs.3* a2ine the witness and to"o22ent on the do"u2entar& e>hi%its alread& presented.

Conse=uentl&, petitioner filed a :otion for Re"onsideration4)datedul& #, #, %ut it was denied %& the trial "ourt in an O2ni%usOrder4#dated Septe2%er #4, #.

Eventuall&, respondents filed a :otion for Su22ar& ud!2ent4'

dated +u!ust 5, #, while petitioner filed its Opposition43 to the:otion dated +u!ust 3#, #. In its Resolution44dated Nove2%er3, #, the *ra- /our* +ou() +aor o( *e re&'o()e(*&. Thedispositive portion of the Resolution reads7

B


5/23

3. The Ori!inal Transfer Certifi"ate of Title is ordered to %e"an"eled, as well as ta> de"laration "overin! ;ot '5), Cad355.

SO ORDERED.

Pe**o(er a''ea-e) *e Re&o-u*o( o+ *e *ra- /our* * *eCA, / )&&&e) * in a De"ision dated $e%ruar& '(, '))*,whi"h reads7

B


6/23

O, 6+SED ON TESTI:ONIES O$ RESPONDENTSABITNESSES T+FEN BIT


7/23

Cautelam.

A(o*er rou() re-e) u'o( by 'e**o(eris its failure to "rosse>a2ine the witnesses for the respondents without fault on its part.

It also stated that the trial "ourt did not issue an& order ad2ittin! ineviden"e the do"u2entar& e>hi%its presented %& the respondents.hi%its presented %ut not ad2itted as eviden"e.

Petitioner further "lai2ed that the trial "ourt %ased its Resolutiondated Nove2%er 3, # on falsified eviden"e.

;astl&, petitioner raised the issue that %& renderin! su22ar&9ud!2ent, the trial "ourt deprived the for2er of its ri!ht to duepro"ess.

Re&'o()e(*&, in their Co22ent45 dated O"to%er #*, '))*,"ountered the first issue raised %& the petitioner, statin! that theirfilin! of the 2otion for su22ar& 9ud!2ent fourteen #4- da&s%efore the re=uested hearin! of the sa2e 2otion was in"o2plian"e with Se". 3, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court.

+s to the se"ond and third issues, respondents ar!ued thatpetitioner had a "onstri"ted per"eption of the "overa!e of theRules of Su22ar& ud!2ent, and that the latterAs "itation of "asesde"ided %& this Court showed the diverse "auses of a"tion that"ould %e the su%9e"t 2atters of su22ar& 9ud!2ent. Respondentsalso posited that petitionerAs state2ents in its +nswer AdCautelam, althou!h deno2inated as Spe"ifi" Denial, were reall&!eneral denials that did not "o2pl& with the provisions of Se"tion#), Rule ( of the Rules of Court.

+nent the fourth and fifth issues, respondents "lai2ed that despitethe opportunit&, or the ri!ht allowed in the Order dated ul& #1,# of the trial "ourt, for the petitioner to "rosse>a2inerespondentsA witnesses and to "o22ent on the do"u2entar&eviden"e presented ex parte after the default order a!ainst thesa2e petitioner, the latter evasivel& 2oved to set asiderespondentsA eviden"e in order to suspend further pro"eedin!s thatwere intended to a%ort the pretrial "onferen"e. The& added that

petitioner ne!le"ted to avail itself of, or to "o2pl& with, thepres"ription of the rules found in Rule 35 of the Rules of Court %&


8/23

optin! not to avail itself of the hearin! of its opposition to thesu22ar& 9ud!2ent after re"eivin! the Order dated +u!ust '),#? %& failin! to serve opposin! affidavit, deposition or ad2issionin the re"ords? and %& not o%9e"tin! to the de"retal portion of the

said Order dated +u!ust '), #, whi"h stated that the 2otion forsu22ar& 9ud!2ent has %een su%2itted for resolution withoutfurther ar!u2ent. Bith re!ard to the "ontention of the petitionerthat the trial "ourt wron!l& appre"iated falsified eviden"e,respondents asserted that petitionerAs "ounsel failed to stud&"arefull& the re"ords of the pro"eedin!s for the presentation of theeviden"e ex parteto %e a%le to now that it was not onl& a sin!leda& pro"eedin!, and that 2ore than one witness had %eenpresented. The& further averred that the trial "ourt did not onl& rel&

on the photo!raphs of the houses of the o""upants of the propert&in =uestion.

$inall&, as to the si>th and seventh issues, respondentsasseverated that their "o2plaint alle!ed 9oint "auses of a"tion for=uietin! of title under +rt. 41* of the New Civil Code and for thereview of the de"ree of re!istration pursuant to Se". 3' of thePropert& Re!istration De"ree or P.D. No. #5', %e"ause the& are"o2pli2entar& with ea"h other.

#e 'e**o( & 're&&e) * er*.

The %asi" "ontention that 2ust %e resolved %& this Court is thepropriet& of the su22ar& 9ud!2ent in this parti"ular "ase of=uietin! of title.

Ru-e 3? o+ *e 1997 Ru-e& o+ C- Pro/e)ure 'ro)e&@

SEC. #. Su22ar& 9ud!2ent for "lai2ant. + part& seein! tore"over upon a "lai2, "ounter"lai2, or "ross"lai2 or to o%tain ade"larator& relief 2a&, at an& ti2e after the pleadin! in answerthereto has %een served, 2ove with supportin! affidavits for asu22ar& 9ud!2ent in his favor upon all or an& part thereof

SEC. 3. :otion and pro"eedin!s thereon. The 2otion shall %eserved at least ten #)- da&s %efore the ti2e spe"ified for thehearin!. The adverse part& prior to the da& of hearin! 2a& serveopposin! affidavits. +fter the hearin!, the 9ud!2ent sou!ht shall %erendered forthwith if the pleadin!, depositions, and ad2issions on

file to!ether with the affidavits, show that, e>"ept as to the a2ountof da2a!es, there is no !enuine issue as to an& 2aterial fa"t and


9/23

that the 2ovin! part& is entitled to a 9ud!2ent as a 2atter of law.4*

I( *e 're&e(* /a&e, * a& *e re&'o()e(*& o oe) +or a&uary 5u)e(*.

Pe**o(er /o(*e()e) that the tenda& noti"e rule was violated,%e"ause the "op& of the 2otion for su22ar& 9ud!2ent was servedonl& on +u!ust '), # or on the sa2e da& it was set for hearin!.It also added that even if the petitioner re"eived a "op& of the2otion onl& on +u!ust '), #, there was no hearin! "ondu"tedon that date %e"ause the trial "ourt issued an order !ivin!petitioner #) da&s within whi"h to file its "o22ent or opposition.

The a%ove spe"ifi" "ontention, however, is 2is!uided. #e CA

a& /orre/* ( *& ob&era*o( *a* *ere a& &ub&*a(*a-/o'-a(/e * )ue 'ro/e&&. #e CA ru-e), a& *e re/or)&&o, *a* *e *e(


10/23

)e'o&*o(&, a() a)&&o(& 're&e(*e) by *e o( 'ar*y&o *a* &u/ &&ue& are (o* e(u(e.9

It 2ust %e re2e2%ered that the (o(&*e(/e o+ a e(u(e

&&ue is the deter2inin! fa"tor in !rantin! a 2otion for su22ar&9ud!2ent, and the oa(* a& *e bur)e( of provin! su"hnone>isten"e. #e *ra- /our* +ou() (o e(u(e &&ue a& *o a(ya*era- +a/* *a* ou-) (e/e&&*a*e /o()u/*( a +u-- De"laration No. )#5''4+ E>hi%it HH? > > >.

'- Ta> De"laration No. )5)#6 E>hi%it HRH? > > >.

3- Ta> De"laration No. )#'*6 E>hi%it HSH? > > >.

4- Ta> De"laration No. /R))1)))1 E>hi%it HTH > > >.

are the ver& do"u2entar& eviden"e adopted and relied upon %&


11/23

the plaintiffs in seein! the review and nullit& of the De"ree No.'#13#3 issued on +u!ust '), #1 under ;RC Re"ord No. N*'*(* pursuant to the ud!2ent dated une 1, #4 rendered %&this "lusive possessionas aspe"ts of a"=uisitive pres"ription as "onfir2ed in the affidavitherein atta"hed as +nne> H+H?

In rulin! that there was indeed no !enuine issue involved, the trial"ourt 2erel& stated that7

This Court, !oin! %& the re"ords, o%served eenl& that plaintiffs/au&e o+ a/*o(for =uietin! of title on the disputed par"el of landis %ased on the alle!ed +rau) ( *e &ub&**u*o( of theirlandholdin!s of ;ot '5), Cad 355, Ta!a&ta& Cadastre "ontainin!onl& an area of '44,##' s=uare 2eters with ;ot #'#, Cad 335,

Ta!a&ta& Cadastre, "ontainin! onl& an area of #,35* s=uare2eters. Bhile defendant Eland in its answer pra"ti"all& and 2ainl&interposed the defenses of7 a- the par"el of land %ein! "lai2ed %&the plaintiffs is not the par"el of land su%9e"t 2atter of ;andRe!istration Case No. T/4'3? %- the "lai2 of the plaintiffs is%arred %& prior 9ud!2ent of this Court in said ;and Re!istrationCase? and "- plaintiffsA "o2plaint is %arred %& the Statute of;i2itation sin"e Ori!inal Certifi"ate of Title No. )**) has %e"o2ein"ontroverti%le.

Crossreferen"e of the a%ove"ited ;and Re!istration CaseNo.T/4'3 that was de"ided previousl& %& this Court with the "aseat %en"h was i2perativel& 2ade %& this Court. 6ein! 2inded thatthe Court has and "an tae 9udi"ial noti"e of the said landre!istration "ase, *& Cour* ob&ere) *a* *ere & (o e(u(e&&ue o+ +a/* *o be *re) o( *e er*&. Fr&*-y, be/au&e *e&u''o&e) )e(**y /r&& o+ *e /o(*roer*e) 'ar/e- o+ -a()/oere) by *e La() Re&*ra*o( Ca&e No.#G


12/23

:E>b* $ o+ *e '-a(*++&; a() *e #e/(/a- De&/r'*o( o+Lo* 92?0, Ca) 3?? :E>b* $*r(&/ +rau) ere

a--ee) ( a() e&*ab-&e) by *e re/or)&. :Her& o+ %a(ue-Ro>a& . Cour* o+ A''ea-&, G. R. No. 1183=, 'ro. %ar/ 21,1997;. #r)-y, * & (/o(*roer*b-e *a* *e /o'-a(* ( *&/a&e &eeB( *o ree *e 5u)e(* a() a((u- *e )e/reea& +-e) o( %ar/ ?, 1998 or *( o(e :1; year +ro Auu&*20, 1997 or *e )a*e o+ &&ua(/e o+ De/ree No. 217313, LRCRe/or) No. N


13/23

're&/rbe) by *e ru-e& u&* e(&ue a& a a**er o+ -a.

It should %e stressed that the "ourt a =uo whi"h rendered theassailed resolution in Civil Case No. T/#1(4 was the ver& "ourt

that de"ided the ;RC Case No. T/4'3. Su"h %ein! the "ase, the"ourt a =uo was priv& to all relevant fa"ts and rulin!s pertainin! to;RC Case No. T/4'3 whi"h it "onsidered and applied to this"ase. Thus, ere a-- *e +a/*& are *( *e 5u)/a-B(o-e)e o+ *e /our*, &uary 5u)e(* ay be ra(*e)a& a a**er o+ r*.

On the "ontrar&, in petitionerAs +nswer Ad Cautelam, !enuine,fa"tual and tria%le issues were raised, aside fro2 spe"ifi"all&den&in! all the alle!ations in the "o2plaint, thus7

'. SPECI$IC DENI+;S

'.# +nswerin! defendant spe"ifi"all& denies the alle!ations"ontained in para!raphs # and 3 of the Co2plaint insofar as italle!es the personal "ir"u2stan"es of the plaintiff and one +. $.Develop2ent Corporation for la" of nowled!e or infor2ationsuffi"ient to for2 a %elief as to the truth thereof.

'.' +nswerin! defendant spe"ifi"all& denies the alle!ations"ontained in para!raphs 4, 5, * and 1 of the Co2plaint for la" ofnowled!e or infor2ation suffi"ient to for2 a %elief as to the truthof said alle!ations. +nd if the propert& referred to in saidpara!raphs is that par"el of land whi"h was the su%9e"t 2atter of;and Re!istration Case No. T/4'3 whi"h was previousl& de"ided%& this er"ise of further "ir"u2spe"tion, "ounsel for the plaintiffson"e followedup in writin! the #4 re=uest of the plaintiffs tohave the su%9e"t par"el of land %e de"lared for ta>ation purposesHand insofar as it is 2ade to appear that par"el of land %ein!"lai2ed %& the plaintiffs is the sa2e par"el of land su%9e"t 2atter

of ;and Re!istration Case No. T/4'3 for la" of nowled!e orinfor2ation suffi"ient to for2 a %elief as to the truth thereof and for


14/23

the reason that the na2es of the herein plaintiffs were never2entioned durin! the entire pro"eedin!s in said land re!istration"ase and %& reason of the +ffir2ative +lle!ations "ontainedhereunder.

'.4 +nswerin! defendant spe"ifi"all& denies the alle!ations"ontained in para!raphs , #), #) a-, #) %-, #) "-, #) d-, #) e-,#) f-, #) !-, #) h-, and ## for the reason that there is no showin!that the par"el of land %ein! "lai2ed %& the plaintiff is the sa2epar"el of land whi"h was the su%9e"t 2atter of ;and Re!istrationCase No. T/ 4'3, and in the re2ote possi%ilit& that the par"el ofland %ein! "lai2ed %& the plaintiffs is the sa2e as that par"el ofland su%9e"t of ;and Re!istration Case No. T/4'3, the alle!ations"ontained in said para!raphs are still spe"ifi"all& denied for thereason that no less than the "lusion of all other persons as attested to %&the su%se=uent issuan"e of an Ori!inal Certifi"ate of Title in favorof answerin! defendant and for reasons stated in the +ffir2ative+lle!ations.

'.5 +nswerin! defendant spe"ifi"all& denies the alle!ations"ontained in para!raph #' of the Co2plaint for the o%vious reason

that it was the plaintiffs who appear to have %een sleepin! on theirri!hts "onsiderin! that up to the present the& still do not have an&"ertifi"ate of title "overin! the par"el of land the& are "lai2in! inthe instant "ase, while on the part of herein defendant, no lessthan the


15/23

'.( +nswerin! defendant spe"ifi"all& denies the alle!ations"ontained in para!raphs I0 a- to I0 "- for the reason that, asa%ovestated, if the par"el of land %ein! "lai2ed %& the plaintiffs isthe sa2e as that par"el of land su%9e"t 2atter of ;and Re!istration

Case No. T/4'3, this


16/23

%othered to present their alle!ed "lai2s in the pro"eedin!s.

4.* +nswerin! defendant has alwa&s a"ted with 9usti"e, !ivenever&one his due, and o%served honest& and !ood faith in his

dealin!s.

C-ear-y, *e +a/*& '-ea)e) by *e re&'o()e(*& ( *er o*o(+or &uary 5u)e(* ae bee( )u-y )&'u*e) a()/o(*e&*e) by 'e**o(er, ra&( e(u(e &&ue& *a* u&* bere&o-e) o(-y a+*er a +u-- > > There is overwhel2in! eviden"e or proof on re"ord that thevendors listed in E>hi%it Hes E>hi%its HH to H//,H in"lusive,with su%2arin!s-.


17/23

> > >

On the %asis of the fore!oin! fa"ts and "ir"u2stan"es, and"onsiderin! that appli"ant is a do2esti" "orporation not otherwise

dis=ualified fro2 ownin! real properties in the Philippines, thisCourt finds that appli"ant has satisfied all the"onditions@re=uire2ents essential to the !rant of its appli"ationpursuant to the provisions of the ;and Re!istration ;aw, asa2ended, inspite of the opposition filed %& the &*&. #&, *oe*er * *e +a-ure o+ *e re&'o()e(*& *o&o *a* *ere ere (o e(u(e &&ue& (o-e), &ou-)ae bee( e(ou +or *e *ra- /our* *o e *e o*o( +or&uary 5u)e(*, +-e) by re&'o()e(*&, &/a(*/o(&)era*o(. #ra- /our*& ae -*e) au*or*y *o re()er&uary 5u)e(*& a() ay )o &o o(-y e( *ere & /-ear-y

(o e(u(e &&ue a& *o a(y a*era- +a/*.?2


18/23

6ased on the fore!oin!, this Court dee2s it ne"essar& to delve%riefl& on the nature of the a"tion of =uietin! of title as applied inthis "ase. This CourtAs rulin! in Calacala, et al. v. Republic, et al.53

is instru"tive on this 2atter, thus7

To %e!in with, it %ears e2phasis that an a"tion for =uietin! of titleis essentiall& a "o22on law re2ed& !rounded on e=uit&. +s weheld in Baricuatro, Jr. vs. CA754

Re!ardin! the nature of the a"tion filed %efore the trial "ourt,=uietin! of title is a "o22on law re2ed& for the re2oval of an&"loud upon or dou%t or un"ertaint& with respe"t to title to realpropert&. Ori!inatin! in e=uit& 9urispruden"e, its purpose is tose"ure M> > > an ad9udi"ation that a "lai2 of title to or an interest in

propert&, adverse to that of the "o2plainant, is invalid, so that the"o2plainant and those "lai2in! under hi2 2a& %e foreverafterward free fro2 an& dan!er of hostile "lai2. In an a"tion for=uietin! of title, the "o2petent "ourt is tased to deter2ine therespe"tive ri!hts of the "o2plainant and other "lai2ants, M> > > notonl& to pla"e thin!s in their proper pla"e, to 2ae the one who hasno ri!hts to said i22ova%le respe"t and not distur% the other, %utalso for the %enefit of %oth, so that he who has the ri!ht would seeever& "loud of dou%t over the propert& dissipated, and he "ould

afterwards without fear introdu"e the i2prove2ents he 2a& desire,to use, and even to a%use the propert& as he dee2s %est >>>.

()er Ar*/-e 7= o+ *e Ne C- Co)e, *e ree)y ay beaa-e) o+ o(-y e(, by rea&o( o+ a(y (&*rue(*, re/or),/-a, e(/ubra(/e or 'ro/ee)(, / a''ear& a-) bu*&, ( +a/*, (a-), (e++e/*e, o)ab-e, or u(e(+or/eab-e, a/-ou) & *ereby /a&* o( *e /o'-a(a(*& **-e *o rea-'ro'er*y or a(y (*ere&* *ere(. #e /o)a- 'ro&o( rea)&@

+rti"le 41*. Bhenever there is a "loud on title to real propert& oran& interest therein, %& reason of an& instru2ent, re"ord, "lai2,en"u2%ran"e or pro"eedin! whi"h is apparentl& valid or effe"tive%ut is in truth and in fa"t invalid, ineffe"tive, voida%le, orunenfor"ea%le, and 2a& %e pre9udi"ial to said title, an a"tion 2a&%e %rou!ht to re2ove su"h "loud or to =uiet the title.

A( a/*o( ay a-&o be brou* *o 'ree(* a /-ou) +ro be(/a&* u'o( **-e *o rea- 'ro'er*y or a(y (*ere&* *ere(.

I( *ur(, Ar*/-e 77 o+ *e &ae Co)e )e(*+e& *e 'ar*y o


19/23

ay br( a( a/*o( *o ue* **-e, thus7

+rti"le 411. The plaintiff 2ust have le!al or e=uita%le title to, orinterest in the real propert& whi"h is the su%9e"t2atter of the

a"tion.


20/23

Se/*o( 32. Ree o+ )e/ree o+ re&*ra*o( I((o/e(*'ur/a&er +or a-ue. The de"ree of re!istration shall not %ereopened or revised %& reason of a%sen"e, 2inorit&, or otherdisa%ilit& of an& person adversel& affe"ted there%&, nor %& an&

pro"eedin! in an& "ourt for reversin! 9ud!2ents, su%9e"t, however,to the ri!ht of an& person, in"ludin! the !overn2ent and the%ran"hes thereof, deprived of land or of an& estate or interesttherein %& su"h ad9udi"ation or "onfir2ation of title o%tained %&a"tual fraud, to file in the proper Court of $irst Instan"e a petitionfor reopenin! and review of the de"ree of re!istration not later thanone &ear fro2 and after the date of the entr& of su"h de"ree ofre!istration, %ut in no "ase shall su"h petition %e entertained %& the"ourt where an inno"ent pur"haser for value has a"=uired the land

or an interest therein, whose ri!hts 2a& %e pre9udi"ed. Bheneverthe phrase Hinno"ent pur"haser for valueH or an e=uivalent phraseo""urs in this De"ree, it shall %e dee2ed to in"lude an inno"entlessee, 2ort!a!ee, or other en"u2%ran"er for value.

'o( *e e>'ra*o( o+ &a) 'ero) o+ o(e year, *e )e/ree o+re&*ra*o( a() *e /er*+/a*e o+ **-e &&ue) &a-- be/oe(/o(*roer*b-e. +n& person a!!rieved %& su"h de"ree ofre!istration in an& "ase 2a& pursue his re2ed& %& a"tion forda2a!es a!ainst the appli"ant or an& other persons responsi%le

for the fraud.

+s %orne out %& the re"ords and undisputed %& the parties, OCTNo. )**) of petitioner was issued on +u!ust ', #1 pursuant toa De"ree issued on +u!ust '), #1, while the "o2plaint for the=uietin! of title in Civil Case No. T/#1(4 was filed and do"etedon :ar"h 5, #(? hen"e, appl&in! the a%ove provisions, * ou-)&ee *a* *e 'ero) o+ o(e :1; year +ro *e &&ua(/e o+ *e)e/ree o+ re&*ra*o( a& (o* e-a'&e) +or *e ree *ereo+.

Hoeer, a /-o&er e>a(a*o( o+ *e aboe 'ro&o(& ou-)/-ear-y ()/a*e *a* *e a/*o( +-e), / a& +or ue*( o+**-e, a& (o* *e 'ro'er ree)y.

Courts 2a& reopen pro"eedin!s alread& "losed %& final de"ision orde"ree when an appli"ation for review is filed %& the part&a!!rieved within one &ear fro2 the issuan"e of the de"ree ofre!istration.?=Hoeer, *e ba&& o+ *e aree) 'ar*y u&* bea(/ore) &o-e-y o( a/*ua- +rau). Sheddin! li!ht on the 2atter isa dis"ussion presented in one of the re"o!ni8ed te>t%oos onpropert& re!istration,51"itin! de"isions of this Court, thus7


21/23

The ri!ht of a person deprived of land or of an& estate or interesttherein %& ad9udi"ation or "onfir2ation of title o%tained %& a"tualfraud is re"o!ni8ed %& law as a valid and le!al %asis for reopenin!and revisin! a de"ree of re!istration.?8!(e o+ *e ree)e&

aa-ab-e *o & a 'e**o( +or ree. #o aa- o+ a 'e**o(+or ree, *e +o--o( reu&*e& u&* be &a*&+e)@

:a; #e 'e**o(er u&* ae a( e&*a*e or (*ere&* ( *e -a()

:b; He u&* &o a/*ua- +rau) ( *e 'ro/uree(* o+ *e)e/ree o+ re&*ra*o(

:/; #e 'e**o( u&* be +-e) *( o(e year +ro *e&&ua(/e o+ *e )e/ree by *e La() Re&*ra*o( Au*or*y

a()

:); #e 'ro'er*y a& (o* ye* 'a&&e) *o a( ((o/e(* 'ur/a&er+or a-ue.?9

+ 2ere "lai2 of ownership is not suffi"ient to avoid a "ertifi"ate oftitle o%tained under the Torrens s&ste2. A( 'or*a(* +ea*ure o+ a/er*+/a*e o+ **-e & *& +(a-*y.The pro"eedin!s where%& su"h atitle is o%tained are dire"ted a!ainst all persons, nown or

unnown, whether a"tuall& served with noti"e or not, and in"ludesall who have an interest in the land. If the& do not appear andoppose the re!istration of their own estate or interest in thepropert& in the na2e of another, 9ud!2ent is rendered a!ainstthe2 %& default, and, in the a%sen"e of fraud, su"h 9ud!2ent is"on"lusive. If an interest in the land will not %& itself operate tova"ate a de"ree of re!istration, a fortiori, fraud is not alonesuffi"ient to do so.*)

A& +ur*er 'o(*e) ou* ( *e &ae booB,=1 *e 'e**o( +or

ree u&* be +-e) *( o(e year +ro e(*ry o+ *e )e/reeo+ re&*ra*o(.+s written7

+s lon! as a final de"ree has not %een entered %& the ;andRe!istration +uthorit& and period of one &ear has not elapsed fro2the date of entr& of su"h de"ree, the title is not finall& ad9udi"atedand the de"ision in the re!istration "ase "ontinues to %e under the"ontrol and sound dis"retion of the re!istration "ourt.*' +fter thelapse of said period, the de"ree %e"o2es in"ontroverti%le and no

lon!er su%9e"t to reopenin! or review.


22/23

Se/*o( 32 'ro)e& *a* a 'e**o( +or ree o+ *e )e/ree o+re&*ra*o( ay be +-e) (o* -a*er *a( o(e year +ro a()a+*er *e )a*e o+ e(*ry o+ &u/ )e/ree o+ re&*ra*o(./ivin!this provision a literal interpretation, it 2a& at first %lush see2 that

the petition for review "annot %e presented until the final de"reehas %een entered. Hoeer, * a& bee( ru-e) *a* *e 'e**o(ay be +-e) a* a(y *e a+*er *e re()*o( o+ *e /our*&)e/&o( a() be+ore *e e>'ra*o( o+ o(e year +ro *e e(*ryo+ *e +(a- )e/ree o+ re&*ra*o(for, as noted in Rivera v.Moran,*3there "an %e no possi%le reason re=uirin! the "o2plainin!part& to wait until the final de"ree is entered %efore ur!in! his "lai2for fraud.

#e o(e


23/23

/r/u&*a(/e&, *ey /a( ar)-y be /o(&)ere) ((o/e(*'ur/a&er& ( oo) +a*.*11avvphi1

Bhere the petition for review of a de"ree of re!istration is filed

within the one&ear period fro2 entr& of the de"ree, it is error forthe "ourt to den& the petition without hearin! the eviden"e insupport of the alle!ation of a"tual and e>trinsi" fraud upon whi"hthe petition is predi"ated. The petitioner should %e afforded anopportunit& to prove su"h alle!ation.*(

I( *e 're&e(* /a&e, *e o(e

Documents

A. Eland Philippines vs. Garcia