Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila FIRST DIVISION REPUBLIC THEPHILIPPINES, OF Petitioner, - versus HON. MAMINDIARA P.

MANGOTARA, in his capacity as P !si"in# $%"#! &' th! R!#i&na( T ia( C&% t, B anch ), I(i#an City, Lana& "!( N& t!, an" MARIA CRISTINA FERTILI*ER CORPORATION, an" th! PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN+, Respondents, ,-----------------------, LAND TRADE REALT. CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus NATIONAL PO/ER CORPORATION an" NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION 0TRANSCO1, G.R. N&. )23425

G.R. N&. )23535

Respondents, ,-----------------------, NATIONAL PO/ER CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus HON. COURT OF APPEALS 0Sp!cia( T6!nty-Thi " Di7isi&n, Ca#ayan "! O & City1, an" LAND TRADE REALT. CORPORATION, Respondents, ,-----------------------, REPUBLIC OF THEPHILIPPINES, Petitioner, versus -

G.R. N&s. )24455-5:

G.R. N&. )24;3)

DEMETRIA CACHO, !p !s!nt!" 8y a((!#!" H!i s DEMETRIA CONFESOR VIDAL an"9& TEOFILO CACHO, A*IMUTH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION an" LAND TRADE REALT. CORPORATION, Respondents. ,-----------------------, NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner,

G.R. N&s. )245:4-:;

- versus HON. COURT OF APPEALS 0Sp!cia( T6!nty-Thi " Di7isi&n, Ca#ayan "! O & City1, an" LAND TRADE REALT. CORPORATION as !p !s!nt!" 8y Atty. Ma, C. Ta8i<ina, Respondents, ,-----------------------, G.R. N&. )2=22> LAND TRADE CORPORATION, REALT. Petitioner, - versus DEMETRIA CONFESOR VIDAL an" A*IMUTH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents, ,-----------------------, TEOFILO CACHO an"9& ATT.. GODOFREDO CABILDO, Petitioner,

G.R. N&. )2==>; Present: CORONA, C.J., Chairperson, V !ASCO, "R., ! ONAR#O-# CAS$RO, # ! CAS$%!!O, and P R &, JJ.

- versus -

DEMETRIA CONFESOR VIDAL an" A*IMUTH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

Promul'ated: "ul( ), *+,+

Respondents. --------------------------------------------------- -

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.?

.efore

the

Court

are

se/en

consolidated

Petitions

for

Re/ie0

on Certiorari and a Petition for Certiorari under Rules 12 and 32 of the Rules of Court, respecti/el(, arisin' from actions for 4uietin' of title, e-propriation, e5ectment, and re/ersion, 0hich all in/ol/e the same parcels of land.

%n G.R. N&. )23425, the Republic of the Philippines 6Republic7, b( 0a( of consolidated Petitions for Re/ie0 on Certiorariand for Certiorari under Rules 12 and 32 of the Rules of Court, respecti/el(, see8s to set aside the issuances of "ud'e Mamindiara P. Man'otara 6"ud'e Man'otara7 of the Re'ional $rial Court, .ranch , 6R$C-.ranch ,7 of %li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte, in Ci/il Case No. ,+3, particularl(, the: 6,7 Resolution9,: dated "ul( ,*, *++2 0hich, in part, dismissed the Complaint for -propriation of the Republic for the latter;s failure to implead

indispensable parties and forum shoppin'< and 6*7 Resolution9*: dated October *1, *++2, 0hich denied the Partial Motion for Reconsideration of the Republic.

G.R.

N&s.

)2=22>

an"

)2==>; are

t0o

Petitions

for

Re/ie0

on Certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, 0here !andtrade Realt( Corporation 6!AN#$RA# 7, $eofilo Cacho, and=or Att(. >odofredo

Cabildo assail the #ecision9?: dated "anuar( ,@, *++) and Resolution91: dated "ul( 1, *++) of the Court of Appeals in CA->.R. CV No. ++123. $he Court of Appeals affirmed the #ecision92: dated "ul( ,), *++1 of the Re'ional $rial Court, .ranch ? 6R$C-.ranch ?7 of %li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte, in Ci/il Case No. 112*, 'rantin' the Petition for Auietin' of $itle, %n5unction and #ama'es filed b( #emetria Vidal and ABimuth %nternational #e/elopment Corporation 6A&%MC$D7 a'ainst $eofilo Cacho and Att(. >odofredo Cabildo.

G.R. N&. )23535 is a Petition for Re/ie0 on Certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court in 0hich !AN#$RA# ur'es the Court to re/erse and set aside the #ecision93: dated No/ember *?, *++2 of the Court of Appeals in CA->.R. SP Nos. E2),1 and E2E1,. $he appellate court annulled se/eral issuances of the Re'ional $rial Court, .ranch 2 6R$C-.ranch 27 of %li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte, and its sheriff, in Ci/il Case No. 33,?, specificall(, the: 6,7 Order 9): dated Au'ust @, *++1 'rantin' the Motion for -ecution Pendin' Appeal of !AN#$RA# < 6*7 Frit of -ecution9E: dated Au'ust ,+, *++1< 6?7 t0o Notices of >arnishment 9@:both dated Au'ust ,,, *++1, and 617 Notification9,+: dated Au'ust ,,, *++1. $hese issuances of the R$C-.ranch 2 allo0ed and=or enabled e-ecution pendin' appeal of the #ecision9,,: dated Gebruar( ,), *++1 of the Municipal $rial Court in Cities 6M$CC7, .ranch * of %li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte, fa/orin' !AN#$RA# in

Ci/il Case No. ,,1)2-AG, the e5ectment case said corporation instituted a'ainst the

National Po0er Corporation 6NAPOCOR7 and the National $ransmission Corporation 6$RANSCO7.

G.R. N&s. )24455-5: an" )245:4-:; are t0o Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 32 of the Rules of Court 0ith pra(er for the immediate issuance of a $emporar( Restrainin' Order 6$RO7 and=or Frit of Preliminar( %n5unction filed separatel( b( NAPOCOR and $RANSCO. .oth Petitions see8 to annul the Resolution9,*: dated "une ?+, *++3 of the Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases of CA->.R. SP Nos. ++E21 and ++EE@, 0hich 6,7 'ranted the Omnibus Motion of !AN#$RA# for the issuance of a 0rit of e-ecution and the desi'nation of a special sheriff for the enforcement of the #ecision 9,?: dated #ecember ,*, *++2 of the R$C-.ranch , in Ci/il Case No. 33,?, and 6*7 denied the applications of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO for a 0rit of preliminar( in5unction to en5oin the e-ecution of the same R$C #ecision. $he #ecision dated #ecember ,*, *++2 of R$C-.ranch , in Ci/il Case No. 33,? affirmed the #ecision dated Gebruar( ,), *++1 of the M$CC in Ci/il Case No. ,,1)2-AG, fa/orin' !AN#$RA# .

G.R. N&. )24;3) in/ol/es a Petition for Re/ie0 on Certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court filed b( the Republic, 0hich raises pure 4uestions of la0 and see8s the re/ersal of the follo0in' issuances of the Re'ional $rial Court, .ranch 1 6R$C-.ranch 17 of %li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte, in Ci/il Case No. 33E3, an action for cancellation of titles and re/ersion: 6,7 Order 9,1:dated #ecember

,?, *++2 dismissin' the Complaint in Ci/il Case No. 33E3< and 6*7 Order 9,2: dated Ma( ,3, *++3, den(in' the Motion for Reconsideration of the Republic. I THE PRECEDING CASES

$he consolidated se/en cases ha/e for their common 'enesis the ,@,1 case of Cacho v. Government of the United States9,3: 61914 Cacho case7.

Th! 1914 Cacho Case

Sometime in the earl( ,@++s, the late #oHa #emetria Cacho 6#oHa #emetria7 applied for the re'istration of t6& pa c!(s &' (an": 6,7 !ot , of Plan %%?)?*, the smaller parcel 0ith an area of 4,:45 s@%a ! <!t! s & 3.4:

h!cta !s 6!ot ,7< and 6*7 !ot * of Plan %%-?)?*, the lar'er parcel 0ith an area of 42=,232 s@%a ! <!t! s & 42.=2 h!cta !s 6!ot *7. .oth parcels are situated in 0hat 0as then the Municipalit( of %li'an, Moro Pro/ince, 0hich later became Sitio Nunucan, then .r'(. SuareB, in %li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte. #oHa #emetria;s applications for re'istration 0ere doc8eted as >!RO Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@.

$he application in GLRO R!c& " N&. :>3= co/ered L&t ), the smaller parcel of land. #oHa #emetria alle'edl( ac4uired !ot, b( purchase from >abriel SalBos 6SalBos7. SalBos, in turn, bou'ht !ot , from #atto #arondon and his 0ife Alan'a, e/idenced b( a deed of sale in fa/or of SalBos si'ned solel( b( Alan'a, on behalf of #atto #arondon.

$he application in GLRO R!c& " N&. :>3> in/ol/ed L&t A, the bi''er parcel of land. #oHa #emetria purportedl( purchased!ot * from #atto .un'la(. #atto .un'la( claimed to ha/e inherited !ot * from his uncle, #atto Anando', 0ho died 0ithout issue.

Onl( the >o/ernment opposed #oHa #emetria;s applications for re'istration on the 'round that the t0o parcels of land 0ere the propert( of the Cnited States and formed part of a militar( reser/ation, 'enerall( 8no0n

as Camp O/erton.

On #ecember ,+, ,@,*, the land re'istration court 6!RC7 rendered its #ecision in >!RO Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@.

.ased on the e/idence, the !RC made the follo0in' findin's in GLRO R!c& " N&. :>3=:
3th. $he court is con/inced from the proofs that the s<a(( pa c!( &' (an" sold b( the Moro 0oman Alan'a 0as the home of herself and her husband, #arondon, and 0as their con5u'al propert(< and the court so finds. ---As 0e ha/e seen, the deed on 0hich applicant;s title to the small parcel rests, is e-ecuted onl( b( the Moro 0oman Alan'a, 0ife of #atto #arondon, 0hich is not permitted either b( the Moro la0s or the Ci/il Code of the Philippine %slands. %t appears that the husband of Alan'a, #atto #arondon, is ali/e (et, and 8!'& ! a"<ittin# this pa c!( t&

!#ist ati&n it is & "! !" that a "!!" ' &< Datt& Da &n"&n, h%s8an" &' A(an#a, 8! p !s!nt!", !n&%ncin# a(( his i#hts in th! s<a(( pa c!( &' (an" &8B!ct &' Cas! N&. :>3=, in 'a7& &' th! app(icant . 9,): 6 mphases supplied.7

%n GLRO R!c& " N&. :>3>, the !RC obser/ed and concluded that:
A tract of land ?) hectares in area, 0hich is the e-tent of the land under discussion, is lar'er than is culti/ated ordinaril( b( the Christian Gilipinos. %n the &amboan'a cadastral case of thousands of parcels no0 on trial before this court, the a/era'e siBe of the parcels is not abo/e ? or 1 hectares, and the court doubts /er( much if a Moro 0ith all his famil( could culti/ate as e-tensi/e a parcel of land as the one in 4uestion. - - ---$he court is also con/inced from the proofs that the s<a(( p& ti&n in th! s&%th! n pa t &' th! (a #! pa c!( , 0here, accordin' to the proofs, #atto Anando' had his house and 0here there still e-ist some cocos and fruit trees, 6as th! h&<! &' th! sai" M& & Datt& Anan"&# < and the court so finds. As t& th! !st &' th! (a #! pa c!( th! c&% t "&!s n&t 'in" th! tit(! &' Datt& B%n#(ay !sta8(ish!" . Accordin' to his o0n declaration his residence on this land commenced onl( a fe0 da(s before the sale. De admitted that the coco trees he is supposed to ha/e planted had not (et be'un to bear fruit at the time of the sale, and 0ere /er( small. #atto #uroc positi/el( denies that .un'la( li/ed on the land, and it clearl( appears that he 0as not on the land 0hen it 0as first occupied b( the militar(. Nor does #atto .un'la( claim to ha/e planted the three man'o trees b( the roadside near point *2 of the plan. $he court belie/es that all the rest of this parcel, not occupied nor culti/ated b( #atto Anando', 0as land claimed b( #atto #uroc and also b( #atto Anando' and possibl( b( other dattos as a part of their 'eneral 5urisdiction, and that it is the class of land that Act No. ),E prohibits the sale of, b( the dattos, 0ithout the e-press appro/al of the >o/ernment. %t is also found that #atto .un'la( is the nephe0 of #ato Anando', and that the Moro 0oman Alan'a, 'rantor of the small parcel, is the sister of #atto Anando', and that he died 0ithout issue.

---%t appears also that accordin' to the pro/isions of the Ci/il Code as also the pro/isions of the I!u0aran Code; of the Moros, the Moro 0oman Alan'a has an interest in the portion of land left b( her deceased brother, #atto Anando'. .( article !JJJV, section ?, of the I!u0aran Code,; it 0ill be seen that the brothers and sisters of a deceased Moro inherit his propert( to the e-clusion of the more distant relati/es. $herefore #atto .un'la( had no le'al interest 0hate/er in the land to sell to the applicant, #oHa #emetria Cacho. .ut the Moro 0oman, Alan'a, ha/in' appeared as a 0itness for the applicant 0ithout ha/in' made an( claim to the land, the court finds from this fact that she has ratified the sale made b( her nephe0. Th! c&% t th! !'& ! 'in"s that th! app(icant D&Ca D!<!t ia Cach& is &6n! &' th! p& ti&n &' (an" &cc%pi!" an" p(ant!" 8y th! "!c!as!" Datt& Anan"&# in th! s&%th! n pa t &' th! (a #! pa c!( &8B!ct &' expediente N&. :>3> &n(yD an" h! app(icati&n as t& a(( th! !st &' th! (an" s&(icit!" in sai" cas! is "!ni!". An" it is & "! !" that a n!6 s% 7!y &' th! (an" 8! <a"! an" a c& !ct!" p(an 8! p !s!nt!", !,c(%"in# a(( th! (an" n&t &cc%pi!" an" c%(ti7at!" 8y Datt& Anan"&#D that sai" s% 7!y 8! <a"! an" th! c& !ct!" p(an p !s!nt!" &n & 8!'& ! th! 43th "ay &' Ma ch, )>)4, 6ith p !7i&%s n&tic! t& th! c&<<an"in# #!n! a( &' th! Di7isi&n &' th! Phi(ippin!s . On the Eth da( of #ecember, the court 0as at Camp O/erton and had another ocular inspection of the land for the purpose of fi-in' the limits of the part culti/ated b( #atto Anando', so often mentioned herein, 0ith pre/ious notice to the applicant and her husband and representati/e, SeHor #ionisio Vidal. Da/in' arri/ed late, SeHor Vidal did not assist in the ocular inspection, 0hich 0as fi-ed for ? o;cloc8, p.m. of the da( mentioned. .ut the court, ne/ertheless, set sta8es mar8in' the N. ., S. ., and S.F. corners of the land found to ha/e been culti/ated b( the deceased Anando'. $he N. . limit of said land is a broo8, and the N.F. corner is the point 0here the broo8 intersects the shore line of the sea, the other corners mentioned bein' mar8ed 0ith pine sta8es. An" it is & "! !" that th! n!6 s% 7!y 8! <a"! in acc& "anc! 6ith th! p&ints <!nti&n!", 8y t acin# '&% st ai#ht (in!s c&nn!ctin# th!s! '&% p&ints. .et0een the portion culti/ated b( #atto Anando' and the mouth of the Ri/er A'us there is a hi'h steep hill and

the court does not belie/e it possible to culti/ate said hill, it bein' co/ered 0ith roc8s and forest.9,E: 6 mphases supplied.7

$he !RC additionall( decreed at the end of its #ecember ,+, ,@,* #ecision:
%t is further ordered that one-half of the costs of the ne0 sur/e( be paid b( the applicant and the other half b( the >o/ernment of the Cnited States, and that the applicant present the correspondin' deed from #atto #arondon on or before the abo/e-mentioned ?+ th da( of March, ,@,?. Ginal decision in these cases is reser/ed until the presentation of the said deed and the ne0 plan.9,@:

Apparentl( dissatisfied 0ith the fore'oin' !RC 5ud'ment, #oHa #emetria appealed to this Court. %n its #ecision dated #ecember ,+, ,@,1, the Court affirmed in toto the !RC #ecision of #ecember ,+, ,@,*, 0ell satisfied that the findin's of fact of the court belo0 0ere full( sustained b( the e/idence adduced durin' trial.

i'ht(-three (ears later, in ,@@), the Court 0as a'ain called upon to settle a matter concernin' the re'istration of !ots , and * in the case of Cacho v. Court of Appeals9*+: 61997 Cacho case7.

Th! 1997 Cacho Case

On "une *@, ,@)E, $eofilo Cacho 6$eofilo7, claimin' to be the late #oHa #emetria;s son and sole heir, filed before the R$C a petition for reconstitution of

t0o ori'inal certificates of title 6OC$s7, doc8eted under the ori'inal >!RO Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@.

$eofilo;s petition 0as opposed b( the Republic, National Steel Corporation 6NSC7, and the Cit( of %li'an.

Actin' on the motion for 5ud'ment on demurrer to e/idence filed b( the Republic and NSC, the R$C initiall( dismissed $eofilo;s petition for reconstitution of titles because there 0as inade4uate e/idence to sho0 the prior e-istence of the titles sou'ht to be restored. Accordin' to the R$C, the proper remed( 0as a petition for the reconstitution of decrees since Kit is undisputed that in Cases No. 3@+E and 3@+@, #ecrees No. ,+?31 and ,E@3@, respecti/el(, 0ere issued.L $eofilo sou'ht lea/e of court for the filin' and admission of his amended petition, but the R$C refused. Fhen ele/ated to this Court in Cacho v. Mangotara, doc8eted as >.R. No. E21@2, the Court resol/ed to remand the case to the R$C, 0ith an order to the said trial court to accept $eofilo;s amended petition and to hear it as one for re-issuance of decrees.

%n opposin' $eofilo;s petition, the Republic and NSC ar'ued that the same suffered from 5urisdictional infirmities< that $eofilo 0as not the real part(-ininterest< that $eofilo 0as 'uilt( of laches< that #oHa #emetria 0as not the re'istered o0ner of the sub5ect parcels of land< that no decrees 0ere e/er issued in #oHa #emetria;s name< and that the issuance of the decrees 0as dubious and irre'ular.

After trial, on "une @, ,@@?, the R$C rendered its #ecision 'rantin' $eofilo;s petition and orderin' the reconstitution and re-issuance of #ecree Nos. ,+?31 and ,E@3@. $he R$C held that the issuance of #ecree No. ,+?31 in >!RO No. 3@+E on Ma( @, ,@,? and #ecree No. ,E@3@ in >!RO Record No. 3@+@ on "ul( E, ,@,2 0as sufficientl( established b( the certifications and testimonies of concerned officials. $he ori'inal issuance of these decrees presupposed a prior 5ud'ment that had become final.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals re/ersed the R$C #ecision dated "une @, ,@@? and dismissed the petition for re-issuance of #ecree Nos. ,+?31 and ,E@3@ because: 6,7 re-issuance of #ecree No. ,E@3@ in >!RO Record No. 3@+@ could not be made in the absence of the ne0 sur/e( ordered b( this Court in the 1914 Cacho case< 6*7 the heir of a re'istered o0ner ma( lose his ri'ht to reco/er possession of the propert( and title thereto b( laches< and 6?7 $eofilo failed to establish his identit( and e-istence and that he 0as a real part(-in-interest.

$eofilo then sou'ht recourse from this Court in the 1997 Cacho case. $he Court re/ersed the 5ud'ment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of the R$C appro/in' the re-issuance of #ecree Nos. ,+?31 and ,E@3@. $he Court found that such decrees had in fact been issued and had attained finalit(, as certified b( the Actin' Commissioner, #eput( Cler8 of Court %%%, >eodetic n'ineer, and Chief of Re'istration of the then !and Re'istration Commission,

no0

National

!and

$itles

and

#eeds

Re'istration

Administration

6NA!$#RA7. $he Court further reasoned that:

9$:o sustain the Court of Appeals rulin' as re'ards re4uirin' petitioners to fulfill the conditions set forth in Cacho vs. U.S. 0ould constitute a dero'ation of the doctrine of res judicata. Si'nificantl(, the issuance of the sub5ect decrees presupposes a prior final 5ud'ment because the issuance of such decrees is a mere ministerial act on part of the !and Re'istration Commission 6no0 the NA!$#RA7, upon presentation of a final 5ud'ment. %t is also 0orth notin' that the 5ud'ment in Cacho vs. U.S. could not ha/e ac4uired finalit( 0ithout the prior fulfillment of the conditions in >!RO Record No. 3@+E, the presentation of the correspondin' deed of sale from #atto #orondon on or before March ?+, ,@,? 6upon 0hich #ecree No. ,+?31 0as issued on Ma( @, ,@,?7< and in >!RO Record No. 3@+@, the presentation of a ne0 sur/e( per decision of "ud'e "or'e on #ecember ,+, ,@,* and affirmed b( this Court on #ecember ,+, ,@,1 6upon 0hich #ecree No. ,E@3@ 0as issued on "ul( E, ,@,27. Re4uirin' the submission of a ne0 plan as a condition for the reissuance of the decree 0ould render the finalit( attained b( the Cacho vs. U.S. case nu'ator(, thus, /iolatin' the fundamental rule re'ardin' res judicata. %t must be stressed that the 5ud'ment and the resultin' decree are res judicata, and these are bindin' upon the 0hole 0orld, the proceedin's bein' in the nature of proceedin's in rem. .esides, such a re4uirement is an impermissible assault upon the inte'rit( and stabilit( of the $orrens S(stem of re'istration because it also effecti/el( renders the decree inconclusi/e.9*,:

As to the issue of laches, the Court referred to the settled doctrine that laches cannot bar the issuance of a decree. A final decision in land re'istration cases can neither be rendered inefficacious b( the statute of limitations nor b( laches.

Anent the issue of the identit( and e-istence of $eofilo and he bein' a real part(-in-interest, the Court found that these 0ere sufficientl( established b( the records. $he Court relied on $eofilo;s Affida/it of Ad5udication as #oHa #emetria;s sole heir, 0hich he e-ecuted before the Philippine Consulate >eneral in Chica'o, Cnited States of America 6C.S.A.7< as 0ell as the publication in the $imes "ournal of the fact of ad5udication of #oHa #emetria;s estate. $eofilo also appeared personall( before the Vice Consul of the Philippine Consulate >eneral in Chica'o to e-ecute a Special Po0er of Attorne( in fa/or of Att(. >odofredo Cabildo 6Att(. Cabildo7 0ho represented him in this case. $he Court stressed that the e-ecution of public documents is entitled to the presumption of re'ularit( and proof is re4uired to assail and contro/ert the same.

%n the Resolution dated "ul( *E, ,@@),9**: the Court denied the Motions for Reconsideration of the Republic and NSC.

As a result of the 1997 Cacho case, the decrees of re'istration 0ere reissued bearin' ne0 numbers and OC$s 0ere issued for the t0o parcels of land in #oHa #emetria;s name. OC$ No. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 0as based on re-issued #ecree No. N-*,@131 in >!RO Record No. 3@+E, 0hile OC$ No. +-,*+, 6a.f.7 0as based on re-issued #ecree No. N-*,@132 in >!RO Record No. 3@+@. II THE ANTECENT FACTS OF THE PETITIONS AT BAR

$he dispute o/er !ots , and * did not end 0ith the termination of the 1997 Cacho case. Another four cases in/ol/in' the same parcels of land 0ere instituted before the trial courts durin' and after the pendenc( of the 1997 Cacho case. $hese cases are: 6,7 the -propriation Case, >.R. No. ,)+?)2< 6*7 the 5ectment or

Auietin' of $itle Case, >.R. Nos. ,)E))@ and ,)EE@1< 6?7 the

Cnla0ful #etainer Case, >.R. No. ,)+2+2 6e-ecution pendin' appeal before the R$C7 and >.R. Nos. ,)??22-23 and ,)?23?-31 6e-ecution pendin' appeal before the Court of Appeals7< and 617 the Cancellation of $itles and Re/ersion Case, >.R. No. ,)?1+,. $hese cases proceeded independentl( of each other in the courts a quo until the( reached this Court /ia the present Petitions. %n the

Resolution9*?: dated October ?, *++), the Court consolidated the se/en Petitions considerin' that the( either ori'inated from the same case or in/ol/ed similar issues. E,p &p iati&n Cas! 0G.R. N&. )234251

$he Complaint for -propriation 0as ori'inall( filed on Au'ust ,2, ,@E? b( the %ron and Steel Authorit( 6%SA7, no0 the NSC, a'ainst Maria Cristina GertiliBer Corporation 6MCGC7, and the latter;s mort'a'ee, the Philippine National .an8 6PN.7. $he Complaint 0as doc8eted as Ci/il Case No. ,+3 and raffled to R$C.ranch ,, presided o/er b( "ud'e Man'otara.

%SA 0as created pursuant to Presidential #ecree No. *)*@9*1: dated Au'ust @, ,@)?, to stren'then, de/elop, and promote the iron and steel industr( in the Philippines. %ts e-istence 0as e-tended until October ,+, ,@EE.

On No/ember ,3, ,@E*, durin' the e-istence of %SA, then President Gerdinand . Marcos issued Presidential Proclamation No. **?@,9*2: reser/in' in

fa/or of %SA a parcel of land in %li'an Cit(, measurin' ?+*,2?* s4uare meters or ?+.*2 hectares, to be de/oted to the inte'rated steel pro'ram of the >o/ernment. MCGC occupied certain portions of this parcel of land. Fhen ne'otiations 0ith MCGC failed, %SA 0as compelled to file a Complaint for -propriation.

Fhen the statutor( e-istence of %SA e-pired durin' the pendenc( of Ci/il Case No. ,+3, MCGC filed a Motion to #ismiss the case alle'in' the lac8 of capacit( to sue of %SA. $he R$C-.ranch , 'ranted the Motion to #ismiss in an Order dated No/ember @, ,@EE. %SA mo/ed for reconsideration or, in the alternati/e, for the substitution of the Republic as plaintiff in Ci/il Case No. ,+3, but the motion 0as denied b( R$C-.ranch ,. $he dismissal of Ci/il Case No. ,+3 0as affirmed b( the Court of Appeals, thus, %SA appealed to this Court. %n Iron and Steel uthorit! v. Court o" ##eals9*3: $IS case%, the Court remanded the case to R$C-.ranch ,, 0hich 0as ordered to allo0 the substitution of the Republic for %SA as plaintiff. ntr( of "ud'ment 0as made in the IS case on Au'ust ?,,

,@@E. %n an Order9*): dated No/ember ,3, *++,, the R$C-.ranch , allo0ed the substitution of the Republic for %SA as plaintiff in Ci/il Case No. ,+3.

Alle'in' that !ots , and * in/ol/ed in the 1997 Cacho case encroached and o/erlapped the parcel of land sub5ect of Ci/il Case No. ,+3, the Republic filed 0ith the R$C-.ranch , a Motion for !ea/e to Gile Supplemental Complaint dated October ), *++1 and to Admit the Attached Supplemental Complaint dated September *E, *++19*E: see8in' to implead in Ci/il Case No. ,+3 $eofilo Cacho and #emetria Vidal and their respecti/e successors-in-interest, !AN#$RA# and A&%MC$D.

MCGC opposed the Motion for lea/e to file and to admit the Supplemental Complaint on the 'round that the Republic 0as 0ithout le'al personalit( to file the same because %SA 0as the plaintiff in Ci/il Case No. ,+3. MCGC ar'ued that the Republic failed to mo/e for the e-ecution of the decision in the IS case 0ithin the prescripti/e period of fi/e (ears, hence, the onl( remed( left 0as for the Republic to file an independent action to re/i/e the 5ud'ment. MCGC further pointed out that the unreasonable dela( of more than si- (ears of the Republic in see8in' the substitution and continuation of the action for e-propriation effecti/el( barred an( further proceedin's therein on the 'round of estoppel b( laches.

%n its Repl(, the Republic referred to the Order dated No/ember ,3, *++, of the R$C-.ranch , allo0in' the substitution of the Republic for %SA.

%n an Order dated April 1, *++2, the R$C-.ranch , denied the Motion of the Republic for lea/e to file and to admit its Supplemental Complaint. $he R$C-

.ranch , a'reed 0ith MCGC that the Republic did not file an( motion for e-ecution of the 5ud'ment of this Court in the IS case. Since no such motion for e-ecution had been filed, the R$C-.ranch , ruled that its Order dated No/ember ,3, *++,, 0hich effected the substitution of the Republic for %SA as plaintiff in Ci/il Case No. ,+3, 0as an honest mista8e. $he Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the April 1, *++2 Order of the R$C-.ranch ,.

MCGC then filed a Motion to #ismiss Ci/il Case No. ,+3 for: 6,7 failure of the Republic to implead indispensable parties because MCGC insisted it 0as not the o0ner of the parcels of land sou'ht to be e-propriated< and 6*7 forum shoppin' considerin' the institution b( the Republic on October ,?, *++1 of an action for the re/ersion of the same parcels sub5ect of the instant case for e-propriation.

"ud'e Man'otara of R$C-.ranch , issued a Resolution 9*@: on "ul( ,*, *++2, den(in' for lac8 of merit the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated April 1, *++2 filed b( the Republic, and 'rantin' the Motion to #ismiss Ci/il Case No. ,+3 filed b( MCGC. "ud'e Man'otara 5ustified the dismissal of the -propriation Case thus:
Fhat the Republic see8s 9herein: is the e-propriation of the sub5ect parcels of land. Since the e-ercise of the po0er of eminent domain in/ol/es the ta8in' of pri/ate lands intended for public use upon pa(ment of 5ust compensation to the o0ner - - -, then a complaint for e-propriation must, of necessit(, be directed a'ainst the o0ner of the land sub5ect thereof. %n the case at bar, the decision of the Supreme Court in Cacho v. &overnment o" the United States - - -, decreein' the re'istration of the sub5ect parcels of land in the name of the late #oHa #emetria Cacho has lon' attained finalit( and is conclusi/e as to the

4uestion of o0nership thereof. Since MCGC, the onl( defendant left in this case, is not a proper part( defendant in this complaint for e-propriation, the present case should be dismissed. $his Court notes that the Republic 9has filed re/ersion proceedin's: dated September *), *++1, in/ol/in' the same parcels of land, doc8eted as Case No. 33E3 pendin' before the Re'ional $rial Court of !anao del Norte, %li'an Cit( .ranch 1. 9$he Republic:, ho0e/er, did not state such fact in its KVerification and Certification of Non-Gorum Shoppin'L attached to its Supplemental Complaint dated September *E, *++1. 9%t is therefore: 'uilt( of forum shoppin'. Moreo/er, considerin' that in the Re/ersion case, 9the Republic: asserts o0nership o/er the sub5ect parcels of land, it cannot be allo0ed to ta8e an inconsistent position in this e-propriation case 0ithout ma8in' a moc8er( of 5ustice.9?+:

$he Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated "ul( ,*, *++2, insofar as it dismissed Ci/il Case No. ,+3, but said Motion 0as denied b( "ud'e Man'atora in a Resolution9?,: dated October *1, *++2.

On "anuar( ,3, *++3, the Republic filed 0ith this Court the consolidated Petition for Re/ie0 on Certiorari and Petition forCertiorari under Rules 12 and 32 of the Rules of Court, respecti/el(, doc8eted as >.R. No. ,)+?)2. Th! E%i!tin# &' Tit(! Cas! 0G.R. N&s. )2=22> an" )2==>;1

#emetria Vidal 6Vidal7 and A&%MC$D filed on No/ember ,E, ,@@E, a Petition9?*: for Auietin' of $itle a'ainst $eofilo, Att(. Cabildo, and the Re'ister of

#eeds of %li'an Cit(, 0hich 0as doc8eted as Ci/il Case No. 112* and raffled to R$C-.ranch ?.

%n the Petition, Vidal claimed that she, and not $eofilo, 0as the late #oHa #emetria;s sole sur/i/in' heir, entitled to the parcels of land co/ered b( OC$ Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7. She a/erred that she is the dau'hter of Grancisco Cacho Vidal 6Grancisco7 and Gidela Arellano Confesor. Grancisco 0as the onl( child of #on #ionisio Vidal and #oHa #emetria.

A&%MC$D, for its part, filed the Petition as Vidal;s successor-in-interest 0ith respect to a *?-hectare portion of the sub5ect parcels of land pursuant to the Memorandum of A'reement dated April *, ,@@E and #eed of Conditional Con/e(ance dated Au'ust ,?, *++1, 0hich Vidal e-ecuted in fa/or of A&%MC$D.

$eofilo opposed the Petition contendin' that it stated no cause of action because there 0as no title bein' disturbed or in dan'er of bein' lost due to the claim of a third part(, and Vidal had neither le'al nor beneficial o0nership of the parcels of land in 4uestion< that the matter and issues raised in the Petition had alread( been tried, heard, and decided b( the R$C of %li'an Cit( and affirmed 0ith finalit( b( this Court in the 1997 Cacho case< and that the Petition 0as barred b( the Statute of !imitations and laches.

!AN#$RA# , amon' other parties, 0as allo0ed b( the R$C-.ranch ? to inter/ene in Ci/il Case No. 112*. !AN#$RA# alle'ed that it is the o0ner of a

portion of the sub5ect parcels of land, measurin' *)+,*22 s4uare meters or about *).+? hectares,0hich it purportedl( ac4uired throu'h a #eed of Absolute Sale dated October ,, ,@@3 from $eofilo, represented b( Att(. Cabildo. !AN#$RA# essentiall( ar'ued that VidalMs ri'ht as heir should be ad5udicated upon in a separate and independent proceedin' and not in the instant Auietin' of $itle Case.

#urin' the pre-trial conference, the parties manifested that there 0as no possibilit( of an( amicable settlement amon' them.

Vidal and A&%MC$D submitted testimonial and documentar( e/idence durin' the trial before the R$C-.ranch ?. $eofilo and Att(. Cabildo failed to present an( e/idence as the( did not appear at all durin' the trial, 0hile !AN#$RA# 0as declared b( the R$C-.ranch ? to ha/e 0ai/ed its ri'ht to

present e/idence on its defense and counterclaim.

On "ul( ,), *++1, the R$C-.ranch ? rendered its #ecision 9??: in Ci/il Case No. 112* in fa/or of Vidal and A&%MC$D, the dispositi/e portion of 0hich reads:
FD R GOR , 5ud'ment is hereb( rendered in fa/or of the petitioners and a'ainst the respondents and inter/enors: ,7 # C!AR%N>: a.7 Petitioner #emetria C. Vidal the sole sur/i/in' heir of the late #oHa #emetria Cacho< b.7 Petitioner #emetria C. Vidal alone has the hereditar( ri'ht to and interest in the Sub5ect Propert(<

c.7 Petitioner ABimuth %nternational #e/elopment Corporation is the successor-in-interest of petitioner #emetria C. Vidal to a portion of the Sub5ect Propert( to the e-tent pro/ided in their * April ,@@E Memorandum of A'reement and ,? Au'ust ,@@E #eed of Conditional Con/e(ance< d.7 Respondent $eofilo Cacho is not a son or heir of the late #ona #emetria Cacho< and e.7 Respondent $eofilo Cacho, >odofredo Cabildo and an( of their transferees=assi'nees ha/e no /alid ri'ht to or interest in the Sub5ect Propert(. *7 OR# R%N>: a.7 Respondent Re'ister of #eeds of %li'an Cit(, and an( other person actin' in his behalf, stop, cease and desist: i7 Grom acceptin' or re'isterin' an( affida/it of self- ad5udication or an( other document e-ecuted b( respondents $eofilo Cacho, >odofredo Cabildo and=or an( other person 0hich in an( 0a( transfers the title to the Sub5ect Propert( from #ona #emetria Cacho to respondent $eofilo Cacho, >odofredo Cabildo and=or an( of their transferees=assi'nees, includin' the inter/enors. ii7 Grom cancellin' the OC$s or an( certificate of title o/er the Sub5ect Propert( in the name of #emetria Cacho or an( successor certificate of title, and from issuin' ne0 certificates of title in the name of respondents $eofilo Cacho, >odofredo Cabildo their transferees=assi'nees, includin' the inter/enors. b7 Respondents $eofilo Cacho, >odofredo Cabildo, their transferees=assi'nees, and an( other person actin' in their behalf, to stop, cease and desist:

i7 Grom e-ecutin', submittin' to an( Re'ister of #eeds, or re'isterin' or causin' to be re'istered therein, an( affida/it of selfad5udication or an( other document 0hich in an( 0a( transfers title to the Sub5ect Propert( from #emetria Cacho to respondents $eofilo Cacho, >odofredo Cabildo and=or an( of their transferees=assi'nees, includin' the inter/enors. ii7 Grom cancelin' or causin' the cancellation of OC$s or an( certificate of title o/er the Sub5ect Propert( in the name of #emetria Cacho or an( successor certificate of title, and from issuin' ne0 certificates of title in the name of respondent $eofilo Cacho, >odofredo Cabildo and=or an( of their transferees=assi'nees, includin' the inter/enors. iii7 Grom claimin' or representin' in an( manner that respondent $eofilo Cacho is the son or heir of #emetria Cacho or has ri'hts to or interest in the Sub5ect Propert(. ?7 OR# R%N> respondents $eofilo Cacho and Att(. >odofredo Cabildo to pa( petitioners, 5ointl( and se/erall(, the follo0in': a7 Gor temperate dama'es P E+,+++.++ b7 Gor nominal dama'es P 3+,+++.++ c7 Gor moral dama'es P2++,+++.++ d7 Gor e-emplar( dama'es P 2++,+++.++ e7 Gor attorne(Ms fees 6ACCRA !a07-P,,+++,+++.++ f7 Gor Attorne(Ms fees P2++,+++.++ 6Att(. Voltaire Ro/ira7 '7 Gor liti'ation e-penses P?++,+++.++ Gor lac8 of factual and le'al basis, the counterclaim of $eofilo Cacho and Att(. >odofredo Cabildo is hereb( dismissed. !i8e0ise, the counterclaim of inter/enor %##=%n/esta is dismissed for lac8 of basis as the petitioners succeeded in pro/in' their cause of action.

On the cross-claim of inter/enor %##=%n/esta, respondents $eofilo Cacho and Att(. >odofredo Cabildo are OR# R # to pa( %##=%n/esta, 5ointl( and se/erall(, the principal sum of P2,1??,+?3 0ith ,2N interest per annum. Gor lac8 of le'al basis, the counterclaim of %nter/enor !andtrade Realt( #e/elopment Corporation is dismissed. !i8e0ise, %nter/enor Man'ueraMs counterclaim is dismissed for lac8 of le'al basis.9?1:

$he 5oint appeal filed b( !AN#$RA# , $eofilo, and Att(. Cabildo 0ith the Court of Appeals 0as doc8eted as CA->.R. CV No. ++123. $he Court of Appeals, in its #ecision9?2: of "anuar( ,@, *++), affirmed in toto the #ecision dated "ul( ,), *++1 of the R$C-.ranch ?.

Accordin' to the Court of Appeals, the R$C-.ranch ? did not err in resol/in' the issue on Vidal;s status, filiation, and hereditar( ri'hts as it is determinati/e of the issue on o0nership of the sub5ect properties. %t 0as

indubitable that the R$C-.ranch ? had 5urisdiction o/er the person of $eofilo and 5uridical personalit( of !AN#$RA# as the( both filed their Ans0ers to the

Petition for Auietin' of $itle thereb( /oluntaril( submittin' themsel/es to the 5urisdiction of said trial court. !i8e0ise, the Petition for Auietin' of $itle is in itself 0ithin the 5urisdiction of the R$C-.ranch ?. Dence, 0here there is 5urisdiction o/er the person and sub5ect matter, the resolution of all other 4uestions arisin' in the case is but an e-ercise b( the court of its 5urisdiction. Moreo/er, $eofilo and !AN#$RA# 0ere 'uilt( of estoppel b(

laches for failin' to assail the 5urisdiction of the R$C-.ranch ? at the first opportunit( and e/en acti/el( participatin' in the trial of the case and see8in' affirmati/e reliefs.

%n addition, the Court of Appeals held that the 1997 Cacho case onl( determined the /alidit( and efficac( of the Affida/it of Ad5udication that $eofilo e-ecuted before the Philippine Consulate >eneral in the C.S.A. $he decision of this Court in the 1997 Cacho case, 0hich had become final and e-ecutor(, did not /est upon $eofilo o0nership of the parcels of land as it merel( ordered the reissuance of a lost duplicate certificate of title in its ori'inal form and condition.

$he Court of Appeals a'reed in the findin' of the R$C-.ranch ? that the e/idence on record preponderantl( supports Vidal;s claim of bein' the 'randdau'hter and sole heiress of the late #oHa #emetria. $he appellate court further ad5ud'ed that Vidal did not dela( in assertin' her ri'hts o/er the sub5ect parcels of land. $he prescripti/e period for real actions o/er immo/ables is ?+ (ears. Vidal;s ri'hts as #oHa #emetria;s successor-in-interest accrued upon the latter;s death in ,@)1, and onl( *1 (ears thereafter, in ,@@E, Vidal alread( filed the present Petition for Auietin' of $itle. $hus, Vidal;s cause of action had not (et prescribed. And, 0here the action 0as filed 0ithin the prescripti/e period pro/ided b( la0, the doctrine of laches 0as also inapplicable.

!AN#$RA# , $eofilo, and Att(. Cabildo filed separate Motions for Reconsideration of the "anuar( ,@, *++) #ecision of the Court of Appeals, 0hich 0ere denied in the "ul( 1, *++) Resolution9?3: of the same court.

On Au'ust *1, *++), !AN#$RA#

filed 0ith this Court a Petition for

Re/ie0 on Certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, 0hich 0as doc8eted as >.R. No. ,)E))@. On September 3, *++), $eofilo and Att(. Cabildo filed their o0n Petition for Re/ie0 on Certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, 0hich 0as doc8eted as >.R. No. ,)EE@1. Th! EB!ct<!nt & Un(a6'%( D!tain! Cas! 0G.R. N&s. )23535, )24455-5:, an" )245:4-:;1

$hree Petitions before this Court are rooted in the Cnla0ful #etainer Case instituted b( !AN#$RA# a'ainst NAPOCOR and $RANSCO.

On Au'ust @, ,@2*, NAPOCOR too8 possession of t0o parcels of land in Sitio Nunucan, O/erton, Guentes, %li'an Cit(, denominated as !ots *+*@ and *+1?, consistin' of ?,2EE s4uare meters 6or +.?3 hectares7 and ?,,)) s4uare meters 6or +.?* hectares7, respecti/el(. On !ot *+*@, NAPOCOR constructed its po0er substation, 8no0n as the O/erton Sub-station, 0hile on !ot *+1?, it built a 0arehouse, 8no0n as the A'us ) Farehouse, both for the use of its A'us ) D(dro- lectric Po0er Plant. Gor more than ?+ (ears, NAPOCOR occupied and possessed said parcels of land pursuant to its charter, Republic Act No. 3?@2. 9?): Fith the enactment in *++, of Republic Act No. @,?3, other0ise 8no0n as the lectric

Po0er %ndustr( Reform Act 6 P%RA7, $RANSCO assumed the functions of NAPOCOR 0ith re'ard to electrical transmissions and too8 o/er possession of the O/erton Sub-station.

Claimin' o0nership of the parcels of land 0here the O/erton Sub-station and A'us ) Farehouse are located, !AN#$RA# filed 0ith the M$CC on April @, *++? a Complaint for Cnla0ful #etainer a'ainst NAPOCOR and $RANSCO, 0hich 0as doc8eted as Ci/il Case No. ,,1)2-AG.

%n its Complaint, !AN#$RA#

alle'ed that it ac4uired from $eofilo,

throu'h Att(. Cabildo, t0o parcels of land at Sitio Nunucan, O/erton, Guentes, .r'(. Maria Cristina, %li'an Cit(, 0ith a combined area of *)+,*22 s4uare meters or around *).+? hectares, as e/idenced b( a #eed of Absolute Sale 9?E: dated October ,, ,@@3. Certain portions of said parcels of land 0ere bein' occupied b( the O/erton Sub-station and A'us ) Farehouse of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO, throu'h the tolerance of !AN#$RA# . Cpon failure of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO to pa( rentals or to /acate the sub5ect properties after demands to do so, !AN#$RA# filed the present Complaint for Cnla0ful #etainer, plus

dama'es in the amount of P12+,+++.++ as (earl( rental from date of the first e-tra5udicial demand until NAPOCOR and $RANSCO /acate the sub5ect properties.

%n their separate Ans0ers, NAPOCOR and $RANSCO denied the material alle'ations in the Complaint and countered, b( 0a( of special and affirmati/e defenses, that the Complaint 0as barred b( res judicata' that the M$CC has no

5urisdiction o/er the sub5ect matter of the action< and that !AN#$RA# lac8ed the le'al capacit( to sue.

On Gebruar( ,), *++1, the M$CC rendered its #ecision 9?@: in fa/or of !AN#$RA# . $he M$CC disposed:
FD R GOR , premises considered, 5ud'ment is hereb( rendered in fa/or of Plaintiff !and $rade Realt( Corporation represented b( Att(. Ma- C. $abimina and a'ainst defendant National Po0er Corporation represented b( its President, Mr. Ro'elio M. Mur'a and codefendant $RANSCO represented b( its President #r. Allan $. OrtiB and n'r. !orr(mir A. AdaBa, Mana'er, NAPOCOR-Mindanao, Re'ional Center, Ma. Cristina, %li'an Cit(, orderin': ,. #efendants National Po0er Corporation and $RANSCO, their a'ents or representati/es or an( person=s actin' on its behalf or under its authorit( to /acate the premises< *. #efendants NAPOCOR and $RANSCO to pa( Plaintiff 5ointl( and solidaril(: a. Php2++,+++.++ a month representin' fair rental /alue or compensation since "une *@, ,@)E until defendant shall ha/e /acated the premises< b. Php*+,+++.++ for and as attorne(;s fees and c. Cost of suit. -ecution shall issue immediatel( upon motion, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to sta( e-ecution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, appro/ed b( this Court and e-ecuted in fa/or of the plaintiff, to pa( the rents, dama'es, and costs accruin' do0n to the time of 5ud'ment appealed from, and unless, durin' the pendenc( of the appeal, defendants deposit 0ith the appellate court the amount of P2++,+++.++ per month, as reasonable /alue of the use and occupanc( of the premises for the precedin' month or period on or before the tenth da( of each succeedin' month or period.91+:

NAPOCOR and $RANSCO seasonabl( filed a "oint Notice of Appeal. $heir appeal, doc8eted as Ci/il Case No. 33,?, 0as initiall( assi'ned to the R$C-.ranch 2, presided o/er b( "ud'e Ma-imino Ma'no !ibre 6"ud'e !ibre7.

!AN#$RA# filed on "une *1, *++1 a Motion for -ecution, assertin' that NAPOCOR and $RANSCO had neither filed asu#ersedeas bond 0ith the M$CC nor periodicall( deposited 0ith the R$C the monthl( rental for the properties in 4uestion, so as to sta( the immediate e-ecution pendin' appeal of the M$CC 5ud'ment. Do0e/er, the said Motion failed to compl( 0ith the re4uired notice of hearin' under Rule ,2, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. !AN#$RA# then filed a Motion to Fithdra0 and=or Replace Notice of Dearin'.

NAPOCOR and $RANSCO filed on "ul( ,?, *++1 a "oint Motion to Suspend Proceedin's citin' magan v. Mara!ag,91,: in 0hich the Court ruled that if circumstances should re4uire, the proceedin's in an e5ectment case ma( be suspended in 0hate/er sta'e it ma( be found. Since !AN#$RA# anchors its

ri'ht to possession of the sub5ect parcels of land on the #eed of Sale e-ecuted in its fa/or b( $eofilo on October ,, ,@@3, the e5ectment case should be held in abe(ance pendin' the resolution of other cases in 0hich title o/er the same properties are in issue, i.e., 6,7 Ci/il Case No. 33++, the action for the annulment of the #eed of Sale dated October ,, ,@@3 filed b( $eofilo a'ainst !AN#$RA# pendin' before the R$C-.ranch 1< and 6*7 Ci/il Case No. 112*, the Auietin' of

$itle Case filed b( Vidal and A&%MC$D a'ainst $eofilo and Att(. Cabildo pendin' before the R$C-.ranch ?.

!AN#$RA# filed on "ul( ,@, *++1 another Motion for -ecution, 0hich 0as heard to'ether 0ith the "oint Motion to Suspend Proceedin's of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO. After said hearin', the R$C-.ranch 2 directed the parties to file their memoranda on the t0o pendin' Motions.

!AN#$RA# , in its Memorandum, maintained that the pendenc( of Ci/il Case No. 112*, the Auietin' of $itle Case, should not preclude the e-ecution of the M$CC 5ud'ment in the Cnla0ful #etainer Case because the issue in/ol/ed in the latter 0as onl( the material possession or #ossession de "acto of the parcels of land in 4uestion. !AN#$RA# also reported that Ci/il Case No. 33++, the action for annulment of the #eed of Sale dated October ,, ,@@3 instituted b( $eofilo, 0as alread( dismissed 'i/en that the R$C-.ranch 1 had appro/ed the Compromise A'reement e-ecuted bet0een !AN#$RA# and $eofilo.

NAPOCOR

and

$RANSCO

li8e0ise

filed

their

respecti/e

Memoranda. Subse4uentl(, NAPOCOR filed a Supplement to its Memorandum to brin' to the attention of the R$C-.ranch 2 the #ecision rendered on "ul( ,), *++1 b( the R$C-.ranch ? in Ci/il Case No. 112*, the Auietin' of $itle Case, cate'oricall( declarin' $eofilo, the predecessor-in-interest of !AN#$RA# , as ha/in' no ri'ht at all to the sub5ect parcels of land. Resultantl(, the ri'ht of

!AN#$RA# to the t0o properties, 0hich merel( emanated from $eofilo, 0as effecti/el( declared as non-e-istent too.

On Au'ust 1, *++1, the R$C-.ranch 2 issued an Order 91*: den(in' the "oint Motion to Suspend Proceedin's of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO. $he R$C held that the pendenc( of other actions in/ol/in' the same parcels of land could not sta( e-ecution pendin' appeal of the M$CC 5ud'ment because NAPOCOR and $RANSCO failed to post the re4uired bond and pa( the monthl( rentals.

Gi/e da(s later, on Au'ust @, *++1, the R$C-.ranch 2 issued another Order91?: 'rantin' the Motion of !AN#$RA# M$CC 5ud'ment pendin' appeal. for e-ecution of the

$he ne-t da(, on Au'ust ,+, *++1, the Actin' Cler8 of Court, Att(. "oel M. Macara(a, "r., issued a Frit of -ecution Pendin' Appeal911: 0hich directed Sheriff %V Alberto O. .orres 6Sheriff .orres7 to e-ecute the M$CC #ecision dated Gebruar( ,), *++1.

A da( later, on Au'ust ,,, *++1, Sheriff .orres issued t0o Notices of >arnishment912: addressed to PN. and !and .an8 of the Philippines in %li'an Cit(, 'arnishin' all the 'oods, effects, stoc8s, interests in stoc8s and shares, and an( other personal properties belon'in' to NAPOCOR and $RANSCO 0hich 0ere bein' held b( and under the possession and control of said ban8s. On e/en date, Sheriff .orres also issued a Notification913: to NAPOCOR and $RANSCO for them

to /acate the sub5ect parcels of land< and to pa( !AN#$RA#

the sums of

6a7 P,23,+++,+++.++, representin' the total fair rental /alue for the said properties, computed at P2++,+++.++ per month, be'innin' "une *@, ,@)E until "une *@, *++1, or for a period of *3 (ears, and 6b7 P*+,+++.++ as attorne(Ms fees.

$hereafter, NAPOCOR and $RANSCO each filed before the Court of Appeals in Ca'a(an de Oro Cit( a Petition forCertiorari, under Rule 32 of the Rules of Court, 0ith pra(er for the issuance of a $RO and 0rit of preliminar( in5unction. $he Petitions, doc8eted as CA->.R. SP Nos. E2,)1 and E2E1,, 0ere e/entuall( consolidated.

$he Court of Appeals issued on Au'ust ,E, *++1 a $RO 91): en5oinin' the enforcement and implementation of the Order of -ecution and Frit of -ecution Pendin' Appeal of the R$C-.ranch 2 and Notices of >arnishment and Notification of Sheriff .orres.

$he Court of Appeals, in its #ecision91E: dated No/ember *?, *++2, determined that public respondents did commit 'ra/e abuse of discretion in allo0in' and=or effectin' the e-ecution of the M$CC 5ud'ment pendin' appeal, since NAPOCOR and $RANSCO 0ere le'all( e-cused from compl(in' 0ith the re4uirements for a sta( of e-ecution specified in Rule )+, Section ,@ of the Rules of Court, particularl(, the postin' of a su#ersedeas bond and periodic deposits of rental pa(ments. $he decretal portion of said appellate court #ecision states:

ACCOR#%N>!O, the t0o petitions at bench are >RAN$ #< the Order dated @ Au'ust *++1, the Frit of -ecution Pendin' Appeal dated ,+ Au'ust *++1, the t0o Notices of >arnishment dated ,, Au'ust *++1, and the Notification dated ,, Au'ust *++1, are ANNC!! # and S $ AS%# .91@:

#ispleased, !AN#$RA#

ele/ated the case to this Court on "anuar( ,+,

*++3 via a Petition for Re/ie0 on Certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, 0hich 0as doc8eted as >.R. No. ,)+2+2.

%n the meantime, 0ith the retirement of "ud'e !ibre and the inhibition 92+: of "ud'e Oscar .adelles, the ne0 presidin' 5ud'e of R$C-.ranch 2, Ci/il Case No. 33,? 0as re-raffled to the R$C-.ranch ,, presided o/er b( "ud'e Man'otara. $he R$C-.ranch , promul'ated on #ecember ,*, *++2 a #ecision 92,: in Ci/il Case No. 33,? 0hich affirmed in toto the Gebruar( ,), *++1 #ecision of the M$CC in Ci/il Case No. ,,1)2-AG fa/orin' !AN#$RA# .

NAPOCOR and $RANSCO filed 0ith the R$C-.ranch , t0in Motions, namel(: 6,7 Motion for Reconsideration of the #ecision dated #ecember ,*, *++2< and 6*7 Motion for %nhibition of "ud'e Man'otara. $he R$C-.ranch , denied both Motions in a Resolution dated "anuar( ?+, *++3.

NAPOCOR and $RANSCO filed 0ith the Court of Appeals separate Petitions for Re/ie0 0ith pra(er for $RO and=or a 0rit of preliminar( in5unction, 0hich 0ere doc8eted as CA->.R. SP Nos. ++E21 and ++EE@, respecti/el(. %n a

Resolution dated March *1, *++3, the Court of Appeals 'ranted the pra(er for $RO of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO.

Fith the impendin' lapse of the effecti/it( of the $RO on Ma( *?, *++3, NAPOCOR filed on Ma( ,2, *++3 0ith the Court of Appeals a Manifestation and Motion pra(in' for the resolution of its application for preliminar( in5unction.

On Ma( *?, *++3, the same da( the $RO lapsed, the Court of Appeals 'ranted the motions for e-tension of time to file a consolidated comment of !AN#$RA# . $0o da(s later, !AN#$RA# filed an Omnibus Motion see8in' the issuance of 6,7 a 0rit of e-ecution pendin' appeal, and 6*7 the desi'nation of a special sheriff in accordance 0ith Rule )+, Section *, of the Rules of Court.

%n a Resolution92*: dated "une ?+, *++3, the Court of Appeals 'ranted the Omnibus Motion of !AN#$RA# and denied the applications for the issuance of a 0rit of preliminar( in5unction of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO. %n effect, the appellate court authoriBed the e-ecution pendin' appeal of the 5ud'ment of the M$CC, affirmed b( the R$C-.ranch ,, thus:
%N !%>D$ OG $D A.OV #%SAC%S%$%ONS, this Court resol/es to 'rant the 9!AN#RA# :;s omnibus motion for e-ecution pendin' appeal of the decision rendered in its fa/or 0hich is bein' assailed in these consolidated petitions for re/ie0. Accordin'l(, the 9NAPOCOR and $RANSCO;s: respecti/e applications for issuance of 0rit of preliminar( in5unction are both denied for lac8 of factual and le'al bases. $he Municipal $rial Court in Cities, .ranch *, %li'an Cit(, 0hich at present has the custod( of the records of the case a quo, is hereb( ordered to cause the immediate issuance of a 0rit of e-ecution

relati/e to its decision dated ,) Gebruar( *++1 in Ci/il Case No. ,,1)2AG.92?:

On "ul( *+, *++3, NAPOCOR filed 0ith this Court a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 32 of the Rules of Court 0ith an ur'ent plea for a $RO, doc8eted as >.R. No. ,)??22-23. On Au'ust *, *++3, $RANSCO filed 0ith this Court its o0n Petition for Certiorari, doc8eted as >.R. No. ,)?23?31.

On "ul( *,, *++3, NAPOCOR filed an Cr'ent Motion for the %ssuance of a $RO in >.R. No. ,)??22-23. %n a Resolution921:dated "ul( *3, *++3, the Court 'ranted the Motion of NAPOCOR and issued a $RO,922: effecti/e immediatel(, 0hich en5oined public and pri/ate respondents from implementin' the Resolution dated "une ?+, *++3 of the Court of Appeals in CA->.R. SP Nos. ++E21 and ++EE@ and the #ecision dated Gebruar( ,), *++1 of the M$CC in Ci/il Case No. ,,1)2AG.

On "ul( ?,, *++3, Vidal and A&%MC$D filed a Motion for !ea/e to %nter/ene and to Admit Attached Comment-in-%nter/ention, contendin' therein that Vidal 0as the la0ful o0ner of the parcels of land sub5ect of the Cnla0ful #etainer Case as confirmed in the #ecision dated "ul( ,), *++1 of the R$C-.ranch ? in Ci/il Case No. 112*. %n a Resolution dated September ?+, *++3, the Court re4uired the parties to comment on the Motion of Vidal and A&%MC$D, and deferred action on the said Motion pendin' the submission of such comments.

Th! Canc!((ati&n &' Tit(!s an" R!7! si&n Cas! 0G.R. N&. )24;3)1

On October ,?, *++1, the Republic filed a Complaint for the Cancellation of OC$ Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7 and Re/ersion a'ainst the late #oHa #emetria, represented b( her alle'ed heirs, Vidal and=or $eofilo, to'ether 0ith A&%MC$D and !AN#$RA# . $he Complaint, doc8eted as Ci/il Case No. 33E3, 0as raffled to the R$C-.ranch 1.

$he Republic sou'ht the cancellation of OC$ Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7 and the re/ersion of the parcels of land co/ered thereb( to the >o/ernment based on the follo0in' alle'ations in its Complaint, under the headin' KCause of ActionL:
2. On October ,2, ,@@E, Ori'inal Certificates of $itle 6OC$s7 Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7 0ere issued in the name of K#emetria Cacho, 0ido0, no0 deceasedPL consistin' of a total area of $hree Dundred Se/ent(- i'ht $housand Se/en Dundred and Se/en 6?)E,)+)7 s4uare meters and $hree $housand Se/en Dundred $hirt(Gi/e 6?,3?27 s4uare meters, respecti/el(, situated in %li'an Cit(, - - ---3. $he afore-stated titles 0ere issued in implementation of a decision rendered in !RC 6>!RO7 Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@ dated #ecember ,+, ,@,*, as affirmed b( the Donorable Supreme Court in Cacho /. >o/ernment of the Cnited States, *E Phil. 3,3 6#ecember ,+, ,@,17, ). $he decision in !RC 6>!RO7 Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@, upon 0hich the titles 0ere issued, did not 'rant the entire area applied for therein. - - -

---@. As e/ents turned out, the titles issued in connection 0ith !RC 6>!RO7 Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@ Q i.e. OC$ Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7 Q co/er propert( MCCD !AR> R in area than that 'ranted b( the land re'istration court in its correspondin' decision, supra. ,+. Fhile the !RC #ecision, as affirmed b( the Donorable Supreme Court, 'ranted onl( the southern part of the ?).E) hectare land sub5ect of LRC 0GLRO1 R!c& " Cas! N&. :>3> , the ENTIRE 42.=2 hectares is indicated as the propert( co/ered b( OC$ +-,*++ 6a.f.7. Forse, OC$ No. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 made reference to Cas! N&. :>3= as basis thereof, (et, the decision in said case is clear: 6i7 $he parcel Kob5ect of Case No. :>3= is s<a((L 6Cacho /s. >o/ernment of the Cnited States, *E Phil. 3,3, p. 3,@7 K$he parcel of land claimed b( the applicant in Case N&. :>3> is the bi''er of t0o parcels and contains 42.=2 h!cta !sPL

6ii7

,,. More si'nificantl(, the technical description in Ori'inal Certificate of $itle No. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 specifies the date of sur/e( as KAu'ust ?, to September ,, ,@,+,L 0hich is AR!% R than the date the Supreme Court, in Cacho supra, resol/ed !RC 6>!RO7 Record No. 3@+@ 6in/ol/in' ?).E) hectares7. %n resol/in' the application in/ol/in' the 42.=2 h!cta !s, the Donorable Supreme Court declared that onl( the s&%th! n pa t of the ?).E) hectare propert( applied for is 'ranted and that a n!6 s% 7!y specif(in' the Ksouthern partL thereof should be submitted. Accordin'l(, an( sur/e( in/ol/in' the K'ranted southern partL should bear a date subse4uent to the #ecember ,+, ,@,1 Supreme Court decision. - - ---,*. $he Donorable Supreme Court further declared that the #ecision in !RC 6>!RO7 Record No. 3@+@ 0as reser/ed:

KGinal decision in these case is reser/ed until the presentation of the P ne0 plan.L 6*E Phil. 3,3, p. 3?,< Cnderscorin' supplied7 %n other 0ords, as of #ecember ,+, ,@,1, 0hen the Donorable Supreme Court rendered its #ecision on appeal in !RC 6>!RO7 Record No. 3@+@, Kfinal decisionL of the case 0as still reser/ed until the presentation of a n!6 p(an. $he metes and bounds of OC$ No. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 could not ha/e been the technical description of the propert( 'ranted b( the court Q described as Kthe southern part of the lar'e parcel ob5ect of e-pediente 3@+@ onl(L 6Cach& 7s. G&7! n<!nt &' th! Unit!" Stat!s, A= Phi(. :)2, :A>7. As earlier stated, the technical description appearin' in said title 0as the result of a sur/e( conducted in )>)3 or before the Supreme Court decision 0as rendered in )>);. ,?. %n the same /ein, Ori'inal Certificate of $itle No. +-,*+, 6a.f.7 specifies !RC 6>!RO7 Record No. :>3> as the basis thereof 6see front pa'e of OC$ No. +-,*+, 6a.f.77. Oet, the technical description ma8es, as its reference, !ot ,, Plan %%-?)?*, !R Case No. +1), LRC 0GLRO1 R!c& " N&. :>3= 6see pa'e * of said title7. A title issued pursuant to a decision ma( onl( co/er the propert( sub5ect of the case. A title cannot properl( be issued pursuant to a decision in Case 3@+@, but 0hose technical description is based on Case 3@+E. ,1. $he decision in !RC 6>!RO7 Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@ has become final and e-ecutor(, and it cannot be modified, much less result in an increased area of the propert( decreed therein. ---,3. %n sum, Ori'inal Certificates of $itle Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7, as issued, are null and /oid since the technical descriptions /is-R-/is the areas of the parcels of land co/ered therein 0ent be(ond the areas 'ranted b( the land re'istration court in !RC 6>!RO7 Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@.923:

Vidal and A&%MC$D filed a Motion to #ismiss dated #ecember *?, *++1 on the 'rounds that 6,7 the Republic has no cause of action< 6*7

assumin' arguendo that the Republic has a cause of action, its Complaint failed to state a cause of action< 6?7 assumin' arguendo that the Republic has a cause of action, the same is barred b( prior 5ud'ment< 617 assumin' further that the Republic has a cause of action, the same 0as e-tin'uished b( prescription< and 617 the Republic is 'uilt( of forum shoppin'.

Cpon motion of the Republic, the R$C-.ranch 1 issued an Order 92): dated October 1, *++2, declarin' !AN#$RA# and $eofilo, as represented b( Att(. Cabildo, in default since the( failed to submit their respecti/e ans0ers to the Complaint despite the proper ser/ice of summons upon them.

!AN#$RA#

subse4uentl( filed its Ans0er 0ith Compulsor(

Counterclaim dated September *E, *++2. %t also mo/ed for the settin' aside and reconsideration of the Order of #efault issued a'ainst it b( the R$C-.ranch 1 on October *+, *++2.

On #ecember ,?, *++2, the R$C-.ranch 1 issued an Order92E: dismissin' the Complaint of the Republic in Ci/il Case No. 33E3, completel( a'reein' 0ith Vidal and A&%MC$D.

$he R$C-.ranch 1 reasoned that the Republic had no cause of action because there 0as no sho0in' that the late #oHa #emetria committed an( 0ron'ful act or omission in /iolation of an( ri'ht of the Republic. #oHa #emetria had sufficientl( pro/en her o0nership o/er the parcels of land as borne

in the rulin' of the !RC in >!RO Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@. On the other hand, the Republic had no more ri'ht to the said parcels of land. $he Re'alian doctrine does not appl( in this case because the titles 0ere alread( issued to #oHa #emetria and se're'ated from the mass of the public domain.

$he R$C-.ranch 1 li8e0ise held that the Republic failed to state a cause of action in its Complaint. $he ar'uments of the Republic Q i.e., the absence of a ne0 sur/e( plan and deed, the titles co/ered properties 0ith much lar'er area than that 'ranted b( the !RC Q had been ans0ered s4uarel( in the 1997 Cacho case. Also, the Complaint failed to alle'e that fraud had been committed in ha/in' the titles re'istered and that the #irector of !ands re4uested the re/ersion of the sub5ect parcels of land.

$he R$C-.ranch 1 0as con/inced that the Complaint 0as barred b( res judicata because the 1914 Cacho case alread( decreed the re'istration of the parcels of land in the late #oHa #emetria;s name and the 1997 Cacho case settled that there 0as no merit in the ar'ument that the conditions imposed in the first case ha/e not been complied 0ith.

$he R$C-.ranch 1 0as li8e0ise persuaded that the cause of action or remed( of the Republic 0as lost or e-tin'uished b( prescription pursuant to Article ,,+3 of the Ci/il Code and Section ?* of Presidential #ecree No. ,2*@, other0ise 8no0n as the !and Re'istration #ecree, 0hich prescribes a one-(ear period 0ithin 0hich to file an action for the re/ie0 of a decree of re'istration.

Ginall(, the R$C-.ranch 1 found the Republic 'uilt( of forum shoppin' because there is bet0een this case, on one hand, and the 1914 and 1997 Cacho cases, on the other, identit( of parties, as 0ell as ri'hts asserted and reliefs pra(ed for, as the contendin' parties are claimin' ri'hts of o0nership o/er the same parcels of land.

$he Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of its Complaint but the same 0as denied b( the R$C-.ranch 1 in its Order 92@: dated Ma( ,3, *++3.

Assailin' the Orders dated #ecember ,?, *++2 and Ma( ,3, *++3 of the R$C-.ranch 1, the Republic filed on Au'ust ,,, *++3 a Petition for Re/ie0 on Certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, 0hich 0as doc8eted as >.R. No. ,)?1+,. III ISSUES AND DISCUSSIONS E,p &p iati&n Cas! 0G.R. N&. )234251

$he Republic, in its consolidated Petitions challen'in' the Resolutions dated "ul( ,*, *++2 and October *1, *++2 of the R$C-.ranch , in Ci/il Case No. ,+3, made the follo0in' assi'nment of errors:

R SPON# N$ "C#> >RAV !O RR # %N OR# R%N> $D #%SM%SSA! OG $D JPROPR%A$%ON COMP!A%N$ %N C%V%! CAS NO. ,+3 CONS%# R%N> $DA$: 6a7 $D NON-"O%N# R OG PAR$% S %S NO$ A >ROCN# GOR $D #%SM%SSA! OG AN AC$%ON PCRSCAN$ $O S C$%ON ,,, RC! ? OG $D ,@@) RC! S OG C%V%! PROC #CR < 6b7 AN JPROPR%A$%ON PROC #%N> %S AN AC$%ON ACAS% %N R M FD R %N $D GAC$ $DA$ $D OFN R OG $D PROP R$O %S MA# A PAR$O $O $D AC$%ON %S NO$ SS N$%A!!O %N#%SP NSA.! < 6c7 P $%$%ON R #%# NO$ COMM%$ ANO GORCM SDOPP%N> F%$D $D G%!%N> OG $D R V RS%ON COMP!A%N$ #OCS $ # AS C%V%! CAS NO. 33E3 FD%CD %S P N#%N> . GOR .RANCD 1 OG $D R >%ONA!$R%A! COCR$ OG %!%>AN C%$O.93+:

Filin of consolidated petitions under !oth "ules 4# and $#

At the outset, the Court notes that the Republic filed a pleadin' 0ith the caption Consolidated (etitions "or )evie* on Certiorari $Under )ule 4+% and Certiorari $Under )ule ,+% o" the )ules o" Court . $he Republic e-plains that it filed the Consolidated Petitions pursuant to Metro#olitan -ater*or.s and Se*erage S!stem $M-SS% v. Court o" ##eals93,: 6M-SS case7.

$he reliance of the Republic on the M-SS case to 5ustif( its mode of appeal is misplaced, ta8in' the pronouncements of this Court in said case out of conte-t.

$he issue in the M-SS case 0as 0hether a possessor in 'ood faith has the ri'ht to remo/e useful impro/ements, and not 0hether consolidated petitions under both Rules 12 and 32 of the Rules of Court can be filed. $herein petitioner MFSS simpl( filed an appeal b( certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, but named the Court of Appeals as a respondent. $he Court clarified that the onl( parties in an appeal b( certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court are the appellant as petitioner and the appellee as respondent. $he court 0hich rendered the 5ud'ment appealed from is not a part( in said appeal. %t is in the special ci/il action ofcertiorari under Rule 32 of the Rules of Court 0here the court or 5ud'e is re4uired to be 5oined as part( defendant or respondent. $he Court, ho0e/er, also ac8no0led'ed that there ma( be an instance 0hen in an appeal b( certiorari under Rule 12, the petitioner-appellant 0ould also claim that the court that rendered the appealed 5ud'ment acted 0ithout or in e-cess of its 5urisdiction or 0ith 'ra/e abuse of discretion, in 0hich case, such court should be 5oined as a part(-defendant or respondent. Fhile the Court ma( ha/e stated that in such an instance, Kthe petition for re/ie0 on certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court is at the same time a petition for certiorari under Rule 32,L the Court did not hold that consolidated petitions under both Rules 12 and 32 could or should be filed.

$he Court, in more recent cases, had been stricter and clearer on the distinction bet0een these t0o modes of appeal. %n/une0 v. &SIS 1amil! 2an.,
93*:

the Court elucidated3

%n 4igon v. Court o" ##eals 0here the therein petitioner described her petition as Kan appeal under Rule 12 and at the same time as a special ci/il action of certiorari under Rule 32 of the Rules of Court,L this Court, in fro0nin' o/er 0hat it described as a K chimera,L reiterated that the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutuall( e-clusi/e and not alternati/e nor successi/e . $o be sure, the distinctions bet0een Rules 12 and 32 are far and 0ide. Do0e/er, the most apparent is that errors of 5urisdiction are best re/ie0ed in a special ci/il action for certiorari under Rule 32 0hile errors of 5ud'ment can onl( be corrected b( appeal in a petition for re/ie0 under Rule 12.

.ut in the same case, the Court also held that:

$his Court, - - -, in accordance 0ith the liberal spirit 0hich per/ades the Rules of Court and in the interest of 5ustice ma( treat a petition for certiorari as ha/in' been filed under Rule 12, more so if the same 0as filed 0ithin the re'lementar( period for filin' a petition for re/ie0.93?:

%t is apparent in the case at bar that the Republic a/ailed itself of the 0ron' mode of appeal b( filin' Consolidated Petitions for Re/ie0 under Rule 12 and for Certiorari under Rule 32, 0hen these are t0o separate remedies that are mutuall( e-clusi/e and neither alternati/e nor successi/e. Ne/ertheless, the Court shall treat the Consolidated Petitions as a Petition for Re/ie0 on Certiorari under Rule 12 and the alle'ations therein as errors of 5ud'ment. As the records sho0, the Petition 0as filed on time under Rules 12. .efore the lapse of the ,2-da( re'lementar( period to appeal under Rule 12, the Republic filed 0ith the Court a motion for e-tension of time to file its petition. $he Court, in a Resolution931: dated "anuar( *?, *++3, 'ranted the Republic a ?+-da( e-tension, 0hich 0as to e-pire on

#ecember *@, *++2. $he Republic 0as able to file its Petition on the last da( of the e-tension period.

%ierarch& of courts

$he direct filin' of the instant Petition 0ith this Court did not /iolate the doctrine of hierarch( of courts.

Accordin' to Rule 1,, Section *6c7 932: of the Rules of Court, a decision or order of the R$C ma( be appealed to the Supreme Court b( petition for re/ie0 on certiorari under Rule 12, pro/ided that such petition raises onl( 4uestions of la0.933:

A 4uestion of la0 e-ists 0hen the doubt or contro/ers( concerns the correct application of la0 or 5urisprudence to a certain set of facts< or 0hen the issue does not call for an e-amination of the probati/e /alue of the e/idence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts bein' admitted. 93): A 4uestion of fact e-ists 0hen the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or 0hen the 4uer( in/ites calibration of the 0hole e/idence considerin' mainl( the credibilit( of the 0itnesses, the e-istence and rele/anc( of specific surroundin' circumstances, as 0ell as their relation to each other and to the 0hole, and the probabilit( of the situation.93E:

Dere, the Petition of the Republic raises pure 4uestions of la0, i.e., 0hether Ci/il Case No. ,+3 should ha/e been dismissed for failure to implead indispensable parties and for forum shoppin'. $hus, the direct resort b( the Republic to this Court is proper.

$he Court shall no0 consider the propriet( of the dismissal b( the R$C.ranch , of the Complaint for -propriation of the Republic.

'he proper parties in the expropriation proceedin s

$he ri'ht of the Republic to be substituted for %SA as plaintiff in Ci/il Case No. ,+3 had lon' been affirmed b( no less than this Court in the IS case. $he dispositi/e portion of the IS case reads:
FD R GOR , for all the fore'oin', the #ecision of the Court of Appeals dated E October ,@@, to the e-tent that it affirmed the trial court;s order dismissin' the e-propriation proceedin's, is hereb( R V RS # and S $ AS%# and the case is R MAN# # to the court a quo0hich shall allo0 the substitution of the Republic of the Philippines for petitioner %ron Steel Authorit( for further proceedin's consistent 0ith this #ecision. No pronouncement as to costs.93@:

$he IS

case had alread( become final and e-ecutor(, and entr( of

5ud'ment 0as made in said case on Au'ust ?,, ,@@E. $he R$C-.ranch ,, in an Order dated No/ember ,3, *++,, effected the substitution of the Republic for %SA.

$he failure of the Republic to actuall( file a motion for e-ecution does not render the substitution /oid. A 0rit of e-ecution re4uires the sheriff or other proper officer to 0hom it is directed to enforce the terms of the 0rit. 9)+: $he No/ember ,3, *++, Order of the R$C-.ranch , should be deemed as /oluntar( compliance 0ith a final and e-ecutor( 5ud'ment of this Court, alread( renderin' a motion for and issuance of a 0rit of e-ecution superfluous.

.esides, no substanti/e ri'ht 0as /iolated b( the /oluntar( compliance b( the R$C-.ranch , 0ith the directi/e in the IS casee/en 0ithout a motion for

e-ecution ha/in' been filed. $o the contrar(, the R$C-.ranch , merel( enforced the 5udiciall( determined ri'ht of the Republic to the substitution. Fhile it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfull( and e/en meticulousl( obser/ed, courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses that do not reall( impair the administration of 5ustice. %f the rules are intended to insure the orderl( conduct of liti'ation it is because of the hi'her ob5ecti/e the( see8 0hich is the protection of the substanti/e ri'hts of the parties.9),:

$he Court also obser/es that MCGC did not see8 an( remed( from the Order dated No/ember ,3, *++, of the R$C-.ranch ,. Conse4uentl(, the said Order

alread( became final, 0hich e/en the R$C-.ranch , itself cannot re/erse and set aside on the 'round of Khonest mista8e.L

$he R$C-.ranch , dismissed the Complaint in Ci/il Case No. ,+3 on another 'round: that MCGC is not a proper part( to the e-propriation proceedin's, not bein' the o0ner of the parcels of land sou'ht to be e-propriated. $he R$C.ranch , ratiocinated that since the e-ercise of the po0er of eminent domain in/ol/es the ta8in' of pri/ate land intended for public use upon pa(ment of 5ust compensation to the o0ner, then a complaint for e-propriation must be directed a'ainst the o0ner of the land sou'ht to be e-propriated.

$he Republic insists, ho0e/er, that MCGC is a real part(-in-interest, impleaded as a defendant in the Complaint for -propriation because of its

possessor( or occupanc( ri'hts o/er the sub5ect parcels of land, and not b( reason of its o0nership of the said properties. %n addition, the Republic maintains that non-5oinder of parties is not a 'round for the dismissal of an action.

Rule 3), Section , of the then Rules of Court 9)*: described ho0 e-propriation proceedin's should be instituted:
Section ,. 5he com#laint. Q $he ri'ht of eminent domain shall be e-ercised b( the filin' of a complaint 0hich shall state 0ith certaint( the ri'ht and purpose of condemnation, describe the real or personal propert( sou'ht to be condemned, an" B&in as "!'!n"ants a(( p! s&ns &6nin# & c(ai<in# t& &6n, & &cc%pyin#, any pa t th! !&' & int! !st th! !in, sho0in', so far as practicable, the interest of each defendant separatel(. I' th! tit(! t& any p &p! ty s&%#ht t& 8!

c&n"!<n!" app!a s t& 8! in th! R!p%8(ic &' th! Phi(ippin!s, a(th&%#h &cc%pi!" 8y p i7at! in"i7i"%a(s, or if the title is other0ise obscure or doubtful so that the plaintiff cannot 0ith accurac( or certaint( specif( 0ho are the real o0ners, a/erment to that effect ma( be made in the complaint.9)?: 6 mphases supplied.7

Gor sure, defendants in an e-propriation case are not limited to the o0ners of the propert( to be e-propriated, and 5ust compensation is not due to the propert( o0ner alone. As this Court held in 6e 7necht v. Court o" ##eals9)1::
Th! "!'!n"ants in an !,p &p iati&n cas! a ! n&t (i<it!" t& th! &6n! s &' th! p &p! ty c&n"!<n!". Th!y inc(%"! a(( &th! p! s&ns &6nin#, &cc%pyin# & c(ai<in# t& &6n th! p &p! ty. /h!n Fp &p! tyG is taH!n 8y !<in!nt "&<ain, th! &6n! , , , is n&t n!c!ssa i(y th! &n(y p! s&n 6h& is !ntit(!" t& c&<p!nsati&n . %n the American 5urisdiction, the term Io0ner; 0hen emplo(ed in statutes relatin' to eminent domain to desi'nate the persons 0ho are to be made parties to the proceedin', refer, as is the rule in respect of those entitled to compensation, to all those 0ho ha/e la0ful interest in the propert( to be condemned, includin' a mort'a'ee, a lessee and a /endee in possession under an e-ecutor( contract. /er( person ha/in' an estate or interest at la0 or in e4uit( in the land ta8en is entitled to share in the a0ard. %f a person claimin' an interest in the land sou'ht to be condemned is not made a part(, he is 'i/en the ri'ht to inter/ene and la( claim to the compensation. 6 mphasis supplied.7

At the time of the filin' of the Complaint for

-propriation in ,@E?,

possessor(=occupanc( ri'hts of MCGC o/er the parcels of land sou'ht to be e-propriated 0ere undisputed. %n fact, !etter of %nstructions No. ,*))9)2: dated No/ember ,3, ,@E* e-pressl( reco'niBed that portions of the lands reser/ed b( Presidential Proclamation No. **?@, also dated No/ember ,3, ,@E*, for the use and immediate occupation b( the NSC, 0ere then occupied b( an idle fertiliBer

plant=factor( and related facilities of MCGC. %t 0as ordered in the same !etter of %nstruction that:
6,7 NSC shall ne'otiate 0ith the o0ners of MCGC, for and on behalf of the >o/ernment, for the compensation of MCGCMs present&cc%pancy i#hts on the sub5ect lands at an amount of $hirt( 6P?+.++7 Pesos per s4uare meter or e4ui/alent to the assessed /alue thereof 6as determined b( the Cit( Assessor of %li'an7, 0hiche/er is hi'her. NSC shall 'i/e MCGC the option to either remo/e its aforesaid plant, structures, e4uipment, machiner( and other facilities from the lands or to sell or cede o0nership thereof to NSC at a price e4ui/alent to the fair mar8et /alue thereof as appraised b( the Asian Appraisal %nc. as ma( be mutuall( a'reed upon b( NSC and MCGC. 6*7 %n the e/ent that NSC and MCGC fail to a'ree on the fore'oin' 0ithin si-t( 63+7 da(s from the date hereof, the %ron and Steel Authorit( 6%SA7 shall e-ercise its authorit( under Presidential #ecree 6P#7 No. *)*, as amended, to initiate the e-propriation of the aforementioned&cc%pancy i#hts of MCGC on the sub5ect lands as 0ell as the plant, structures, e4uipment, machiner( and related facilities, for and on behalf of NSC, and thereafter cede the same to NSC. #urin' the pendenc( of the e-propriation proceedin's, NSC shall ta8e possession of the properties, sub5ect to bondin' and other re4uirements of P.#. ,2??. 6 mphasis supplied.7

.ein' the occupant of the parcel of land sou'ht to be e-propriated, MCGC could /er( 0ell be named a defendant in Ci/il Case No. ,+3. $he R$C-.ranch , e/identl( erred in dismissin' the Complaint for -propriation a'ainst MCGC for not bein' a proper part(.

Also erroneous 0as the dismissal b( the R$C-.ranch , of the ori'inal Complaint for -propriation for ha/in' been filed onl( a'ainst MCGC, the

occupant of the sub5ect land, but not the o0ner=s of the said propert(.

#ismissal

is

not

the

remed(

for

mis5oinder

or

non-5oinder

of

parties. Accordin' to Rule ?, Section ,, of the Rules of Court:

S C. ,,. Misjoinder and non8joinder o" #arties. Q Neither mis5oinder nor non-5oinder of parties is 'round for dismissal of an action. Pa ti!s <ay 8! " &pp!" & a""!" 8y & "! &' th! c&% t on motion of an( part( or on its o0n initiati/e at an( sta'e of the action and on such terms as are 5ust. An( claim a'ainst a mis5oined part( ma( be se/ered and proceeded 0ith separatel(. 6 mphasis supplied.7

MCGC contends that the afore4uoted rule does not appl( in this case 0here the part( not 5oined, i.e., the o0ner of the propert( to be e-propriated, is an indispensable part(.

An indispensable part( is a part(-in-interest 0ithout 0hom no final determination can be had of an action.9)3:

No0, is the o0ner of the propert( an indispensable part( in an action for e-propriationT Not necessaril(. >oin' bac8 to Rule 3), Section , of the Rules of Court, e-propriation proceedin's ma( be instituted e/en 0hen Ktitle to the propert( sou'ht to be condemned appears to be in the Republic of the Philippines, althou'h occupied b( pri/ate indi/iduals.L $he same rule pro/ides that a complaint for

e-propriation shall name as defendants Kall persons o0nin' or claimin' to o0n, & &cc%pyin#, an( part thereof or interestL in the propert( sou'ht to be condemned. Clearl(, 0hen the propert( alread( appears to belon' to the Republic, there is no sense in the Republic institutin' e-propriation proceedin's a'ainst itself. %t can still, ho0e/er, file a complaint for e-propriation a'ainst the pri/ate persons occup(in' the propert(. %n such an e-propriation case, the o0ner of the propert( is not an indispensable part(.

$o recall, Presidential Proclamation No. **?@ e-plicitl( states that the parcels of land reser/ed to NSC are part of the public domain, hence, o0ned b( the Republic. !etter of %nstructions No. ,*)) reco'niBed onl( the occupanc( ri'hts of MCGC and directed NSC to institute e-propriation proceedin's to determine the 5ust compensation for said occupanc( ri'hts. $herefore, the o0ner of the propert( is not an indispensable part( in the ori'inal Complaint for -propriation in Ci/il Case No. ,+3.

Assumin' for the sa8e of ar'ument that the o0ner of the propert( is an indispensable part( in the e-propriation proceedin's, the non-5oinder of said part( 0ould still not 0arrant immediate dismissal of the complaint for

e-propriation. %n 9da. 6e Manguerra v. )isos,9)): the Court applied Rule ?, Section ,, of the Rules of Court e/en in case of non-5oinder of an indispensable part(, vi0:
9G:ailure to implead an indispensable part( is not a 'round for the dismissal of an action. %n such a case, the remed( is to implead the non-

part( claimed to be indispensable. Parties ma( be added b( order of the court, on motion of the part( or on its o0n initiati/e at an( sta'e of the action and=or such times as are 5ust. I' th! p!titi&n! 9p(ainti'' !'%s!s t& i<p(!a" an in"isp!nsa8(! pa ty "!spit! th! & "! &' th! c&% t, th! (att! <ay "is<iss th! c&<p(aint9p!titi&n for the petitionerMs=plaintiffMs failure to compl(. 6 mphasis supplied.7

%n this case, the R$C-.ranch , did not first re4uire the Republic to implead the alle'ed o0ner=s of the parcel of land sou'ht to be e-propriated. #espite the absence of an( order from the Court, the Republic Q upon becomin' a0are that the parcels of land in/ol/ed in the 1914 Cacho case and 1997 Cacho case, claimed b( $eofilo and !AN#$RA# , and Vidal and A&%MC$D, encroached into and o/erlapped 0ith the parcel of land sub5ect of Ci/il Case No. ,+3 Q sou'ht lea/e of court to file a Supplemental Complaint to implead these four parties. $he R$C.ranch , did not ta8e the Supplemental Complaint of the Republic into consideration. %nstead, it dismissed outri'ht the ori'inal Complaint for -propriation a'ainst MCGC.

Forum shoppin

$he R$C-.ranch , further erred in findin' that the Republic committed forum shoppin' b( 6,7 simultaneousl( institutin' the actions for e-propriation 6Ci/il Case No. ,+37 and re/ersion 6Ci/il Case No. 33E37 for the same parcels of land< and 6*7 ta8in' inconsistent positions 0hen it conceded lac8 of o0nership o/er the parcels of land in the e-propriation case but asserted o0nership of the same properties in the re/ersion case.

$here is no dispute that the Republic instituted re/ersion proceedin's 6Ci/il Case No. 33E37 for the same parcels of land sub5ect of the instant -propriation Case 6Ci/il Case No. ,+37. $he Complaint for Cancellation of $itles and Re/ersion9)E: dated September *), *++1 0as filed b( the Republic 0ith the R$C on October ,?, *++1. $he records, ho0e/er, do not sho0 0hen the Supplemental Complaint for -propriation9)@: dated September *E, *++1 0as filed 0ith the the Supplemental Complaint for -propriation 0as

R$C. Apparentl(,

filed a't! the Complaint for Cancellation of $itles and Re/ersion since the Republic mentioned in the former the fact of filin' of the latter. 9E+: /en then, the

Verification and Certification of Non-Gorum Shoppin' 9E,: attached to the Supplemental Complaint for -propriation did not disclose the filin' of the

Complaint for Cancellation of $itles and Re/ersion. Not0ithstandin' such nondisclosure, the Court finds that the Republic did not commit forum shoppin' for filin' both Complaints.

%n /2I8Microso"t Cor#oration v :*ang,9E*: the circumstances 0hen forum shoppin' e-ists:

Court

laid

do0n

the

Gorum-shoppin' ta8es place 0hen a liti'ant files multiple suits in/ol/in' the same parties, either simultaneousl( or successi/el(, to secure a fa/orable 5ud'ment. $hus, it e-ists 0here the elements of litis #endentia are presen t, namel(? 6a7 identit( of parties, or at least such parties 0horepresent the same interests in both actions< 6b7 identit( of ri'hts asserted and relief pra(ed for, the relief bein' founded on the same facts< and 6c7 the identit( 0ith respect to the t0o precedin' particulars in the t0o cases is such that an( 5ud'ment that ma( be rendered in the pendin'

case, re'ardless of 0hich part( is successful, 0ould amount to res judicata in the other case. Gorumshoppin' is an act of malpractice because it abuses court processes. - -.

Dere, the elements of litis #endencia are 0antin'. $here is no identit( of ri'hts asserted and reliefs pra(ed for in Ci/il Case No. ,+3 and Ci/il Case No. 33E3.

Ci/il Case No. ,+3 0as instituted a'ainst MCGC to ac4uire, for a public purpose, its possessor(=occupanc( ri'hts o/er ?**,2?* s4uare meters or ?*.*2 hectares of land 0hich, at the time of the filin' of the ori'inal Complaint in ,@E?, 0as not (et co/ered b( an( certificate of title. On the other hand, Ci/il Case No. 33E3 sou'ht the cancellation of OC$ Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7, 0hich 0as entered into re'istration on #ecember 1, ,@@E in #oHa #emetria;s name, on the ar'ument that the parcels of land co/ered b( said certificates e-ceeded the areas 'ranted b( the !RC to #oHa #emetria in >!RO Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@, as affirmed b( this Court in the 1914 Cacho case.

(xpropriation vis)*)vis reversion

$he Republic is not en'a'in' in contradictions 0hen it instituted both e-propriation and re/ersion proceedin's for the same parcels of land. $he e-propriation and re/ersion proceedin's are distinct remedies that are not necessaril( e-clusionar( of each other.

$he filin' of a complaint for re/ersion does not preclude the institution of an action for e-propriation. /en if the land is re/erted bac8 to the State, the same

ma( still be sub5ect to e-propriation as a'ainst the occupants thereof.

Also, Rule 3), Section , of the Rules of Court allo0s the filin' of a complaint for e-propriation e/en 0hen Kthe title to an( propert( sou'ht to be condemned appears to be in the Republic of the Philippines, althou'h occupied b( pri/ate indi/iduals, or if the title is other0ise obscure or doubtful so that the plaintiff cannot 0ith accurac( or certaint( specif( 0ho are the real o0ners.L Rule 3), Section @ of the Rules of Court further pro/ides:
S C. @. Uncertain o*nershi#' con"licting claims. Q I' th! &6n! ship &' th! p &p! ty taH!n is %nc! tain, & th! ! a ! c&n'(ictin# c(ai<s t& any pa t th! !&', the court ma( order an( sum or sums a0arded as compensation for the propert( to be paid to the court for the benefit of the person ad5ud'ed in the same proceedin' to be entitled thereto. .ut the 5ud'ment shall re4uire the pa(ment of the sum or sums a0arded to either the defendant or the court before the plaintiff can enter upon the propert(, or retain it for the public use or purpose if entr( has alread( been made. 6 mphasis supplied.7

Dence, the filin' b( the Republic of the Supplemental Complaint for -propriation impleadin' $eofilo, Vidal, !AN#$RA# , and A&%MC$D, is not necessaril( an admission that the parcels of land sou'ht to be e-propriated are pri/atel( o0ned. At most, the Republic merel( ac8no0led'ed in its Supplemental Complaint that there are pri/ate persons also claimin' o0nership of the parcels of

land. $he Republic can still consistentl( assert, in both actions for e-propriation and re/ersion, that the sub5ect parcels of land are part of the public domain.

%n sum, the R$C-.ranch , erred in dismissin' the ori'inal Complaint and disallo0in' the Supplemental Complaint in Ci/il Case No. ,+3. $he Court re/erses and sets aside the Resolutions dated "ul( ,*, *++2 and October *1, *++2 of the R$C-.ranch , in Ci/il Case ,+3, and reinstates the Complaint for Re/ersion of the Republic. Th! E%i!tin# &' Tit(! Cas! 0G.R. N&s. )2=22> an" )2==>;1

ssentiall(, in their Petitions for Re/ie0 on Certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, !AN#$RA# and $eofilo, and=or Att(. Cabildo are callin' upon this Court to determine 0hether the Court of Appeals, in its #ecision dated "anuar( ,@, *++) in CA->.R. CV No. ++123, erred in 6,7 upholdin' the 5urisdiction of the R$C-.ranch ? to resol/e the issues on VidalMs status, filiation, and heirship in Ci/il Case No. 112*, the action for 4uietin' of title< 6*7 not holdin' that Vidal and A&%MC$D ha/e neither cause of action nor le'al or e4uitable title or interest in the parcels of land co/ered b( OC$ Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7< 6?7 findin' the e/idence sufficient to establish Vidal;s status as #oHa #emetria;s 'randdau'hter and sole sur/i/in' heir< and 617 not holdin' that Ci/il Case No. 112* 0as alread( barred b( prescription.

%n their Comment, Vidal and A&%MC$D insisted on the correctness of the Court of Appeals #ecision dated "anuar( ,@, *++), and 4uestioned the propriet( of the Petition for Re/ie0 filed b( !AN#$RA# as it supposedl( raised onl( factual issues.

$he Court rules in fa/or of Vidal and A&%MC$D.

+etitions for revie, under "ule 4#

A scrutin( of the issues raised, not 5ust in the Petition for Re/ie0 of !AN#$RA# , but also those in the Petition for Re/ie0 of $eofilo and=or Att(. Cabildo, re/eals that the( are both factual and le'al. $he Court has held in a lon' line of cases that in a petition for re/ie0 on certiorari under Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, onl( 4uestions of la0 ma( be raised as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. %t is settled that as a rule, the findin's of fact of the Court of Appeals especiall( those affirmin' the trial court are final and conclusi/e and cannot be re/ie0ed on appeal to the Supreme Court. $he e-ceptions to this rule are: 6a7 0hen the conclusion is a findin' 'rounded entirel( on speculations, surmises or con5ectures< 6b7 0hen the inference made is manifestl( mista8en, absurd or impossible< 6c7 0hen there is 'ra/e abuse of discretion< 6d7 0hen the 5ud'ment is based on a misapprehension of facts< 6e7 0hen the findin's of fact are conflictin'< 6f7 0hen the Court of Appeals, in ma8in' its findin's, 0ent be(ond the issues of the case and the same is contrar( to the admissions of both appellant and appellee< 6'7 0here the Court of Appeals manifestl( o/erloo8ed certain rele/ant facts not disputed b( the parties and 0hich, if properl( considered, 0ould 5ustif( a different conclusion< and 6h7 0here the

findin's of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrar( to those of the trial court, or are mere conclusions 0ithout citation of specific e/idence, or 0here the facts set forth b( the petitioner are not disputed b( the respondent, or 0here the findin's of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on absence of e/idence but are contradicted b( the e/idence on record.9E?: None of these e-ceptions e-ists in the Petitions at bar. .e that as it ma(, the Court shall address in full-len'th all the issues tendered in the instant Petitions for Re/ie0, e/en 0hen factual, if onl( to bolster the conclusions reached b( the R$C-.ranch ? and the Court of Appeals, 0ith 0hich the Court full( concurs. Jurisdiction -urisdiction vis)*)vis exercise of

!AN#$RA# , $eofilo, and=or Att(. Cabildo ar'ue that the R$C-.ranch ? had no 5urisidiction to resol/e the issues of status, filiation, and heirship in an action for 4uietin' of title as said issues should be /entilated and ad5udicated onl( in special proceedin's under Rule @+, Section , of the Rules of Court, pursuant to the rulin' of this Court in ga#a! v. (alang9E1: 6 ga#a! case7 and:eirs o" &uido ;a#tincha! and Isa<el ;a#tincha! v. 6el )osario 9E2: 6;a#tincha! case7. /en on

the assumption that the R$C-.ranch ? ac4uired 5urisdiction o/er their persons, !AN#$RA# , $eofilo, and=or Att(. Cabildo maintain that the R$C-.ranch ? erred in the e-ercise of its 5urisdiction b( ad5udicatin' and passin' upon the issues on Vidal;s status, filiation, and heirship in the Auietin' of $itle Case. Moreo/er, !AN#$RA# , $eofilo, and=or Att(. Cabildo a/er that the resolution of issues

re'ardin' status, filiation, and heirship is not merel( a matter of procedure, but of 5urisdiction 0hich cannot be 0ai/ed b( the parties or b( the court.

$he aforementioned ar'uments fail to persuade.

%n the first place, 5urisdiction is not the same as the e-ercise of 5urisdiction. $he Court distin'uished bet0een the t0o, thus:
"urisdiction is not the same as the e-ercise of 5urisdiction. As distin'uished from the e-ercise of 5urisdiction, 5urisdiction is the authorit( to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered therein. /h! ! th! ! is B% is"icti&n &7! th! p! s&n an" th! s%8B!ct <att! , th! "!cisi&n &n a(( &th! @%!sti&ns a isin# in th! cas! is 8%t an !,! cis! &' th! B% is"icti&n. And the errors 0hich the court ma( commit in the e-ercise of 5urisdiction are merel( errors of 5ud'ment 0hich are the proper sub5ect of an appeal. 9E3: 6 mphasis supplied.7

Dere, the R$C-.ranch ? unmista8abl( had 5urisdiction o/er the sub5ect matter and the parties in Ci/il Case No. 112*.

"urisdiction o/er the sub5ect matter or nature of the action is conferred onl( b( the Constitution or b( la0. Once /ested b( la0 on a particular court or bod(, the 5urisdiction o/er the sub5ect matter or nature of the action cannot be dislod'ed b( an(bod( other than b( the le'islature throu'h the enactment of a la0. $he po0er to chan'e the 5urisdiction of the courts is a matter of le'islati/e enactment, 0hich none but the le'islature ma( do. Con'ress has the sole po0er to define, prescribe and apportion the 5urisdiction of the courts.9E):

$he R$C has 5urisdiction o/er an action for 4uietin' of title under the circumstances described in Section ,@6*7 of .atas Pambansa .l'. ,*@, as amended:
S C. ,@. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Q Re'ional $rial Courts shall e-ercise e-clusi/e ori'inal 5urisdiction:

---6*7 %n all ci/il actions 0hich in7&(7! th! tit(! t&, & p&ss!ssi&n &', !a( p &p! ty, & any int! !st th! !in, 6h! ! th! ass!ss!" 7a(%! &' th! p &p! ty in7&(7!" !,c!!"s T6!nty th&%san" p!s&s 0PA3,333.331 or, for ci/il actions in Metro Manila, 0here such /alue e-ceeds Gift( thousand pesos 6P2+,+++.++7 e-cept actions for forcible entr( into and unla0ful detainer of lands or buildin's, ori'inal 5urisdiction o/er 0hich is conferred upon the Metropolitan $rial Courts, Municipal $rial Courts, and Municipal Circuit $rial Courts.

Records sho0 that the parcels of land sub5ect of Ci/il Case No. 112* ha/e a combined assessed /alue ofP45,4>=,>A3.33,9EE: undisputedl( fallin' 0ithin the 5urisdiction of the R$C-.ranch ?.

$he R$C-.ranch ? also ac4uired 5urisdiction o/er the person of $eofilo 0hen he filed his Ans0er to the Complaint of Vidal and A&%MC$D< and o/er the 5uridical personalit( of !AN#$RA# 0hen the said corporation 0as allo0ed to inter/ene in Ci/il Case No. 112*.

Considerin' that the R$C-.ranch ? had 5urisdiction o/er the sub5ect matter and parties in Ci/il Case No. 112*, then it can rule on all issues in the case, includin' those on Vidal;s status, filiation, and heirship, in e-ercise of its 5urisdiction. An( alle'ed erroneous findin' b( the R$C-.ranch ? concernin' Vidal;s status, filiation, and heirship in Ci/il Case No. 112*, is merel( an error of 5ud'ment sub5ect to the affirmation, modification, or re/ersal b( the appellate court 0hen appealed.

'he A apa& and .aptincha& cases

!AN#$RA# , $eofilo, and=or Att(. Cabildo cannot rel( on the cases of ga#a! and ;a#tincha! to support their position that declarations on Vidal;s status, filiation, and heirsip, should be made in special proceedin's and not in Ci/il Case No. 112*.

%n the A apa& case, the deceased Mi'uel A'apa( 6Mi'uel7 contracted t0o marria'es. Mi'uel married Carlina 6sometimes referred to as Cornelia7 in ,@1@, and the( had a dau'hter named Derminia, 0ho 0as born in ,@2+. Mi'uel left for Da0aii a fe0 months after his 0eddin' to Carlina. Fhen Mi'uel returned to the Philippines in ,@)*, he did not li/e 0ith Carlina and Derminia. De married rlinda in ,@)?, 0ith 0hom he had a son named Sristopher, 0ho 0as born in ,@)). Mi'uel died in ,@E,. A fe0 months after Mi'uel;s death, Carlina and Derminia filed a complaint for reco/er( of o0nership and possession 0ith dama'es a'ainst rlinda o/er a riceland and house and lot in Pan'asinan, 0hich

0ere alle'edl( purchased b( Mi'uel durin' his cohabitation 0ith

rlinda. $he

R$C dismissed the complaint, findin' little e/idence that the properties pertained to the con5u'al propert( of Mi'uel and Carlina. $he R$C 0ent on to pro/ide for the intestate shares of the parties, particularl( of Sristopher, Mi'uel;s ille'itimate son. On appeal, the Court of Appeals: 6,7 re/ersed the R$C 5ud'ment< 6*7 ordered rlinda to /acate and deli/er the properties to Carlina and Derminia< and 6?7 ordered the Re'ister of #eeds to cancel the $ransfer Certificates of $itle 6$C$s7 o/er the sub5ect propert( in the name of names of Carlina and Derminia. Court. rlinda and to issue ne0 ones in the

rlinda filed a Petition for Re/ie0 0ith this

%n resol/in'

rlinda;s Petition, the Court held in the ga#a! case that rlinda. Article ,1E

Article ,1E of the Gamil( Code applied to Mi'uel and

specificall( 'o/erns the propert( relations of a man and a 0oman 0ho are not capacitated to marr( each other and li/e e-clusi/el( 0ith each other as husband and 0ife 0ithout the benefit of marria'e or under a /oid marria'e. Cnder said pro/ision, onl( the properties ac4uired b( both parties throu'h their actual 5oint contribution of mone(, propert(, or industr( shall be o0ned b( them in common in proportion to their respecti/e contributions. %n this case, the Court found that the mone( used to bu( the sub5ect properties all came from Mi'uel.

$he Court then proceeded to address another issue in the ga#a! case, more rele/ant to the one at bar:

$he second issue concernin' Sristopher Palan';s status and claim as an ille'itimate son and heir to Mi'uel;s estate is here resol/ed in fa/or of respondent court;s correct assessment that the trial court erred in ma8in' pronouncements re'ardin' Sristopher;s heirship and filiation Kinasmuch as 4uestions as to 0ho are the heirs of the decedent, proof of filiation of ille'itimate children and the determination of the estate of the latter and claims thereto should be /entilated in the proper probate court or in a special proceedin' instituted for the purpose and cannot be ad5udicated in the instant ordinar( ci/il action 0hich is for reco/er( of o0nership and possession.L9E@:

$he .aptincha& case in/ol/ed t0o parcels of land in Ca/ite 0hich 0ere supposedl( o0ned b( >uido and %sabel Oaptincha( 6spouses Oaptincha(7. Cpon the death of the spouses Oaptincha(, their heirs 6Oaptincha( heirs7 e-ecuted an -tra-"udicial Settlement of the deceased spouses; estate. Do0e/er, the Oaptincha( heirs disco/ered that the properties 0ere alread( co/ered b( $C$s in the name of >olden .a( Realt( Corporation 6>olden .a(7, promptin' the Oaptincha( heirs to file 0ith the R$C a complaint a'ainst >olden .a( for the annulment and=or declaration of nullit( of $C$ Nos. 1@??3? to 1@??3) and all their deri/ati/es, or in the alternati/e, the recon/e(ance of realt( 0ith a pra(er for a 0rit of preliminar( in5unction and=or restrainin' order 0ith dama'es. $he Oaptincha( heirs later filed an amended complaint to include additional defendants to 0hom >olden .a( sold portions of the sub5ect properties. $he R$C initiall( dismissed the amended complaint, but actin' on the motion for reconsideration of the Oaptincha( heirs, e/entuall( allo0ed the same. >olden .a( and its other codefendants presented a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, 0hich 0as 'ranted b( the R$C. $he Oaptincha( heirs came before this Court via a Petition for Certiorari.

$he Court first obser/ed in the ;a#tincha! case that the Oaptincha( heirs a/ailed themsel/es of the 0ron' remed(. An order of dismissal is the proper sub5ect of an appeal, not a petition for certiorari. Ne-t, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the amended complaint, thus:
Neither did the respondent court commit 'ra/e abuse of discretion in issuin' the 4uestioned Order dismissin' the Second Amended Complaint of petitioners, - - -. ---%n 4itam, etc., et al. v. )ivera , this court opined that the declaration of heirship must be made in an administration proceedin', and not in an independent ci/il action. $his doctrine 0as reiterated in Solivio v. Court o" ##eals 0here the court held: K%n !itam, et al. /. Ri/era, ,++ Phil. ?31, 0here despite the pendenc( of the special proceedin's for the settlement of the intestate estate of the deceased Rafael !itam, the plaintiffs-appellants filed a ci/il action in 0hich the( claimed that the( 0ere the children b( a pre/ious marria'e of the deceased to a Chinese 0oman, hence, entitled to inherit his one-half share of the con5u'al properties ac4uired durin' his marria'e to Marcosa Ri/era, the trial court in the ci/il case declared that the plaintiffsappellants 0ere not children of the deceased, that the properties in 4uestion 0ere paraphernal properties of his 0ife, Marcosa Ri/era, and that the latter 0as his onl( heir. On appeal to this Court, 0e ruled that Isuch declarations 6that Marcosa Ri/era 0as the onl( heir of the decedent7 is improper, in Ci/il Case No. *+),, it bein' 0ithin the e-clusi/e competence of the court in Special Proceedin's No. ,2?), in 0hich it is not as (et, in issue, and, 0ill not be, ordinaril(, in issue until the presentation of the pro5ect of partition.; 6p. ?)E7.L

$he trial court cannot ma8e a declaration of heirship in the ci/il action for the reason that such a declaration can onl( be made in a special proceedin'. Cnder Section ?, Rule , of the ,@@) Re/ised Rules of Court, a ci/il action is defined as Kone b( 0hich a part( sues another for the enforcement or protection of a ri'ht, or the pre/ention or redress of a 0ron'; 0hile a special proceedin' is Ka remed( b( 0hich a part( see8s to establish a status, a ri'ht, or a particular fact.L %t is then decisi/el( clear that the declaration of heirship can be made onl( in a special proceedin' inasmuch as the petitioners here are see8in' the establishment of a status or ri'ht.9@+:

!AN#$RA# , $eofilo, and=or Att(. Cabildo missed one /ital factual distinction bet0een the ga#a! and ;a#tincha! cases, on one hand, and the present Petitions, on the other, b( reason of 0hich, the Court shall not appl( the prior t0o to the last.

$he ga#a! and ;a#tincha! cases, as 0ell as the cases of 4itam v. )ivera9@,: and Solivio v. Court o" ##eals,9@*: cited in the ;a#tincha! case, all arose from acti&ns '& !c&n7!yanc!< 0hile the instant Petitions stemmed from

an acti&n '& @%i!tin# &' tit(!. $he Court ma( ha/e declared in pre/ious cases that an action for recon/e(ance is in the nature of an action for 4uietin' of title,
9@?:

but the t0o are distinct remedies.

/rdinar& civil action for reconve&ance vis) a)vis special proceedin for 0uietin of title

$he action for recon/e(ance is based on Section 22 of Act No. 1@3, other0ise 8no0n as the !and Re'istration Act, as amended, 0hich states K9t:hat in

all cases of re'istration procured b( fraud the o0ner ma( pursue all his le'al and e4uitable remedies a'ainst the parties to such fraud, 0ithout pre5udice, ho0e/er, to the ri'hts of an( innocent holder for /alue of a certificate of title.L

$he Court, in :eirs o" =ugenio 4o#e0, Sr. v. =nrique0,9@1: described an action for recon/e(ance as follo0s:
An action for recon/e(ance is an acti&n in personam a/ailable to a person 0hose p &p! ty has 8!!n 6 &n#'%((y !#ist! !" %n"! th! T& !ns syst!< in another;s name. Althou'h the decree is reco'niBed as incontro/ertible and no lon'er open to re/ie0, the re'istered o0ner is not necessaril( held free from liens. As a remed(, an action for recon/e(ance is filed as an & "ina y acti&n in the ordinar( courts of 5ustice and not 0ith the land re'istration court. Recon/e(ance is al0a(s a/ailable as lon' as the propert( has not passed to an innocent third person for /alue. - - - 6 mphases supplied.7

On the other hand, Article 1)3 of the Ci/il Code la(s do0n the circumstances 0hen a person ma( institute an action for 4uietin' of title:
AR$. 1)3. Fhene/er there is a cloud on title to real propert( or an( interest therein, b( reason of an( instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceedin' 0hich is apparentl( /alid or effecti/e but is in truth and in fact in/alid, ineffecti/e, /oidable, or unenforceable, and ma( be pre5udicial to said title, an action ma( be brou'ht to remo/e such cloud or to 4uiet the title. An action ma( also be brou'ht to pre/ent a cloud from bein' cast upon title to real propert( or an( interest therein.

%n Calacala v. )e#u<lic,9@2: the Court elucidated on the nature of an action to 4uiet title:
Re'ardin' the nature of the action filed before the trial court, 4uietin' of title is a c&<<&n (a6 !<!"y for the remo/al of an( cloud upon or doubt or uncertaint( 0ith respect to title to real propert(. Ori'inatin' in e4uit( 5urisprudence, its purpose is to secure I- - - an ad5udication that a claim of title to or an interest in propert(, ad/erse to that of the complainant, is in/alid, so that the complainant and those claimin' under him ma( be fore/er after0ard free from an( dan'er of hostile claim.; %n an action for 4uietin' of title, the competent court is tas8ed to "!t! <in! th! !sp!cti7! i#hts &' th! c&<p(ainant an" &th! c(ai<ants, I- - - not onl( to place thin's in their proper place, to ma8e the one 0ho has no ri'hts to said immo/able respect and not disturb the other, but also for the benefit of both, so that he 0ho has the ri'ht 0ould see e/er( cloud of doubt o/er the propert( dissipated, and he could after0ards 0ithout fear introduce the impro/ements he ma( desire, to use, and e/en to abuse the propert( as he deems best - - - . 6 mphases supplied.7

$he Court e-pounded further in S#ouses (ortic v. Cristo<al9@3: that:

Suits to 4uiet title are characteriBed as p &c!!"in#s 0uasi in rem. $echnicall(, the( are neither in rem nor in #ersonam. %n an actionquasi in rem, an indi/idual is named as defendant. Do0e/er, unli8e suits in rem, a quasi in rem 5ud'ment is conclusi/e onl( bet0een the parties. >enerall(, the !#ist! !" &6n! of a propert( is the proper part( to brin' an action to 4uiet title. Do0e/er, it has been held that this remed( ma( also be a/ailed of b( a p! s&n &th! than th! !#ist! !" &6n! because, in the Article reproduced abo/e, KtitleL does not necessaril( refer to the ori'inal or transfer certificate of title. $hus, lac8 of an actual certificate of title to a propert( does not necessaril( bar an action to 4uiet title. - - - 6 mphases supplied.7

$he Court pronounced in the ga#a! and ;a#tincha! cases that a declaration of heirship cannot be made in an & "ina y ci7i( acti&n such as an action for recon/e(ance, but must onl( be made in a sp!cia( p &c!!"in#, for it in/ol/es the establishment of a status or ri'ht.

$he appropriate special proceedin' 0ould ha/e been the settlement of the estate of the decedent. Nonetheless, an action for 4uietin' of title is also a special proceedin', specificall( 'o/erned b( Rule 3? of the Rules of Court on declarator( relief and similar remedies.9@): Actions for declarator( relief and other similar remedies are distin'uished from ordinar( ci/il actions because:
*. %n declarator( relief, the su<ject8matter is a deed, 0ill, contract or other 0ritten instrument, statute, e-ecuti/e order or re'ulation, or ordinance. $he issue is the /alidit( or construction of these documents. $he relie" sou'ht is the "!c(a ati&n &' th! p!titi&n! Is i#hts an" "%ti!sthereunder. $he concept of a cause of action in ordinar( ci/il actions does not appl( to declarator( relief as this special ci/il action presupposes that there has been no breach or /iolation of the instruments in/ol/ed. Conse4uentl(, unli8e other 5ud'ments, the 5ud'ment in an action for declarator( relief does not essentiall( entail an( e-ecutional process as the onl( relief to be properl( 'ranted therein is a "!c(a ati&n &' th! i#hts an" "%ti!s &' th! pa ti!s under the instrument, althou'h some e-ceptions ha/e been reco'niBed under certain situations. 9@E:

Ci/il Case No. 112* could not be considered an action for recon/e(ance as it is not based on the alle'ation that the t0o parcels of land, !ots , and *, ha/e been 0ron'full( re'istered in another person;s name. OC$ Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7, co/erin' the sub5ect properties, are still in #oHa #emetria;s

name. Vidal and $eofilo each claims to ha/e inherited the t0o parcels of land from the late #oHa #emetria as said decedent;s sole heir, but neither Vidal nor $eofilo has been able to transfer re'istration of the said properties to her=his name as of (et.

%nstead, Ci/il Case No. 112* is indisputabl( an action for 4uietin' of title, a special proceedin' 0herein the court is precisel( tas8ed to determine the ri'hts of the parties as to a particular parcel of land, so that the complainant and those claimin' under him=her ma( be fore/er free from an( dan'er of hostile claim. Vidal asserted title to the t0o parcels of land as #oHa #emetria;s sole heir. $he cloud on Vidal;s title, 0hich she sou'ht to ha/e remo/ed, 0as $eofilo;s ad/erse claim of title to the same properties, also as #oHa #emetria;s onl( heir. Gor it to determine the ri'hts of the parties in Ci/il Case No. 112*, it 0as therefore crucial for the R$C-.ranch ? to s4uarel( ma8e a findin' as to the status, filiation, and heirship of Vidal in relation to those of $eofilo. A findin' that one is #oHa #emetria;s sole and ri'htful heir 0ould conse4uentl( e-clude and e-tin'uish the claim of the other.

/en assumin' arguendo that the proscription in the ga#a! and ;a#tincha! cases a'ainst ma8in' declarations of heirship in ordinar( ci/il actions also e-tends to actions for 4uietin' of title, the same is not absolute.

%n (ortugal v. (ortugal82eltran9@@: 6(ortugal case7, the Court reco'niBed that there are instances 0hen a declaration of heirship need not be made in a separate special proceedin':
$he common doctrine in 4itam, Solivio and &uilas in 0hich the adverse #arties are #utative heirs to the estate o" a decedent or #arties to the s#ecial #roceedings "or its settlement is that if the special proceedin's are pendin', or if there are no special proceedin's filed but there is, under the circumstances of the case, a need to file one, then the determination of, amon' other issues, heirship should be raised and settled in said special proceedin's. Fhere special proceedin's had been instituted but had been finall( closed and terminated, ho0e/er, or if a putati/e heir has lost the ri'ht to ha/e himself declared in the special proceedin's as co-heir and he can no lon'er as8 for its re-openin', then an ordinar( ci/il action can be filed for his declaration as heir in order to brin' about the annulment of the partition or distribution or ad5udication of a propert( or properties belon'in' to the estate of the deceased. 9,++:

%n the (ortugal case itself, the Court directed the trial court to alread( determine petitioners; status as heirs of the decedent e/en in an ordinar( ci/il action, i.e., action for annulment of title, because:
%t appearin' - - - that in the present case the onl( propert( of the intestate estate of Portu'al is the Caloocan parcel of land, to still sub5ect it, under the circumstances of the case, to a special proceedin' 0hich could be lon', hence, not e-peditious, 5ust to establish the status of petitioners as heirs is not onl( impractical< it is burdensome to the estate 0ith the costs and e-penses of an administration proceedin'. And it is superfluous in li'ht of the fact that the parties to the ci/il caseUsub5ect of the present case, could and had alread( in fact presented e/idence before the trial court 0hich assumed 5urisdiction o/er the case upon the issues it defined durin' pre-trial.

%n fine, under the circumstances of the present case, there bein' no compellin' reason to still sub5ect Portu'al;s estate to administration proceedin's since a determination of petitioners; status as heirs could be achie/ed in the ci/il case filed b( petitioners, the trial court should proceed to e/aluate the e/idence presented b( the parties durin' the trial and render a decision thereon upon the issues it defined durin' pre-trial, - - -.9,+,:

Another case, :eirs o" 5eo"ilo &a<atan v. Court o"

##eals9,+*: 6&a<atan

case7, in/ol/ed an action for reco/er( of o0nership and possession of propert( 0ith the opposin' parties insistin' that the( are the le'al heirs of the deceased. Recallin' the(ortugal case, the Court ruled:
Similarl(, in the present case, there appears to be onl( one parcel of land bein' claimed b( the contendin' parties as their inheritance from "uan >abatan. %t 0ould be more practical to dispense 0ith a separate special proceedin' for the determination of the status of respondent as the sole heir of "uan >abatan, speciall( in li'ht of the fact that the parties to Ci/il Case No. E@-+@*, had /oluntaril( submitted the issue to the R$C and alread( presented their e/idence re'ardin' the issue of heirship in these proceedin'. Also the R$C assumed 5urisdiction o/er the same and conse4uentl( rendered 5ud'ment thereon.

%n 1idel v. Court o" ##eals9,+?: 61idel case7, therein respondents, the heirs of the late Vicente spineli 6Vicente7 from his first marria'e, instituted an action to annul the sale of Vicente;s propert( to therein petitioners, the spouses Gidel. $he sub5ect propert( 0as sold to petitioners b( Vicente;s heirs from his second marria'e. /en thou'h one;s le'itimac( can onl( be 4uestioned in a direct action

seasonabl( filed b( the proper part(, the Court held that it 0as necessar( to pass upon respondents; relationship to Vicente in the action for annulment of sale so as

to determine respondents; le'al ri'hts to the sub5ect propert(. %n fact, the issue of 0hether respondents are Vicente;s heirs 0as s4uarel( raised b( petitioners in their Pre-$rial .rief. Dence, petitioners 0ere estopped from assailin' the rulin' of the trial court on respondents; status.

%n Ci/il Case No. 112*, $eofilo and=or Att(. Cabildo themsel/es as8ed the R$C-.ranch ? to resol/e the issue of VidalMs le'al or beneficial o0nership of the t0o parcels of land.9,+1: #urin' trial, Vidal alread( presented before the R$C.ranch ? e/idence to establish her status, filiation, and heirship. $here is no sho0in' that #oHa #emetria left an( other propert( that 0ould ha/e re4uired special administration proceedin's. %n the spirit of the (ortugal, &a<atan, and 1idel cases, the Court deems it more practical and e-peditious to settle the issue on Vidal;s status, filiation, and heirship in Ci/il Case No. 112*.

1'itle2 in 0uietin of title

!AN#$RA# , $eofilo, and=or Att(. Cabildo further contend that Vidal and A&%MC$D ha/e no cause of action for 4uietin' of title since Vidal has no title to the t0o parcels of land. %n comparison, $eofilo;s title to the same properties, as #oHa #emetria;s onl( heir, 0as alread( established and reco'niBed b( this Court in the 1997 Cacho case.

A'ain, the Court cannot sustain the fore'oin' contention of !AN#$RA# , $eofilo, and=or Att(. Cabildo.

%t must be borne in mind that the concept of a cause of action in ordinar( ci/il actions does not appl( to 4uietin' of title. %n declarator( relief, the sub5ectmatter is a deed, 0ill, contract or other 0ritten instrument, statute, e-ecuti/e order or re'ulation, or ordinance. $he issue is the /alidit( or construction of these documents. $he relief sou'ht is the declaration of the petitioner;s ri'hts and duties thereunder. .ein' in the nature of declarator( relief, this special ci/il action presupposes that there has (et been no breach or /iolation of the instruments in/ol/ed.9,+2:

%n an action for 4uietin' of title, the sub5ect matter is the title sou'ht to ha/e 4uieted. K$itleL is not limited to the certificate of re'istration under the $orrens S(stem 6i.e., OC$ or $C$7. Pursuant to Article 1)) of the Ci/il Code, the plaintiff must ha/e (!#a( & !@%ita8(! tit(! t&, & int! !st in, the real propert( sub5ect of the action for 4uietin' of title. $he plaintiff need not e/en be in possession of the propert(. %f she is indeed #oHa #emetria;s sole heir, Vidal alread( has e4uitable title to or interest in the t0o parcels of land b( ri'ht of succession, e/en thou'h she has not (et secured certificates of title to the said properties in her name.

!AN#$RA# , $eofilo, and=or Att(. Cabildo mista8enl( belie/e that the 1997 Cacho case had conclusi/el( settled $eofiloMs identit( and e-istence as #oHa #emetria;s sole heir. $he( failed to appreciate that the 1997 Cacho case in/ol/ed $eofilo;s petition for reconstitution of title, treated as a p!titi&n '& th! !-iss%anc! &' D!c !! N&s. )34:; an" )=>:>. $he 'rant b( the R$C of

$eofilo;s petition, affirmed b( this Court, onl( conclusi/el( established the p i& iss%anc! an" !,ist!nc! and the s%8s!@%!nt (&ssof the t0o decrees, thus, entitlin' $eofilo to the !-iss%anc! &' th! sai" "!c !!s in th!i c&n"iti&n. & i#ina( '& < an"

As the Court of Appeals pointed out in its assailed #ecision dated "anuar( ,@, *++), the issue of $eofilo;s heirship 0as not the lis mota of the 1997 Cacho case. %t 0as addressed b( the Court in the 1997 Cacho case for the simple purpose of determinin' $eofilo;s le'al interest in filin' a petition for the re-issuance of the lost decrees. $he Court merel( found therein that $eofilo;s Affida/it of Ad5udication, e-ecuted in the C.S.A. before the Philippine Consulate >eneral, en5o(ed the presumption of re'ularit( and, thus, sufficientl( established $eofilo;s le'al interest. $he 1997 Cacho case, ho0e/er, did not conclusi/el( settle that $eofilo is indeed #oHa #emetria;s onl( heir and the present o0ner, b( ri'ht of succession, of the sub5ect properties.

Factual findin s of the "'C)3ranch 4 and the Court of Appeals

!AN#$RA# , $eofilo, and=or Att(. Cabildo additionall( posit that the e/idence presented b( Vidal and A&%MC$D 0ere insufficient to pro/e the fact of VidalMs filiation and heirship to #oHa #emetria. !AN#$RA# , $eofilo, and=or Att(. Cabildo particularl( challen'ed the reliance of the R$C-.ranch ? on Vidal;s baptismal certificate, ar'uin' that it has no probati/e /alue and is not conclusi/e proof of filiation.

Alternati/e means of pro/in' an indi/idual;s filiation ha/e been reco'niBed b( this Court in :eirs o" Ignacio Conti v. Court o" ##eals. 9,+3: $he

propert( in liti'ation in said case 0as co-o0ned b( !ourdes Sampa(o 6Sampa(o7 and %'nacio Conti, married to Rosario Cuario 6collecti/el( referred to as the spouses Conti7. Sampa(o died 0ithout issue. $herein respondents, claimin' to be Sampa(o;s collateral relati/es, filed a petition for partition of the sub5ect propert(, plus dama'es. $o pro/e that the( 0ere collaterall( related to Sampa(o throu'h the latter;s brothers and sisters, respondents submitted photocopies of the birth certificates, certifications on the non-a/ailabilit( of records of births, and certified true copies of the baptismal certificates of Sampa(o;s siblin's. $he spouses Conti 4uestioned the documentar( e/idence of respondents; filiation on the 'round that these 0ere incompetent and inadmissible, but the Court held that:
Cnder Art. ,)* of the Gamil( Code, the filiation of le'itimate children shall be pro/ed b( an( other means allo0ed b( the Rules of Court and special la0s, in the absence of a record of birth or a parent;s admission of such le'itimate filiation in a public or pri/ate document dul( si'ned b( the parent. Such other proof of one;s filiation ma( be a baptismal certificate, a 5udicial admission, a famil( .ible in 0hich his name has been entered, common reputation respectin' his pedi'ree,

admission b( silence, the testimonies of 0itnesses and other 8inds of proof admissible under Rule ,?+ of the Rules of Court. .( analo'(, this method of pro/in' filiation ma( also be utiliBed in the instant case. ---$he admissibilit( of baptismal certificates offered b( !(dia S. Re(es, absent the testimon( of the officiatin' priest or the official recorder, 0as settled in People /. Ritter, citin' C.S. /. de Vera 6*E Phil. ,+2 9,@,1:7, thus - - - the entries made in the Re'istr( .oo8 ma( be considered as entries made in the course of the business under Section 1? of Rule ,?+, 0hich is an e-ception to the hearsa( rule. $he baptisms administered b( the church are one of its transactions in the e-ercise of ecclesiastical duties and recorded in the boo8 of the church durin' the course of its business. %t ma( be ar'ued that baptismal certificates are e/idence onl( of the administration of the sacrament, but in this case, there 0ere four 617 baptismal certificates 0hich, 0hen ta8en to'ether, uniforml( sho0 that !ourdes, "osefina, Remedios and !uis had the same set of parents, as indicated therein. Corroborated b( the undisputed testimon( of Adelaida Sampa(o that 0ith the demise of !ourdes and her brothers Manuel, !uis and sister Remedios, the onl( siblin' left 0as "osefina Sampa(o Re(es, such baptismal certificates ha/e ac4uired e/identiar( 0ei'ht to pro/e filiation.9,+):

$hus, Vidal;s baptismal certificate is not totall( bereft of an( probati/e /alue. %t ma( be appreciated, to'ether 0ith all the other documentar( and testimonial e/idence submitted on Vidal;s filiation, to 0it:
$he first issue proposed b( petitioners for resolution is 0hether or not petitioner #emetria C. Vidal is the sole sur/i/in' heir of the late #oHa #emetria Cacho. $o pro/e that, indeed, she is the sole sur/i/in'

heir of the late #oHa #emetria Cacho, she testified in open court and identified the follo0in' documentar( e/idence, to 0it: -hibit KAL Q .irth Certificate of #emetria C. Vidal -hibit K.L Q Partida de .autismo of #emetria C. Vidal -hibit KCL Q Certificate of .aptism #emetria C. Vidal -hibit K#L Q Cacho Gamil( $ree -hibit K#-,L Q .ranch of #emetria Cacho -hibit KGL Q #eath Certificate of #emetria Cacho. -hibit KPL Q #ri/er;s license of #emetria C. Vidal. -hibit KAL to KA2L Q $he boo8 entitled KCACDOL, the introductor( pa'e on March ,@EE 0hen the data 0ere compiled, pa'e 2E on the Vidal branch of the Cacho famil(, pa'e 3* on #emetria Cacho and her descendants, pa'e 3@ on the famil( member 0ith the then latest birth da( *3 March ,@EE, and pa'e )) 0ith the picture of #emetria Cacho Vidal, #ionisio Vidal and Grancisco Vidal.9,+E:

%n contrast, !AN#$RA# , $eofilo, and=or Att(. Cabildo failed to present an( e/idence at all in support of their claims. Accordin' to the R$C-.ranch ?:
!andtrade 0as also declared to ha/e 0ai/ed its ri'ht to present e/idence on its defense and counterclaim in the abo/e-entitled case in /ie0 of its failure to present e/idence on their scheduled trial date. ---Since respondents $eofilo Cacho and Att(. >odofredo Cabildo opted not to adduce e/idence in this case as the( failed to appear durin' the scheduled trial dates, the court shall decide on the basis of the e/idence for the respondents-inter/enor and petitioners. 9,+@:

.ased on the e/idence presented before it, the R$C-.ranch ? made the follo0in' factual findin's:

Grom the e/idence adduced, both testimonial and documentar(, the court is con/inced that petitioner Vidal is the 'randdau'hter of #emetria Cacho Vidal, the re'istered o0ner of the sub5ect propert( co/ered b( decree Nos. ,+?31 V ,E@3@, reissued as #ecrees No. ,@?31 and No. ,3E3@. Such bein' the case, she is an heir of #emetria Cacho Vidal. Petitioner Vidal;s Certificate of .irth 6 -h. KAL7 sho0s that she 0as born on "une ?, ,@1,, 0ith the name #emetria Vidal. 9Der: father 0as Grancisco Vidal and her mother 0as Gidela Confesor, Grancisco Vidal is the son of #ionisio Vidal and #emetria Cacho as sho0n b( 9his: Partida de .autismo 6.aptismal Certificate7. Moreo/er, it 0as sho0n in the same document that her 'odmother 0as #emetria Cacho. .( inference, this #emetria Cacho is actuall( #emetria Cacho Vidal because she 0as married to #ionisio Vidal, the father of Grancisco Vidal. No0 then, is #emetria Cacho Vidal the same person referred to in Cacho /. >o/ernment of the Cnited States 6*E Phil. 3,3 9,@,1:7T Pa'e 3,E, Vol. *E of the Philippine Reports 0ould indicate that the applicant for re'istration 0as #oHa #emetria Cacho ( Soriano 6 -h. KR-,L7. $he #eath Certificate of #emetria Cacho Vidal sho0s that her mother 0as Candelaria Soriano 6 -h. KGL7. Necessaril(, the( are one and the same person. $his is further confirmed b( the fact that the husband of #emetria Cacho Vidal, SeHor #ionisio Vidal, 0as 4uoted in pp. 3*@-3?+ of the aforecited decision as the husband of #emetria Cacho 6 -h. KR?L7. $he boo8 KCACDOL 6 -hs. KAL to KA-2L7 and the Cacho Gamil( $ree 6 -hs. K#L to K#-,L7 further stren'then the aforecited findin's of this Court. %t 0as established b( petitioner Vidal;s o0n testimon( that at the time of #oHa #emetria CachoMs death, she left no heir other than petitioner Vidal. Der husband, #on #ionisio, died e/en before the 0ar, 0hile her onl( child, Grancisco Cacho Vidal Q --- Vidal;s father Q died durin' the 0ar. Petitioner;s onl( siblin' Q Grancisco #ionisio Q died at childbirth. ---$he ne-t factual issue proposed b( petitioners is 0hether or not respondent $eofilo Cacho is the son or heir of the late #oHa #emetria

Cacho. $he follo0in' facts and circumstances ne'ate the impression that he is the son, as he claims to be, of #oHa #emetria Cacho. $hus: a7 #oHa #emetria Cacho 0as married to #on #ionisio Vidal, and thus her full name 0as #oHa #emetria Cacho Vidal. Der onl( child, e-pectedl(, carried the surname Vidal 6Grancisco Cacho Vidal7. Dad $eofilo Cacho actuall( been a son of #emetria Cacho, he 0ould and should ha/e carried the name K$eofilo Cacho VidalL, but he did not. b7 $eofilo Cacho admits to bein' married to one lisa Valderrama in the Special Po0er of Attorne( he issued to Att(. >odofredo 9Cabildo: 6 -h. KOL7. $eofilo Cacho married lisa Valderrama on *) Ma( ,@2?, in the Parish of the %mmaculate Conception, .ani, Pan'asinan. $he Certificate of Marria'e sho0s that $eofilo Cacho is the son of A'ustin Cacho and stefania Cordial, not #emetria Cacho. %n his Certificate of .aptism 6 -h. K>L7, he 0as born to A'ustin Cacho and stefania Cordial on Ma( ,@?+ 60hen #oHa #emetria Cacho 0as alread( 2+ (ears old7. c7 $he Cacho Gamil( $ree 6 -h. K#L7 6that is, the Cacho Gamil( to 0hich #oHa #emetria Cacho belon'ed7 as 0ell as the boo8 on the Cacho Gamil( 6 -h. KAL7 are bereft of an( mention of $eofilo Cacho or his 0ife lisa Valderrama, or e/en his real father A'ustin Cacho, or mother stefania Cordial. $he( are not 8no0n to be related to the Cacho famil( of #oHa #emetria Cacho. d7 Para'raph ,.,, of the Petition char'es respondent $eofilo Cacho of ha/in' falsel( and fraudulentl( claimin' to be the son and sole heir of the late #oHa #emetria Cacho. %n his ans0er to this particular para'raph, he denied the same for lac8 of 8no0led'e or information to form a belief. De should 8no0 0hether this alle'ation is true or not because it concerns him. %f true, he should admit and if false, he opted to den( the char'es for lac8 of 8no0led'e or information to form a belief. $he Court considers his denial as an admission

of the alle'ation that he is falsel( and fraudulentl( claimin' to be the son and sole heir of the late #oHa #emetria Cacho.9,,+:

Considerin' the afore4uoted factual findin's, the R$C-.ranch ? arri/ed at the follo0in' le'al conclusions, 4uietin' the titles of Vidal and A&%MC$D, vi0:
$he first proposed le'al issue to be resol/ed had been ampl( discussed under the first factual issue. Certainl(, petitioner Vidal has hereditar( ri'hts, interest, or title not onl( to a portion of the Sub5ect Propert( but to the entire propert( left b( the late #oHa #emetria Cacho Vidal, sub5ect, ho0e/er, to the #eed of Conditional Con/e(ance e-ecuted b( petitioner Vidal of a portion of the Sub5ect Propert( in fa/or of petitioner ABimuth %nternational #e/elopment Corporation 6 -h. K"L7 e-ecuted pursuant to their Memorandum of A'reement 6 -h. K%L7. Conse4uentl(, it 'oes 0ithout sa(in' that petitioner ABimuth %nternational #e/elopment Corporation has a ri'ht, interest in, or title to a portion of the sub5ect propert(. As discussed earlier in this decision, $eofilo Cacho, not bein' the son, as he claims to be, of the late #oHa #emetria Cacho Vidal, has no hereditar( ri'hts to the Sub5ect Propert( left b( #oHa #emetria Cacho Vidal. De failed to sho0 an( e/idence that he is the son of the late #oHa #emetria Cacho Vidal as he and his co respondent, Att(. >odofredo Cabildo, e/en failed to appear on the scheduled trial date. %t is, therefore, safe to conclude that respondents $eofilo Cacho and=or Att(. >odofredo Cabildo and their transferees=assi'nees ha/e no ri'ht, interest in, or title to the sub5ect propert(. Prescindin' from the findin' of this Court that respondent $eofilo Cacho is not the son of the re'istered o0ner of the Sub5ect Propert(, the late #oHa #emetria Cacho Vidal, respondent Cacho committed false pretenses and fraudulent acts in representin' himself as son and sole heir of #oHa #emetria Cacho 6Vidal7 in his petition in court, 0hich e/entuall( led to the reconstitution of the titles of #oHa #emetria Cacho 6Vidal7. Certainl(, his misrepresentation in the reconstitution case,

0hich apparentl( is the basis of his claim to the sub5ect propert(, casts clouds on 9respondentsM: title to the sub5ect propert(. %t is onl( ri'ht that petitioner Vidal should see8 protection of her o0nership from acts tendin' to cast doubt on her title. Amon' the le'al remedies she could pursue, is this petition for Auietin' of $itle under Chapter ?, $itle %, .oo8 %% of the Ci/il Code, Articles 1)3 to 1E, inclusi/e. - - -.9,,,:

$he Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the 5ud'ment of the R$C-.ranch ?. $he appellate court e/en soundl( trounced $eofilo;s attac8 on the factual findin's of the trial court:
9$:he material facts sou'ht to be established b( the afore-mentioned documentar( e/idence corroborated b( the testimon( of V%#A!, 0hose testimon( or credibilit( neither $ OG%!O and !AN#$RA# e/en attempted to impeach, onl( pro/es one thin', that she is the 'randdau'hter of #OWA # M $R%A and the sole heiress thereof. ---Dence, it is no0 too late for appellant $ OG%!O to assail before Cs the facts pro/en durin' the trial, 0hich he failed to refute in open court. Veril(, $ OG%!O;s lac8adaisical attitude in the conduct of his defense onl( sho0s that he has no proof to offer in refutation of the e/idence ad/anced b( appellee V%#A!. Other0ise stated, appellant $ OG%!O is an impostor, a pretender and bo'us heir of #OWA # M $R%A. ---.esides, it is 4uite unnatural and a'ainst human nature for a ri'htful heir, if $ OG%!O is reall( one, to merel( stand still 0ith folded arms, 0hile the accusin' fin'er of V%#A! is ri'ht on his /er( nose. %n all li8elihood, and 0ith all his mi'ht and resources, a ri'htful heir ma( e/en be e-pected to cross continents and reach distant shores to protect

his interest o/er the sub5ect properties, 0hich in this case is ar'uabl( 0orth more than a Sin';s ransom. %t stands on record that $ OG%!O CACDO has all alon' e/en prior to e-ecutin' his Affida/it of Ad5udication in ,@E2 in Chica'o, Cnited States of America, and in simultaneousl( e-ecutin' a Special Po0er of Attorne( in fa/or of A$$O. CA.%!#O, had remained in the Cnited States, and not for a sin'le moment appeared in court e-cept throu'h his a'ents or representati/es. $o Our mind, this fact alone ad/ersel( affects his pretension in claimin' to be an heir of #OWA # M $R%A.9,,*:

As a rule, the findin's of fact of the trial court 0hen affirmed b( the Court of Appeals are final and conclusi/e, and cannot be re/ie0ed on appeal b( this Court as lon' as the( are borne out b( the record or are based on substantial e/idence. %t is not the function of the Court to anal(Be or 0ei'h all o/er a'ain the e/idence or premises supporti/e of such factual determination. $he Court has consistentl( held that the findin's of the Court of Appeals and other lo0er courts are, as a rule, accorded 'reat 0ei'ht, if not bindin' upon it, sa/e for the most compellin' and co'ent reasons.9,,?: $here is no 5ustification for the Court to de/iate from the factual findin's of the R$C-.ranch ? and the Court of Appeals 0hich are clearl( supported b( the e/idence on record.

+rescription

!AN#$RA# finall( asserts that the action for 4uietin' of title of Vidal and A&%MC$D alread( prescribed since !AN#$RA# has been in possession of the t0o parcels of land in 4uestion. $he prescripti/e period for filin' said action

lapsed in ,@@2, ten (ears from the time $eofilo e-ecuted his Affida/it of Ad5udication in ,@E2. Oet, Vidal and A&%MC$D instituted Ci/il Case No. 112* onl( in ,@@E.

%t is too late in the da( for !AN#$RA# to raise the issue of prescription of Ci/il Case No. 112* for the first time before this Court. %n this 5urisdiction, the defense of prescription cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Such defense ma( be 0ai/ed, and if it 0as not raised as a defense in the trial court, it cannot be considered on appeal, the 'eneral rule bein' that the Appellate Court is not authoriBed to consider and resol/e an( 4uestion not properl( raised in the lo0er court.9,,1:

.ut e/en if the Court ta8es co'niBance of the issue of prescription, it 0ill rule a'ainst !AN#$RA# .

A real action is one 0here the plaintiff see8s the reco/er( of real propert( or, as indicated in 0hat is no0 Rule 1, Section , of the Rules of Court, a real action is an acti&n a''!ctin# tit(! t& or reco/er( of possession &' !a( p &p! ty.9,,2: An action for 4uietin' of title to real propert(, such as Ci/il Case No. 112*, is indubitabl( a real action.

Article ,,1, of the Ci/il Code plainl( pro/ides that real actions o/er immo/ables prescribe a't! thi ty y!a s. #oHa #emetria died in ,@)1,

transferrin' b( succession, her title to the t0o parcels of land to her onl( heir,

Vidal. $eofilo, throu'h Att(. Cabildo, filed a petition for reconstitution of the certificates of title co/erin' said properties in )>2=. $his is the first palpable displa( of $eofilo;s ad/erse claim to the same properties, supposedl(, also as #oHa #emetria;s onl( heir. Fhen Vidal and A&%MC$D instituted Ci/il Case No. 112* in )>>=, onl( A3 y!a s had passed, and the prescripti/e period for filin' an action for 4uietin' of title had not (et prescribed.

Ne/ertheless, the Court notes that Article ,1,, of the Ci/il Code also clearl( states that the ?+-(ear prescripti/e period for real actions o/er immo/ables is 6ith&%t p !B%"ic! to 0hat is established for the ac4uisition of o0nership and other real ri'hts b( prescription. $hus, the Court must also loo8 into the ac4uisiti/e prescription periods of o0nership and other real ri'hts.

Ac4uisiti/e prescription of dominion and real ri'hts ma( be ordinar( or e-traordinar(. 9,,3:

O "ina y ac@%isiti7! p !sc ipti&n re4uires possession of thin's in 'ood faith and 0ith 5ust title for the time fi-ed b( la0. 9,,): %n the case of o0nership and other real ri'hts o/er immo/able propert(, the( are ac4uired b( ordinar( prescription throu'h p&ss!ssi&n &' )3 y!a s.9,,E:

!AN#$RA#

cannot insist on the application of the ,+-(ear ordinar(

ac4uisiti/e prescription period since it cannot be considered a possessor in 'ood faith. $he 'ood faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief that the

person from 0hom he recei/ed the thin' 0as the o0ner thereof, and could transmit his o0nership.9,,@:

!AN#$RA#

came to possession of the t0o parcels of land after

purchasin' the same from $eofilo. $he Court stresses, ho0e/er, that $eofilo is not the re'istered o0ner of the sub5ect properties. $he said properties are still re'istered in #oHa #emetria;s name under OC$ Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7. $he Affida/it of Ad5udication, b( 0hich $eofilo declared himself to be the sole heir of #oHa #emetria;s estate, is not e/en annotated on the OC$s. Forse, !AN#$RA# is not dealin' directl( 0ith $eofilo, but onl( 0ith the latter;s

attorne(-in-fact, Att(. Cabildo. %t is a-iomatic that one 0ho bu(s from a person 0ho is not a re'istered o0ner is not a purchaser in 'ood faith.9,*+:

Gurthermore, in its Complaint for Cnla0ful #etainer a'ainst NAPOCOR and $RANSCO, 0hich 0as doc8eted as Ci/il Case No. ,,1)2-AG before the M$CC, !AN#$RA# itself alle'ed that 0hen it bou'ht the t0o parcels of land from $eofilo, portions thereof 0ere alread( occupied b( the O/erton Sub-station and A'us ) Farehouse of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO. $his is another circumstance 0hich should ha/e prompted !AN#$RA# to in/esti'ate or inspect the propert( bein' sold to it. %t is, of course, e-pected from the purchaser of a /alued piece of land to in4uire first into the status or nature of possession of the occupants, i.e., 0hether or not the occupants possess the land en conce#to de due>o, in concept of o0ner. As is the common practice in the real estate industr(, an ocular inspection of the premises in/ol/ed is a safe'uard a cautious and prudent

purchaser usuall( ta8es. Should he find out that the land he intends to bu( is occupied b( an(bod( else other than the seller 0ho, as in this case, is not in actual possession, it 0ould then be incumbent upon the purchaser to /erif( the e-tent of the occupant;s possessor( ri'hts. $he failure of a prospecti/e bu(er to ta8e such precautionar( steps 0ould mean ne'li'ence on his part and 0ould thereb( preclude him from claimin' or in/o8in' the ri'hts of a Kpurchaser in 'ood faith.L9,*,:

Since the ordinar( ac4uisiti/e prescription period of ,+ (ears does not appl( to !AN#$RA# , then the Court turns its attention to the !,t a& "ina y ac@%isiti7! p !sc ipti&n p! i&" of 43 y!a s set b( Article ,,?) of the Ci/il Code, 0hich reads:
AR$. ,,?). O0nership and other real ri'hts o/er immo/ables also prescribe throu'h uninterrupted ad/erse possession thereof for thirt( (ears, 0ithout need of title or of 'ood faith.

!AN#$RA#

ad/ersel( possessed the sub5ect properties no earlier

than )>>:, 0hen it bou'ht the same from $eofilo, and Ci/il Case No. 112* 0as alread( instituted t6& y!a s later in )>>=. !AN#$RA# cannot tac8 its ad/erse possession of the t0o parcels of land to that of $eofilo considerin' that there is no proof that the latter, 0ho is alread( residin' in the C.S.A., ad/ersel( possessed the properties at all.

$hus, the Court of Appeals did not err 0hen it affirmed in toto the 5ud'ment of the R$C-.ranch ? 0hich declared, amon' other thin's, that 6a7 Vidal is the sole

sur/i/in' heir of #oHa #emetria, 0ho alone has ri'hts to and interest in the sub5ect parcels of land< 6b7 A&%MC$D is Vidal;s successor-in-interest to portions of the said properties in accordance 0ith the ,@@E Memorandum of A'reement and *++1 #eed of Conditional Con/e(ance< 6c7 $eofilo is not the son or heir of #oHa #emetria< and 6d7 $eofilo, Att(. Cabildo, and their transferees=assi'nees, includin' !AN#$RA# , ha/e no /alid ri'ht to or interest in the same properties. Th! EB!ct<!nt & Un(a6'%( D!tain! Cas! 0G.R. N&s. )23535, )24455-5:, an" )245:4-:;1

$he Petitions in >.R. Nos. ,)+2+2, ,)??22-23, and ,)?23?-31 all concern the e-ecution pendin' appeal of the #ecision dated Gebruar( ,), *++1 of the M$CC in Ci/il Case No. ,,1)2-AG, 0hich ordered NAPOCOR and $RANSCO to /acate the t0o parcels of land in 4uestion, as 0ell as to pa( rent for the time the( occupied said properties.

!AN#$RA#

filed its Petition for Re/ie0 in G.R. N&. )23535 0hen it

failed to ha/e the M$CC #ecision dated Gebruar( ,), *++1 e-ecuted 0hile Ci/il Case No. 33,?, the appeal of the same 5ud'ment b( NAPOCOR and $RANSCO, 0as still pendin' before the R$C-.ranch 2.

NAPOCOR and $RANSCO sou'ht recourse from this Court throu'h their Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition in G.R. N&s. )24455-5: an" )245:4:; after the R$C-.ranch , 6to 0hich Ci/il Case No. 33,? 0as re-raffled7 alread(

rendered a #ecision dated #ecember ,*, *++2 in Ci/il Case No. 33,?, affirmin' the M$CC #ecision dated Gebruar( ,), *++1. -pectedl(, NAPOCOR and

$RANSCO appealed the 5ud'ment of the R$C-.ranch , to the Court of Appeals. $he Court of Appeals 'ranted the motion for e-ecution pendin' appeal of !AN#$RA# , and denied the application for preliminar( in5unction of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO. 'he re0uirements of postin a supersedeas !ond and depositin rent to sta& execution

$he pi/otal issue in >.R. No. ,)+2+2 is 0hether !AN#$RA# is entitled to the e-ecution of the M$CC #ecision dated Gebruar( ,), *++1 e/en 0hile said 5ud'ment 0as then pendin' appeal before the R$C-.ranch 2. $he R$C-.ranch 2 'ranted the motion for immediate e-ecution pendin' appeal of !AN#$RA# because of the failure of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO to compl( 0ith the re4uirements for sta(in' the e-ecution of the M$CC 5ud'ment, as pro/ided in Rule )+, Section ,@ of the Rules of Court. $he Court of Appeals subse4uentl( found 'ra/e abuse of discretion on the part of R$C-.ranch 2 in issuin' the Order dated Au'ust @, *++1 0hich 'ranted e-ecution pendin' appeal and the Frit of -ecution Pendin' Appeal dated Au'ust ,+, *++1< and on the part of Sheriff .orres, in issuin' the Notices of >arnishment and Notification to /acate, all dated Au'ust ,,, *++1. Accordin' to the appellate court, NAPOCOR and $RANSCO are e-empt from the re4uirements of filin' a su#ersedeas bond and depositin' rent in order to sta( the e-ecution of the M$CC 5ud'ment.

Rule )+, Section ,@ of the Rules of Court la(s do0n the re4uirements for sta(in' the immediate e-ecution of the M$CC 5ud'ment a'ainst the defendant in an e5ectment suit:
S C. ,@. Immediate e?ecution o" judgment' ho* to sta! same . Q %f 5ud'ment is rendered a'ainst the defendant, e-ecution shall issue immediatel( upon motion, unless an app!a( has 8!!n p! '!ct!" and the defendant to sta( e-ecution 'i(!s a s%''ici!nt s%p! s!"!as 8&n", appro/ed b( the Municipal $rial Court and e-ecuted in fa/or of the plaintiff to pa( the rents, dama'es, and costs accruin' do0n to the time of the 5ud'ment appealed from, and unless, durin' the pendenc( of the appeal, he "!p&sits 6ith th! app!((at! c&% t th! a<&%nt &' !nt "%! ' &< ti<! t& ti<! under the contract, if an(, as determined b( the 5ud'ment of the Municipal $rial Court. %n the absence of a contract, he shall deposit 0ith the Re'ional $rial Court the reasonable /alue of the use and occupation of the premises for the precedin' month or period at the rate determined b( the 5ud'ment of the lo0er court on or before the tenth da( of each succeedin' month or period. $he supersedeas bond shall be transmitted b( the Municipal $rial Court, 0ith the other papers, to the cler8 of the Re'ional $rial Court to 0hich the action is appealed. All amounts so paid to the appellate court shall be deposited 0ith said court or authoriBed 'o/ernment depositar( ban8, and shall be held there until the final disposition of the appeal, unless the court, b( a'reement of the interested parties, or in the absence of reasonable 'rounds of opposition to a motion to 0ithdra0, or for 5ustifiable reasons, shall decree other0ise. Should the defendant fail to ma8e the pa(ments abo/e prescribed from time to time durin' the pendenc( of the appeal, the appellate court, upon motion of the plaintiff, and upon proof of such failure, shall order the e-ecution of the 5ud'ment appealed from 0ith respect to the restoration of possession, but such e-ecution shall not be a bar to the appeal ta8in' its course until the final disposition thereof on the merits. After the case is decided b( the Re'ional $rial Court, an( mone( paid to the court b( the defendant for purposes of the sta( of e-ecution shall be disposed of in accordance 0ith the pro/isions of the 5ud'ment of

the Re'ional $rial Court. %n an( case 0herein it appears that the defendant has been depri/ed of the la0ful possession of land or buildin' pendin' the appeal b( /irtue of the e-ecution of the 5ud'ment of the Municipal $rial Court, dama'es for such depri/ation of possession and restoration of possession ma( be allo0ed the defendant in the 5ud'ment of the Re'ional $rial Court disposin' of the appeal. 6 mphases supplied.7

$he Court had pre/iousl( reco'niBed the e-emption of NAPOCOR from filin' a su#ersedeas bond. $he Court stated in(hili##ine &eothermal, Inc. v. Commissioner o" Internal )evenue9,**: that a chronolo'ical re/ie0 of the NAPOCOR Charter 0ill sho0 that it has been the la0ma8ers; intention that said corporation be completel( e-empt not onl( from all forms of ta-es, but also from filin' fees, appeal bonds, and su#ersedeas bonds in an( court or administrati/e proceedin's. $he Court traced the histor( of the NAPOCOR Charter, thus:
R!p%8(ic Act N&. :4>5 6,+ September ,@),7 enumerated the details co/ered b( the e-emptions b( statin' under Sec. ,? that K$he Corporation shall be non-profit and shall de/ote all its returns from its capital in/estment, as 0ell as e-cess re/enues from its operation, for e-pansionPthe Corporation is hereb( declared e-empt from the pa(ment of all ta-es, duties, fees, imposts, char'es, costs and ser/ice fees in an( court or administrati/e proceedin's in 0hich it ma( be a part(, restrictions and duties to the Republic of the Philippines, its pro/inces, cities, municipalities and other 'o/ernment a'encies and instrumentalities . . .L Subse4uentl(, P !si"!ntia( D!c !! N&. 4=3 6** "anuar( ,@)17, Sec. ,+ made e/en more specific the details of the e-emption of NPC to co/er, amon' others, both direct and indirect ta-es on all petroleum products used in its operation. P !si"!ntia( D!c !! N&. >4= 6*) Ma( ,@)37, Sec. ,? amended the ta- e-emption b( simplif(in' the same la0 in 'eneral terms. %t succinctl( e-empts ser/ice fees, includin' filin' fees, appeal bonds, su#ersedeas <onds, in an( court or administrati/e proceedin's. $he use of the phrase Kall formsL of ta-es demonstrate the intention of the la0 to 'i/e NPC all the e-emption it has

been en5o(in' before. $he rationale for this e-emption is that bein' nonprofit, the NPC Kshall de/ote all its return from its capital in/estment as 0ell as e-cess re/enues from its operation, for e-pansion. 9,*?: 6 mphases supplied.7

As presentl( 0orded, Section ,? of Republic Act No. 3?@2, the NAPOCOR Charter, as amended, reads:
S C. ,?. /on8#ro"it Character o" the Cor#oration' =?em#tion "rom ll 5a?es, 6uties, 1ees, Im#osts and @ther Charges <! the &overnment and &overnment Instrumentalities . Q $he Corporation shall be non-profit and shall de/ote all its returns from its capital in/estment as 0ell as e-cess re/enues from its operation, for e-pansion. $o enable the Corporation to pa( its indebtedness and obli'ations and in furtherance and effecti/e implementation of the polic( enunciated in Section One of this Act, the Corporation, includin' its subsidiaries, is hereb( declared e-empt from the pa(ment of all forms of ta-es, duties, fees, imposts as 0ell as costs and ser/ice fees inc(%"in# 'i(in# '!!s, app!a( 8&n"s, s%p! s!"!as 8&n"s, in any c&% t & a"<inist ati7! p &c!!"in#s . 6 mphasis supplied.7

%n A.M. No. +2-,+-*+-SC, captioned In )e3 =?em#tion o" the /ational (o*er Cor#oration "rom (a!ment o" 1ilingA6oc.et 1ees, the Court addressed the 4uer( of a Cler8 of Court from the R$C of Crdaneta, Pan'asinan on 0hether NAPOCOR is e-empt from the pa(ment of filin' fees and Sheriff;s $rust Gund. %n its Resolution dated #ecember 3, *++2, the Court, upon the recommendation of the Court Administrator, declared that NAPOCOR is still e-empt from the pa(ment of filin' fees, appeal bonds, and su#ersedeas bonds.

Consistent 0ith the fore'oin', the Court of Appeals rendered its #ecision dated No/ember *?, *++2 in CA->.R. SP Nos. E2),1 and E2E1, declarin' that NAPOCOR 0as e-empt from filin' a su#ersedeas bond to sta( the e-ecution of the M$CC 5ud'ment 0hile the same 0as pendin' appeal before the R$C-.ranch 2. $he appellate court also held that the e-emption of NAPOCOR e-tended e/en to the re4uirement for periodical deposit of rent, ratiocinatin' that:
On the 0hole, the postin' of su#ersedeas bond and the ma8in' of the periodical deposit are desi'ned primaril( to insure that the plaintiff 0ould be paid the bac8 rentals and the compensation for the use and occupation of the premises should the municipal trial court;s decision be e/entuall( affirmed on appeal. lse0ise stated, both the postin' of the supersedeas bond and the pa(ment of monthl( deposit are re4uired to accomplish one and the same purpose, namel(, to secure the performance of, or to satisf( the 5ud'ment appealed from in case it is affirmed on appeal b( the appellate court. ---$hus /ie0ed, the inescapable conclusion is, and so Fe hold, that althou'h the term Kma8in' of monthl( deposit in e5ectment casesL is not e-pressl( or specificall( mentioned in Section ,? of R.A. 3?@2, ho0e/er, inasmuch as it has the same or similar function, purpose, and essence as a supersedeas bond, it should be deemed included in the enumeration laid do0n under the said pro/ision. $his accords 0ell 0ith the principle ofejusdem generis 0hich sa(s that 0here a statute uses a 'eneral 0ord follo0ed b( an enumeration of specific 0ords embraced 0ithin the 'eneral 0ord merel( as e-amples, the enumeration does not restrict the meanin' of the 'eneral 0ord 0hich should be construed to include others of the same class althou'h not enumerated therein< or 0here a 'eneral 0ord or phrase follo0s an enumeration of particular and specific 0ords of the same class or 0here the latter follo0 the former, the 'eneral 0ord or phrase is to be construed to include persons, thin's or cases a8in to, resemblin', or of the same 8ind or class as those specificall( mentioned.

%n a nutshell, Fe hold that petitioner NAPOCOR en5o(s e-emption not onl( from postin' supersedeas bond in courts in appealed e5ectment cases, but also from periodicall( depositin' the amount of the monthl( rental or the reasonable compensation of the use and occupanc( of the propert(, as determined in the municipal trial court;s decision. 9,*1:

$he Court of Appeals further ad5ud'ed that the e-emptions of NAPOCOR similarl( applied to $RANSCO since K9i:t is all too ob/ious that the interests of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO o/er the premises in liti'ation are so inter0o/en and dependent upon each other, such that 0hate/er is ad5ud'ed in re'ard to the former, 0hether fa/orable or ad/erse, 0ould ineluctabl( and similarl( affect the latter9<:L and K9c:onse4uentl(, - - - the sta( of the e-ecution of the appealed decision insofar as NAPOCOR is concerned necessaril( e-tends and inures to its codefendant $RANSCO, not b( /irtue of the former;s statutor( e-emption pri/ile'e from filin' supersedeas bond and ma8in' periodic deposits, but b( the indisputabl( operati/e fact that the ri'hts and liabilities in litis of .O$D defendants are so intimatel( inter0o/en, interdependent, and indi/isible.L9,*2:

Onl( recentl(, ho0e/er, the Court re/ersed its stance on the e-emption of NAPOCOR from filin' fees, appeal bonds, andsu#ersedeas bonds. Re/isitin' A.M. No. +2-,+-*+-SC, the Court issued Resolutions dated October *), *++@ and March ,+, *+,+, 0herein it denied the re4uest of NAPOCOR for e-emption from pa(ment of filin' fees and court fees for such re4uest appears to run counter to Article V%%%, Section 26279,*3: of the Constitution, on the rule-ma8in' po0er of the Supreme Court o/er the rules on pleadin', practice and procedure in all courts, 0hich includes the sole po0er to fi- the filin' fees of cases in courts. $he Court

cate'oricall( pronounced that NAPOCOR can no lon'er in/o8e its amended Charter as basis for e-emption from the pa(ment of le'al fees.

Ne/ertheless, in this case, the R$C-.ranch , alread( promul'ated its #ecision in Ci/il Case No. 33,? on #ecember ,*, *++2, den(in' the appeal of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO and affirmin' the M$CC 5ud'ment a'ainst said corporations. NAPOCOR and $RANSCO presentl( ha/e pendin' appeals of the R$C-.ranch , 5ud'ment before the Court of Appeals.

R%(! 23, S!cti&n )> of the Rules of Court applies onl( 0hen the 5ud'ment of a Municipal $rial Court 6and an( same le/el court such as the M$CC7 in an e5ectment case is pendin' appeal before the R$C. Fhen the R$C had alread( resol/ed the appeal and its 5ud'ment, in turn, is pendin' appeal before the Court of Appeals, then R%(! 23, S!cti&n A) of the Rules of Court 'o/erns.

$he Court alread( pointed out in /orthcastle (ro#erties and =state Cor#oration v. (aas9,*): that Section ,@ applies onl( to e5ectment cases pendin' appeal 0ith the R$C, and Section *, to those alread( decided b( the R$C. $he Court a'ain held in U! v. Santiago9,*E: that:
9%:t is onl( e-ecution of the Metropolitan or Municipal $rial Courts; 5ud'ment pendin' appeal 0ith the Re'ional $rial Court 0hich ma( be sta(ed b( a compliance 0ith the re4uisites pro/ided in "ule 756 Section 19 of the 1997 "ules on Civil +rocedure . On the other hand, once the Re'ional $rial Court has rendered a decision in its appellate 5urisdiction, such decision shall, under "ule 756 Section 71 of the 1997 "ules on Civil +rocedure, be immediatel( e-ecutor(, 0ithout pre5udice to an

appeal, /ia a Petition for Re/ie0, before the Court of Appeals and=or Supreme Court. 6 mphases supplied.7

Accordin' to Rule )+, Section *, of the Rules of Court, K9t:he 5ud'ment of the Re'ional $rial Court a'ainst the defendant shall be immediatel( e-ecutor(, 0ithout pre5udice to a further appeal that ma( be ta8en therefrom.L %t no lon'er pro/ides for the sta( of e-ecution at such sta'e.

$hus, subse4uent e/ents ha/e rendered the Petition of !AN#$RA#

in

>.R. No. ,)+2+2 moot and academic. %t 0ill ser/e no more purpose for the Court to re4uire NAPOCOR and $RANSCO to still compl( 0ith the re4uirements of filin' a su#ersedeasbond and depositin' rent to sta( e-ecution pendin' appeal of the M$CC 5ud'ment, as re4uired b( Rule )+, Section ,@ of the Rules of Court, 0hen the appeal had since been resol/ed b( the R$C. +reliminar& in-unction to sta& execution of "'C -ud ment a ainst defendant in an e-ectment case

$he issues raised b( NAPOCOR and $RANSCO in their Petitions in >.R. Nos. ,)??22-23 and ,)?23?-31 boil do0n to the sole issue of 0hether the Court of Appeals committed 'ra/e abuse of discretion amountin' to lac8 or e-cess of 5urisdiction in refusin' to en5oin the e-ecution of the #ecision dated #ecember ,*, *++2 of the R$C-.ranch , in Ci/il Case No. 33,? 0hile the same is pendin' appeal before the appellate court.

$he Court of Appeals 'ranted the issuance of a 0rit of e-ecution in fa/or of !AN#$RA# and denied the application for 0rit of preliminar( in5unction of

NAPOCOR and $RANSCO because Rule )+, Section *, of the Rules of Court e-plicitl( pro/ides that the R$C 5ud'ment in an e5ectment case, 0hich is ad/erse to the defendant and pendin' appeal before the Court of Appeals, shall beimmediatel( e-ecutor( and can be enforced despite further appeal. $herefore, the e-ecution of the R$C 5ud'ment pendin' appeal is the ministerial dut( of the Court of Appeals, specificall( en5oined b( la0 to be done.

NAPOCOR and $RANSCO ar'ue that neither the rules nor 5urisprudence e-plicitl( declare that Rule )+, Section *, of the Rules of Court bars the application of Rule 2E on preliminar( in5unction. Re'ardless of the immediatel( e-ecutor( character of the R$C 5ud'ment in an e5ectment case, the Court of Appeals, before 0hich said 5ud'ment is appealed, is not depri/ed of po0er and 5urisdiction to issue a 0rit of preliminar( in5unction 0hen circumstances so 0arrant.

$here is merit in the present Petitions of NAPOCOR and $RANSCO.

$he Court e-pounded on the nature of a 0rit of preliminar( in5unction in 4evi Strauss B Co. v. Clinton ##arelle, Inc. 9,*@::
Section ,, Rule 2E of the Rules of Court defines a preliminar( in5unction as an order 'ranted at an( sta'e of an action prior to the

5ud'ment or final order re4uirin' a part( or a court, a'enc( or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. %n5unction is accepted as the stron' arm of e4uit( or a transcendent remed( to be used cautiousl( as it affects the respecti/e ri'hts of the parties, and onl( upon full con/iction on the part of the court of its e-treme necessit(. An e-traordinar( remed(, in5unction is desi'ned to preser/e or maintain the status quo of thin's and is 'enerall( a/ailed of to pre/ent actual or threatened acts until the merits of the case can be heard. %t ma( be resorted to onl( b( a liti'ant for the preser/ation or protection of his ri'hts or interests and for no other purpose durin' the pendenc( of the principal action. %t is resorted to onl( 0hen there is a pressin' necessit( to a/oid in5urious conse4uences, 0hich cannot be remedied under an( standard compensation. $he resolution of an application for a 0rit of preliminar( in5unction rests upon the e-istence of an emer'enc( or of a special recourse before the main case can be heard in due course of proceedin's. Section ?, Rule 2E, of the Rules of Court enumerates the 'rounds for the issuance of a preliminar( in5unction: S C. ?. &rounds "or issuance o" #reliminar! injunction . Q A preliminar( in5unction ma( be 'ranted 0hen it is established: 6a7 $hat the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the 0hole or part of such relief consists in restrainin' the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in re4uirin' the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetuall(< 6b7 $hat the commission, continuance, or nonperformance of the act or acts complained of durin' the liti'ation 0ould probabl( 0or8 in5ustice to the applicant< or 6c7 $hat a part(, court, a'enc( or a person is doin', threatenin', or is attemptin' to do, or is procurin' or sufferin' to be done, some act or acts probabl( in /iolation of the ri'hts of the applicant respectin' the sub5ect of the action or proceedin', and tendin' to render the 5ud'ment ineffectual. Cnder the cited pro/ision, a clear and positi/e ri'ht especiall( callin' for 5udicial protection must be sho0n. %n5unction is not a remed( to protect or enforce contin'ent, abstract, or future ri'hts< it 0ill not issue to protect a ri'ht not in esse and 0hich ma( ne/er arise, or to

restrain an act 0hich does not 'i/e rise to a cause of action. $here must e-ist an actual ri'ht. $here must be a patent sho0in' b( the complaint that there e-ists a ri'ht to be protected and that the acts a'ainst 0hich the 0rit is to be directed are /iolati/e of said ri'ht.

2enedicto v. Court o" ##eals9,?+: sets forth the follo0in' elucidation on the applicabilit( of Rule 2E /is-R-/is Rule )+, Section *, of the Rules of Court:
$his section 9Rule )+, Section *,: presupposes that the defendant in a forcible entr( or unla0ful detainer case is unsatisfied 0ith the 5ud'ment of the Re'ional $rial Court and decides to appeal to a superior court. %t authoriBes the R$C to immediatel( issue a 0rit of e-ecution 0ithout pre5udice to the appeal ta8in' its due course. %t is our opinion that on appeal the appellate court ma( sta( the said 0rit should circumstances so re4uire. %n the case of magan v. Mara!ag, 0e reiterated our pronouncement in 9da. de 4egas#i v. venda>o that the proceedin's in an e5ectment case ma( be suspended in 0hate/er sta'e it ma( be found. Fe further dre0 a fine line bet0een forcible entr( and unla0ful detainer, thus: Fhere the action, therefore, is one of ille'al detainer, as distin'uished from one of forcible entr(, and the ri'ht of the plaintiff to reco/er the premises is seriousl( placed in issue in a proper 5udicial proceedin', it is more e4uitable and 5ust and less producti/e of confusion and disturbance of ph(sical possession, 0ith all its concomitant incon/enience and e-penses. Gor the Court in 0hich the issue of le'al possession, 0hether in/ol/in' o0nership or not, is brou'ht to restrain, should a petition for preliminar( in5unction be filed 0ith it, the effects of an( order or decision in the unla0ful detainer case in order to a0ait the final 5ud'ment in the more substanti/e case in/ol/in' le'al possession or o0nership. %t is onl( 0here there has been forcible entr( that as a matter of public polic( the ri'ht to ph(sical possession should be immediatel( set at rest in fa/or of the prior possession re'ardless of the fact that the other part( mi'ht ultimatel( be found to ha/e superior

claim to the premises in/ol/ed thereb( to discoura'e an( attempt to reco/er possession thru force, strate'( or stealth and 0ithout resortin' to the courts. Pat!nt(y, !7!n i' RTC B%"#<!nts in %n(a6'%( "!tain! cas!s a ! i<<!"iat!(y !,!c%t& y, p !(i<ina y inB%ncti&n <ay sti(( 8! # ant!". Th! ! n!!" &n(y 8! c(!a sh&6in# that th! ! !,ists a i#ht t& 8! p &t!ct!" an" that th! acts a#ainst 6hich th! 6 it is t& 8! "i !ct!" 7i&(at! sai" i#ht. 6 mphasis supplied.7

As in 2enedicto, substantial considerations e-ist herein that compels the Court to issue a 0rit of preliminar( in5unction en5oinin' the e-ecution of the Gebruar( ,), *++1 #ecision of the M$CC, as affirmed b( the #ecember ,*, *++2 #ecision of the R$C-.ranch ,, until the appeal of latter 5ud'ment, sou'ht b( NAPOCOR and $RANSCO, is finall( resol/ed b( the Court of Appeals.

1irst, the t0o parcels of land claimed b( !AN#$RA# are the sub5ect of se/eral other cases. %n fact, Vidal and A&%MC$D, 0ho instituted the Auietin' of $itle Case a'ainst $eofilo and !AN#$RA# 6also presentl( before the Court in >.R. Nos. ,)E))@ and ,)EE@17 ha/e filed a Motion Gor !ea/e to %nter/ene in the instant case, thus, sho0in' that there are other parties 0ho, 0hile stran'ers to the e5ectment case, mi'ht be 'reatl( affected b( its result and 0ho 0ant to protect their interest in the sub5ect properties. And althou'h cases in/ol/in' title to real propert(, i.e., 4uietin' of title, accion #u<liciana, etc., are not pre5udicial to and do not suspend an e5ectment case,9,?,: the e-istence of such cases should ha/e alread( put the Court of Appeals on 'uard that the title of !AN#$RA# to the sub5ect

properties Q on 0hich it fundamentall( based its claim of possessor( ri'ht Q is bein' fiercel( contested.

Second, it is undisputed that $RANSCO and its predecessor, NAPOCOR, ha/e been in possession of the disputed parcels of land for more than 1+ (ears. Cpon said properties stand the $RANSCO O/erton Sub-station and A'us ) Farehouse. $he O/erton Sub-station, in particular, is a crucial facilit( responsible for pro/idin' the po0er re4uirements of a lar'e portion of %li'an Cit(, the t0o !anao Pro/inces, and other nearb( pro/inces. Fithout doubt, ha/in' $RANSCO /acate its O/erton Sub-station, b( prematurel( e-ecutin' the M$CC 5ud'ment of Gebruar( ,), *++1, carries serious and irre/ersible implications, primordial of 0hich is the 0idespread disruption of the electrical po0er suppl( in the aforementioned areas, contributin' further to the electric po0er crisis alread( pla'uin' much of Mindanao.

4astl!, allo0in' e-ecution pendin' appeal 0ould result in the pa(ment of an astronomical amount in rentals 0hich, per Sheriff .orres;s computation, alread( amounted to P,23,+++,+++.++ b( Au'ust ,,, *++1, 0hen he issued the Notices of >arnishment and Notification a'ainst NAPOCOR and $RANSCO<

plus, P2++,+++.+ each month thereafter. Pa(ment of such an amount ma( seriousl( put the operation of a public utilit( in peril, to the detriment of its consumers.

$hese circumstances alto'ether present a pressin' necessit( to a/oid in5urious conse4uences, not 5ust to NAPOCOR and $RANSCO, but to a

substantial fraction of the consumin' public as 0ell, 0hich cannot be remedied under an( standard compensation. $he issuance b( the Court of Appeals of a 0rit of preliminar( in5unction is 5ustified b( the circumstances.

$he Court must emphasiBe thou'h that in so far as the 5ectment Case is concerned, it has onl( settled herein issues on the propriet( of en5oinin' the e-ecution of the M$CC #ecision dated Gebruar( ,), *++1 0hile it 0as on appeal before the R$C, and subse4uentl(, before the Court of Appeals. $he Court of Appeals has (et to render a 5ud'ment on the appeal itself. .ut it ma( not be amiss for the Court to also point out that in >.R. Nos. ,)E))@ and ,)EE@1 6Auietin' of $itle Case7, it has alread( found that Vidal, not $eofilo, is the late #oHa #emetria;s sole heir, 0ho alone inherits #oHa #emetria;s ri'hts to and interests in the disputed parcels of land. $his conclusion of the Court in the Auietin' of $itle Case 0ill ine/itabl( affect the 5ectment Case still pendin' appeal before the Court of Appeals since !AN#$RA# is basin' its ri'ht to possession in the 5ectment Case on its supposed title to the sub5ect properties, 0hich it deri/ed from $eofilo. Th! Canc!((ati&n &' Tit(!s an" R!7! si&n Cas! 0G.R. N&. )24;3)1

$he Republic is assailin' in its Petition in >.R. No. ,)?1+, the 6,7 Order dated #ecember ,?, *++2 of the R$C-.ranch 1 dismissin' Ci/il Case No. 33E3, the Complaint for Cancellation of $itles and Re/ersion filed b( the Republic a'ainst the deceased #oHa #emetria, Vidal and=or $eofilo, and A&%MC$D and=or

!AN#$RA# < and 6*7 Order dated Ma( ,3, *++3 of the same trial court den(in' the Motion for Reconsideration of the Republic, a/errin' that:
Fith due respect, the trial court decided a 4uestion of substance contrar( to la0 and 5urisprudence in rulin': 6i7 $DA$ P $%$%ON R DA# NO CACS OG AC$%ON %N %NS$%$C$%N> $D SC." C$ COMP!A%N$ GOR CANC !!A$%ON OG OC$ NOS. +-,*++ 6A.G.7 AN# +-,*+, 6A.G.7, %NC!C#%N> A!! # R%VA$%V $%$! S, AN# R V RS%ON. $DA$ P $%$%ON R;S COMP!A%N$ GOR CANC !!A$%ON OG OC$ NOS. +-,*++ 6A.G.7 AN# +-,*+, 6A.G.7 %NC!C#%N> A!! # R%VA$%V $%$! S, AN# R V RS%ON %S .ARR # .O $D # C%S%ONS %N CACDO VS >OV RNM N$ OG $D CN%$ # S$A$ S 6*E PD%!. 3,3 9,@,1: AN# CACDO VS COCR$ OG APP A!S 6*3@ SCRA ,2@ 9,@@):. $DA$ P $%$%ON R;S CACS DAS PR SCR%. #< AN# OG AC$%ON

6ii7

6iii7 6i/7

$DA$ P $%$%ON R %S >C%!$O OG GORCM SDOPP%N>.9,?*:

$he Court finds merit in the present Petition.

Cause of action for reversion

$he Complaint in Ci/il Case No. 33E3 see8s the cancellation of OC$ Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7, 0ith all their deri/ati/e titles, and re/ersion. $he

Complaint 0as dismissed b( the R$C-.ranch 1 in its Order dated #ecember ,?, *++2, upon Motion of Vidal and A&%MC$D, on the 'round that the State does not ha/e a cause of action for re/ersion. Accordin' to the R$C-.ranch 1, there 0as no sho0in' that the late #oHa #emetria committed an( 0ron'ful act or omission in /iolation of an( ri'ht of the Republic. Additionall(, the Re'alian doctrine does not appl( to Ci/il Case No. 33E3 because said doctrine does not e-tend to lands be(ond the public domain. .( the o0n 5udicial admission of the Republic, the t0o parcels of land in 4uestion are pri/atel( o0ned, e/en before the same 0ere re'istered in #oHa #emetria;s name.

$he Court disa'rees.

Rule *, Section * of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as Kthe act or omission b( 0hich a part( /iolates a ri'ht of another.L %ts essential elements are the follo0in': 6,7 a ri'ht in fa/or of the plaintiff< 6*7 an obli'ation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to /iolate such ri'ht< and 6?7 such defendant;s act or omission that is /iolati/e of the ri'ht of the plaintiff or constitutin' a breach of the obli'ation of the former to the latter.9,??:

)eversion is an action 0here the ultimate relief sou'ht is to re/ert the land bac8 to the 'o/ernment under the Re'alian doctrine. Considerin' that the land sub5ect of the action ori'inated from a 'rant b( the 'o/ernment, its cancellation is a matter bet0een the 'rantor and the 'rantee. 9,?1: %n =state o" the 4ate Jesus S. ;ujuico v. )e#u<lic9,?2: 6;ujuico case7, re/ersion 0as defined as an action

0hich see8s to restore public land fraudulentl( a0arded and disposed of to pri/ate indi/iduals or corporations to the mass of public domain. %t bears to point out, thou'h, that the Court also allo0ed the resort b( the >o/ernment to actions for re/ersion to cancel titles that 0ere /oid for reasons other than fraud, i.e., /iolation b( the 'rantee of a patent of the conditions imposed b( la0< 9,?3: and lac8 of 5urisdiction of the #irector of !ands to 'rant a patent co/erin' inalienable forest land9,?): or portion of a ri/er, e/en 0hen such 'rant 0as made throu'h mere o/ersi'ht.9,?E: %n )e#u<lic v. &uerrero,9,?@: the Court 'a/e a more 'eneral statement that the remed( of re/ersion can be a/ailed of Konl( in cases of ' a%"%(!nt & %n(a6'%( inc(%si&n of the land in patents or certificates of title.L

$he ri'ht of the Republic to institute an action for re/ersion is rooted in the Re'alian doctrine. Cnder the R!#a(ian "&ct in!, all lands of the public domain belon' to the State, and that the State is the source of an( asserted ri'ht to o0nership in land and char'ed 0ith the conser/ation of such patrimon(. $his same doctrine also states that all lands not other0ise appearin' to be clearl( 0ithin pri/ate o0nership are p !s%<!" t& 8!(&n# t& th! Stat! .9,1+: %t is incorporated in the ,@E) Philippine Constitution under Article J%%, Section * 0hich declares K9a:ll lands of the public domain, 0aters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential ener'(, fisheries, forests or timber, 0ildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are o0ned b( the State. - - -L No public land can be ac4uired b( pri/ate persons 0ithout an( 'rant, e-press or implied, from the 'o/ernment< it is indispensable that there be a sho0in' of the title from the State.
9,1,:

$he re/ersion case of the Republic in Ci/il Case No. 33E3 rests on the main ar'ument that OC$ Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7, issued in #oHa #emetria;s name, included parcels of lands 0hich 0ere not ad5udicated to her b( the Court in the 1914 Cacho case. Contrar( to the statement made b( the R$C-.ranch 1 in its #ecember ,?, *++2 Order, the Republic does not ma8e an( admission in its Complaint that the t0o parcels of land re'istered in #oHa #emetria;s name 0ere pri/atel( o0ned e/en prior to their re'istration. Fhile the Republic does not dispute that that t0o parcels of land 0ere a0arded to #oHa #emetria in the 1914 Cacho case, it alle'es that these 0ere not the same as those co/ered b( OC$ Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7 issued in #oHa #emetria;s name E1 (ears later. %f, indeed, the parcels of land co/ered b( said OC$s 0ere not those 'ranted to #oHa #emetria in the 1914 Cacho case, then it can be presumed, under the Re'alian doctrine, that said properties still form part of the public domain belon'in' to the State.

"ust because OC$s 0ere alread( issued in #oHa #emetria;s name does not bar the Republic from institutin' an action for re/ersion. %ndeed, the Court made it clear in 1rancisco v. )odrigue09,1*: that Section ,+, of the Public !and Act Kma( be in/o8ed onl( 0hen title has alread( /ested in the indi/idual, e.g., 0hen a patent or a certificate of title has alread( been issued9,:L for the basic premise in an action for re/ersion is that the certificate of title fraudulentl( or unla0full( included land of the public domain, hence, callin' for the cancellation of said certificate. %t is

actuall( the issuance of such a certificate of title 0hich constitutes the third element of a cause of action for re/ersion.

$he Court further finds that the Complaint of the Republic in Ci/il Case No. 33E3 sufficientl( states a cause of action for re/ersion, e/en thou'h it does not alle'e that fraud 0as committed in the re'istration or that the #irector of !ands re4uested the re/ersion.

%t is a 0ell-settled rule that the e-istence of a cause of action is determined b( the alle'ations in the complaint. %n the resolution of a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action, onl( the facts alle'ed in the complaint must be considered. $he test in cases li8e these is 0hether a court can render a /alid 5ud'ment on the complaint based upon the facts alle'ed and pursuant to the pra(er therein. Dence, it has been held that a motion to dismiss 'enerall( parta8es of the nature of a demurrer 0hichhyp&th!tica((y a"<its the truth of the factual alle'ations made in a complaint.9,1?: $he h(pothetical admission e-tends to the rele/ant and material facts 0ell pleaded in the complaint and inferences fairl( deducible therefrom. Dence, if the alle'ations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis b( 0hich the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed re'ardless of the defense that ma( be assessed b( the defendants.9,11:

%n 9ergara v. Court o" ##eals,9,12: the Court additionall( e-plained that:

%n determinin' 0hether alle'ations of a complaint are sufficient to support a cause of action, it must be borne in mind that the complaint

does not ha/e to establish or alle'e facts pro/in' the e-istence of a cause of action at the outset< this 0ill ha/e to be done at the trial on the merits of the case. $o sustain a motion to dismiss for lac8 of cause of action, the complaint must sho0 that the claim for relief does not e-ist, rather than that a claim has been defecti/el( stated, or is ambi'uous, indefinite or uncertain.

$he Republic meticulousl( presented in its Complaint the discrepancies bet0een the 1914 Cacho case, on one hand, 0hich 'ranted #oHa #emetria title to t0o parcels of land< and OC$ Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7, on the other, 0hich 0ere supposedl( issued pursuant to the said case. %n para'raphs @ and ,3 of its Complaint, the Republic clearl( alle'ed that OC$ Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7 co/er properties much lar'er than or areas be(ond those 'ranted b( the land re'istration court in >!RO Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@. $hus, the Republic 0as able to satisfactoril( alle'e the unla0ful inclusion, for lac8 of an e-plicit 'rant from the >o/ernment, of parcels of public land into #oHa #emetria;s OC$s, 0hich, if true, 0ill 5ustif( the cancellation of said certificates and the return of the properties to the Republic.

$hat the Complaint in Ci/il Case No. 33E3 does not alle'e that it had been filed b( the Office of the Solicitor >eneral 6OS>7, at the behest of the #irector of !ands, does not call for its dismissal on the 'round of failure to state a cause of action. Section ,+, of Common0ealth Act No. ,1,, other0ise 8no0n as the Public !and Act, as amended, simpl( re4uires that:
S C. ,+,. All actions for the re/ersion to the >o/ernment of lands of the public domain or impro/ements thereon shall be instituted

b( theS&(icit& G!n! a( & th! &''ic! actin# in his st!a", in th! p &p! c&% ts, in th! na<! &' th! R!p%8(ic &' th! Phi(ippin!s . 6 mphasis supplied.7

Clear from the afore4uoted pro/ision that the authorit( to institute an action for re/ersion, on behalf of the Republic, is primaril( conferred upon the OS>. Fhile the OS>, for most of the time, 0ill file an action for re/ersion upon the re4uest or recommendation of the #irector of !ands, there is no basis for sa(in' that the former is absolutel( bound or dependent on the latter.

R$C-.ranch 1 cited Sher*ill 6evelo#ment Cor#oration v. Sitio /i>o )esidents ssociation, Inc. 9,13: 6Sher*ill case7, to support its rulin' that it is

Kabsolutel( necessar(L that an in/esti'ation and a determination of fraud should ha/e been made b( the #irector of !ands prior to the filin' of a case for re/ersion. $he Sher*ill case is not in point and does not constitute a precedent for the case at bar. %t does not e/en in/ol/e a re/ersion case. $he main issue therein 0as 0hether the trial court properl( dismissed the complaint of Sher0ill #e/elopment Corporation for 4uietin' of title to t0o parcels of land, considerin' that a case for the declaration of nullit( of its $C$s, instituted b( the Sto. NiHo Residents Association, %nc., 0as alread( pendin' before the !and Mana'ement .ureau 6!M.7. $he Court reco'niBed therein the primar( 5urisdiction of the !M. o/er the dispute, and affirmed the dismissal of the 4uietin' of title case on the 'rounds of litis #endentia and forum shoppin'.

"es -udicata

Public polic( and sound practice enshrine the fundamental principle upon 0hich the doctrine of res judicata rests that parties ou'ht not to be permitted to liti'ate the same issues more than once. %t is a 'eneral rule common to all ci/iliBed s(stem of 5urisprudence, that the solemn and deliberate sentence of the la0, pronounced b( its appointed or'ans, upon a disputed fact or a state of facts, should be re'arded as a final and conclusi/e determination of the 4uestion liti'ated, and should fore/er set the contro/ers( at rest. %ndeed, it has been 0ell said that this ma-im is more than a mere rule of la0< more e/en than an important principle of public polic(< and that it is not too much to sa( that it is a fundamental concept in the or'aniBation of e/er( 5ural s(stem. Public polic( and sound practice demand that, at the ris8 of occasional errors, 5ud'ments of courts should become final at some definite date fi-ed b( la0. $he /er( ob5ect for 0hich courts 0ere constituted 0as to put an end to contro/ersies.9,1):

$he doctrine of res judicata comprehends t0o distinct concepts - 6,7 bar b( former 5ud'ment, and 6*7 conclusi/eness of 5ud'ment. 1or res judicata to ser/e as an absolute bar to a subse4uent action, the follo0in' re4uisites must concur: 6,7 the former 5ud'ment or order must be final< 6*7 the 5ud'ment or order must be on the merits< 6?7 it must ha/e been rendered b( a court ha/in' 5urisdiction o/er the sub5ect matter and parties< and 617 there must be bet0een the first and second actions, identit( of parties, of sub5ect matter, and of causes of action. Fhen there is no identit( of causes of action, but onl( an identit( of issues, there e-ists res judicata in the concept of conclusi/eness of 5ud'ment. Althou'h it does not ha/e

the same effect as res judicata in the form of bar b( former 5ud'ment 0hich prohibits the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand, or cause of action, the rule on conclusi/eness of 5ud'ment bars the reliti'ation of particular facts or issues in another liti'ation bet0een the same parties on a different claim or cause of action.9,1E:

$he 1914 Cacho case does not bar the Complaint for re/ersion in Ci/il Case No. 33E3 b( res judicata in either of its t0o concepts.

$here is no bar b( prior 5ud'ment because the 1914 Cacho case and Ci/il Case No. 33E3 do not ha/e the same causes of action and, e/en possibl(, the( do not in/ol/e identical sub5ect matters.

!and re'istration cases, such as >!RO Record Nos. 3@+E and 3@+@, from 0hich the 1914 Cacho case arose, are special proceedin's 0here the concept of a cause of action in ordinar( ci/il actions does not appl(. %n special proceedin's, the purpose is to establish a status, condition or fact< in land re'istration proceedin's, the o0nership b( a person of a parcel of land is sou'ht to be established. 9,1@: Ci/il Case No. 33E3 is an action for re/ersion 0here the cause of action is the alle'ed unla0ful inclusion in OC$ Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7 of parcels of public land that 0ere not amon' those 'ranted to #oHa #emetria in the 1914 Cacho case. $hus, Ci/il Case No. 33E3 e/en rests on supposition that the parcels of land co/ered b( the certificates of title in #oHa #emetria;s name, 0hich the Republic is

see8in' to ha/e cancelled, are different from the parcels of land that 0ere the sub5ect matter of the 1914 Cacho case and ad5ud'ed to #oHa #emetria.

)es judicata in the concept of conclusi/eness of 5ud'ment, li8e0ise, does not appl( as bet0een the 1914 Cacho case and Ci/il Case No. 33E3. A careful stud( of the Complaint in Ci/il Case No. 33E3 re/eals that the Republic does not see8 to re-liti'ate an( of the issues resol/ed in the 1914 Cacho case. $he Republic no lon'er 4uestions in Ci/il Case No. 33E3 that #oHa #emetria 0as ad5ud'ed the o0ner of t0o parcels of land in the 1914 Cacho case. $he Republic is onl( insistin' on the strict adherence to the 5ud'ment of the Court in the 1914 Cacho case, particularl(: 6,7 the ad5udication of a smaller parcel of land, consistin' onl( of the southern portion of the ?).E)-hectare !ot * sub5ect of #oHa #emetria;s application in >!RO Record No. 3@+@< and 6*7 the submission of a ne0 technical plan for the ad5udicated southern portion of !ot * in >!RO Record No. 3@+@, and the deed e-ecuted b( #atto #arondon, husband of Alan'a, renouncin' all his ri'hts to !ot ,, in >!RO Record No. 3@+E, in #oHa #emetria;s fa/or.9,2+:

Similarl(, the 1997 Cacho case is not an obstacle to the institution b( the Republic of Ci/il Case No. 33E3 on the 'round ofres judicata.

.ar b( prior 5ud'ment does not appl( for lac8 of identit( of causes of action bet0een the 1997 Cacho case and Ci/il Case No. 33E3. $he 1997 Cacho case in/ol/es a petition for re-issuance of decrees of re'istration. %n the absence of principles and rules specific for such a petition, the Court refers to those on

reconstitution of certificates of title, bein' almost of the same nature and 'rantin' closel( similar reliefs.

Reconstitution denotes a restoration of the instrument 0hich is supposed to ha/e been lost or destro(ed in its ori'inal form or condition. $he purpose of the reconstitution of title or an( document is to ha/e the same reproduced, after obser/in' the procedure prescribed b( la0, in the same form the( 0ere 0hen the loss or destruction occurred.9,2,: Reconstitution is another special proceedin' 0here the concept of cause of action in an ordinar( ci/il action finds no application.

$he Court, in the 1997 Cacho case, 'ranted the reconstitution and reissuance of the decrees of re'istration considerin' that the NA!$#RA, throu'h then Actin' Commissioner Santia'o M. Sapunan,9,2*: its #eput( Cler8 of Court %%%, the Dead >eodetic n'ineer, and the Chief of Re'istration, certified that

Kaccordin' to the Record .oo8 of #ecrees for Ordinar( !and Re'istration Case, #ecree No. ,E@3@ 0as issued in >!RO Record No. 3@+@ and #ecree No. ,+?31 0as issued in >!RO Record No. 3@+E9<:L 9,2?: thus, lea/in' no doubt that said decrees had in fact been issued.

$he 1997 Cacho case onl( settled the issuance, e-istence, and subse4uent loss of #ecree Nos. ,+?31 and ,E@3@. Conse4uentl(, said decrees could be reissued in their ori'inal form or condition. $he Court, ho0e/er, could not ha/e passed upon in the 1997 Cacho case the issues on 0hether #oHa #emetria trul(

o0ned the parcels of land co/ered b( the decrees and 0hether the decrees and the OC$s subse4uentl( issued pursuant thereto are /oid for unla0full( includin' land of the public domain 0hich 0ere not a0arded to #oHa #emetria.

$he follo0in' pronouncement of the Court in :eirs o" Susana de &u0man 5ua0on v. Court o" ##eals9,21: is instructi/e:
Precisel(, in both species of reconstitution under Section ,+@ of P.#. No. ,2*@ and R.A. No. *3, the nature of the action denotes a restoration of the instrument 0hich is supposed to ha/e been lost or destro(ed in its ori'inal form and condition. Th! p% p&s! &' th! acti&n is <! !(y t& ha7! th! sa<! !p &"%c!", a't! p &p! p &c!!"in#s, in th! sa<! '& < th!y 6! ! 6h!n th! (&ss & "!st %cti&n &cc% !", an" "&!s n&t pass %p&n th! &6n! ship &' th! (an" c&7! !" 8y th! (&st & "!st &y!" tit(!. %t bears stressin' at this point that o0nership should not be confused 0ith a certificate of title. Re'isterin' land under the $orrens S(stem does not create or /est title because re'istration is not a mode of ac4uirin' o0nership. A certificate of title is merel( an e/idence of o0nership or title o/er the particular propert( described therein. Corollaril(, any @%!sti&n in7&(7in# th! iss%! &' &6n! ship <%st 8! th !sh!" &%t in a s!pa at! s%it , 0hich is e-actl( 0hat the pri/ate respondents did 0hen the( filed Ci/il Case No. @2-?2)) before .ranch )1. $he trial court 0ill then conduct a full-blo0n trial 0herein the parties 0ill present their respecti/e e/idence on the issue of o0nership of the sub5ect properties to enable the court to resol/e the said issue. - - -. 6 mphases supplied.7

Fhate/er findin's the Court made on the issue of o0nership in the 1997 Cacho case are mere o<iter dictum. As the Court held in moroso v. legre, Jr.
9,22:

Petitioner claims in his petition that the ? October ,@2) #ecision resol/ed the issue of o0nership of the lots and declared in the bod( of the decision that he had Ksufficientl( pro/en uncontro/erted facts that he had been in possession of the land in 4uestion since ,@13 - - - 9and: has been in possession of the propert( 0ith sufficient title.L Do0e/er, s%ch 'in"in#s <a"! 8y th! CFI in th! sai" "!cisi&n a ! <! ! &8it! , sinc! th! &6n! ship &' th! p &p! ti!s, tit(!s t& 6hich 6! ! s&%#ht t& 8! !c&nstit%t!", 6as n!7! th! iss%! in th! !c&nstit%ti&n cas!. O6n! ship is n&t th! iss%! in a p!titi&n '& !c&nstit%ti&n &' tit(!. A !c&nstit%ti&n &' tit(! "&!s n&t pass %p&n th! &6n! ship &' th! (an" c&7! !" 8y th! (&st & "!st &y!" tit(!. %t ma( perhaps be ar'ued that o0nership of the properties 0as put in issue 0hen petitioner opposed the petition for reconstitution b( claimin' to be the o0ner of the properties. Do0e/er, any %(in# that th! t ia( c&% t <ay <aH! &n th! <att! is i !(!7ant c&nsi"! in# th! c&% tIs (i<it!" a%th& ity in p!titi&ns '& !c&nstit%ti&n. %n a petition for reconstitution of title, the onl( relief sou'ht is the issuance of a reconstituted title because the reconstitutin' officer;s po0er is limited to 'rantin' or den(in' a reconstituted title. As stated earlier, the reconstitution of title does not pass upon the o0nership of the land co/ered b( the lost or destro(ed title, and an( chan'e in the o0nership of the propert( must be the sub5ect of a separate suit. 6 mphases supplied.7

$he Court concedes that the 1997 Cacho case, b( reason of conclusi/eness of 5ud'ment, pre/ents the Republic from a'ain raisin' as issues in Ci/il Case No. 33E3 the issuance and e-istence of #ecree Nos. ,+?31 and ,E@3@, but not the /alidit( of said decrees, as 0ell as the certificates of title issued pursuant thereto.

Forum shoppin

Gorum shoppin' is the filin' of multiple suits in/ol/in' the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneousl( or successi/el(, for the purpose of obtainin' a fa/orable 5ud'ment. A part( /iolates the rule a'ainst forum shoppin' if the elements oflitis #endentia are present< or if a final 5ud'ment in one case 0ould amount to res judicata in the other.9,23: $here is forum shoppin' 0hen the follo0in' elements are present: 6a7 identit( of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions< 6b7 identit( of ri'hts asserted and relief pra(ed for, the relief bein' founded on the same facts< and 6c7 the identit( of the t0o precedin' particulars, is such that an( 5ud'ment rendered in the other action 0ill, re'ardless of 0hich part( is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration< said re4uisites are also constituti/e of the re4uisites for auter action #endant or lis #endens.9,2):

>i/en the precedin' dis4uisition of the Court that the 1914 and 1997 Cacho cases do not constitute res judicata in Ci/il Case No. 33E3, then the Court also cannot sustain the dismissal b( the R$C-.ranch 1 of the Complaint of the Republic in Ci/il Case No. 33E3 for forum shoppin'.

+rescription

Accordin' to the R$C-.ranch 1, the cause of action for re/ersion of the Republic 0as alread( lost or e-tin'uished b( prescription, citin' Section ?* of the Propert( Re'istration #ecree, 0hich pro/ides:
S C. ?*. )evie* o" decree o" registration' Innocent #urchaser "or value. Q $he decree of re'istration shall not be reopened or re/ised b( reason of absence, minorit(, or other disabilit( of an( person ad/ersel( affected thereb(, nor b( an( proceedin' in an( court for re/ersin' 5ud'ment, sub5ect, ho0e/er, to the ri'ht of an( person, includin' the 'o/ernment and the branches thereof, depri/ed of land or of an( estate or interest therein b( such ad5udication or confirmation of title obtained b( actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of Girst %nstance a petition for reopenin' and re/ie0 of the decree of re'istration not later than one (ear from and after the date of the entr( of such decree of re'istration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained b( the court 0here an innocent purchaser for /alue has ac4uired the land or an interest therein, 0hose ri'hts ma( be pre5udiced. Fhene/er the phrase Kinnocent purchaser of /alueL or an e4ui/alent phrase occurs in this #ecree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mort'a'ee, or other encumbrancer for /alue. Cpon the e-piration of said period of one (ear, the decree of re'istration and the certificate of title issued shall become incontro/ertible. An( person a''rie/ed b( such decree of re'istration in an( case ma( pursue his remed( b( action for dama'es a'ainst the applicant or an( other persons responsible for the fraud.

#ecree No. ,+?31 in >!RO Record No. 3@+E 0as issued on Ma( @, ,@,?, 0hile #ecree No. ,E@3@ in >!RO Record No. 3@+@ 0as issued on "ul( E, ,@,2. %n the course of ei'ht decades, the decrees 0ere lost and subse4uentl( reconstituted per order of this Court in the 1997 Cacho case. $he reconstituted decrees 0ere issued on October ,2, ,@@E and transcribed on OC$ Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7. $he reconstituted decrees 0ere finall( entered into the

Re'istration .oo8 for %li'an Cit( on #ecember 1, ,@@E at ,+:++ a.m. Almost si(ears had elapsed from entr( of the decrees b( the time the Republic filed its Complaint in Ci/il Case No. 33E3 on October ,?, *++1.

Nonetheless, elementar( is the rule that prescription does not run a'ainst the State and its subdi/isions. Fhen the 'o/ernment is the real part( in interest, and it is proceedin' mainl( to assert its o0n ri'ht to reco/er its o0n propert(, there can as a rule be no defense 'rounded on laches or prescription. Public land fraudulentl( included in patents or certificates of title ma( be reco/ered or re/erted to the State in accordance 0ith Section ,+, of the Public !and Act. $he ri'ht of re/ersion or recon/e(ance to the State is not barred b( prescription.9,2E:

$he Court discussed len'thil( in )e#u<lic v. Court o"

##eals9,2@: the

indefeasibilit( of a decree of re'istration=certificate of title vis8C8vis the remed( of re/ersion a/ailable to the State:
$he petitioner in/o8es )e#u<lic v. nimas, 0here this Court declared that a title founded on fraud ma( be cancelled not0ithstandin' the lapse of one (ear from the issuance thereof. $hus: - - - $he misrepresentations of the applicant that he had been occup(in' and culti/atin' the land and residin' thereon are sufficient 'rounds to nullif( the 'rant of the patent and title under Section @, of the Public !and !a0 0hich pro/ides as follo0s: X$he statements made in the application shall be considered as essential conditions or parts of an( concession, title or permit issued on the basis of such application,

and an( false statement thereon or omission of facts, chan'in', or modif(in' the consideration of the facts set forth in such statement, and an( subse4uent modification, alteration, or chan'e of the material facts set forth in the application shall i#so "acto produce the cancellation of the concession, title or permit 'ranted. - - -X A certificate of title that is /oid ma( be ordered cancelled. A title 0ill be considered /oid if it is procured throu'h fraud, as 0hen a person applies for re'istration of the land under his name althou'h the propert( belon's to another. %n the case of disposable public lands, "ailure on the #art o" the grantee to com#l! *ith the conditions im#osed <! la* is a 'round for holdin' such title /oid. $he lapse of the one (ear period 0ithin 0hich a decree of title ma( be reopened for fraud 0ould not pre/ent the cancellation thereof, for to hold that a title ma( become indefeasible b( re'istration, e/en if such title had been secured throu'h fraud or in /iolation of the la0, 0ould be the hei'ht of absurdit(. Re'istration should not be a shield of fraud in securin' title. $his doctrine 0as reiterated "ustice Relo/a declared for the Court: in )e#u<lic v. Mina, 0here

A certificate of title that is /oid ma( be ordered cancelled. And, a title 0ill be considered /oid if it is procured throu'h fraud, as 0hen a person applies for re'istration of the land on the claim that he has been occup(in' and culti/atin' it. %n the case of disposable public lands, failure on the part of the 'rantee to compl( 0ith the conditions imposed b( la0 is a 'round for holdin' such title /oid. - - - $he lapse of one 6,7 (ear period 0ithin 0hich a decree of title ma( be reopened for fraud 0ould not pre/ent the cancellation thereof for to hold that a title ma( become indefeasible b( re'istration, e/en if such title had been secured throu'h fraud or in /iolation of the la0 0ould be the hei'ht of absurdit(. Re'istration should not be a shield of fraud in securin' title.

"ustif(in' the abo/e-4uoted pro/ision, the Court declared in (i>ero, Jr. v. 6irector o" 4ands: %t is true that under Section ,** of the !and Re'istration Act, a $orrens title issued on the basis of a free patent or a homestead patent is as indefeasible as one 5udiciall( secured. And in repeated pre/ious decisions of this Court that indefeasibilit( has been emphasiBed b( Our holdin' that not e/en the >o/ernment can file an action for annulment, but at the same time, it has been made clear that an action for re/ersion ma( be instituted b( the Solicitor >eneral, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. %t is to the public interest that one 0ho succeeds in fraudulentl( ac4uirin' title to a public land should not be allo0ed to benefit therefrom, and the State should, therefore, ha/e an e/en e-istin' authorit(, thru its dul( authoriBed officers, to in4uire into the circumstances surroundin' the issuance of an( such title, to the end that the Republic, thru the Solicitor >eneral or an( other officer 0ho ma( be authoriBed b( la0, ma( file the correspondin' action for the re/ersion of the land in/ol/ed to the public domain, sub5ect thereafter to disposal to other 4ualified persons in accordance 0ith la0. %n other 0ords, the indefeasibilit( of a title o/er land pre/iousl( public is not a bar to an in/esti'ation b( the #irector of !ands as to ho0 such title has been ac4uired, if the purpose of such in/esti'ation is to determine 0hether or not fraud had been committed in securin' such title in order that the appropriate action for re/ersion ma( be filed b( the >o/ernment. Pri/ate respondent PN. points out that nimas in/ol/ed timberland, 0hich is not alienable or disposable public land, and that in (i>ero the issue raised 0as 0hether the #irector of !ands 0ould be en5oined b( a 0rit of prohibition from in/esti'atin' alle'ations of fraud that led to the issuance of certain free patents. Ne/ertheless, 0e find that the doctrine abo/e 4uoted is no less controllin' e/en if there be some factual disparities 60hich are not material here7, especiall( as it has been buttressed b( subse4uent 5urisprudence.

%n 6irector o" 4ands v. Jugado, upon 0hich the appellate court based its rulin', the Court declared meanin'full( that: $here is, ho0e/er, a section in the Public !and !a0 6Sec. ,+, of Common0ealth Act ,1,7, 0hich affords a remed( 0hereb( lands of the public domain fraudulentl( a0arded ma( be reco/ered or re/erted bac8 to its ori'inal o0ner, the >o/ernment. .ut the pro/ision re4uires that all such actions for re/ersion shall be instituted b( the Solicitor >eneral or the officer actin' in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines 6See #irector of !ands /. #e !una, su#ra7. As the part( in interest in this case is the #irector of !ands and not the Republic of the Philippines, the action cannot prosper in fa/or of the appellant. $he reference 0as to the Public !and !a0 0hich authoriBes the re/ersion suit under its Sec. ,+,, thus: Sec. ,+,. All actions for the re/ersion to the >o/ernment of lands of the public domain or impro/ements thereon shall be instituted b( the Solicitor >eneral or the officer actin' in his stead, in the proper courts, in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. $his remed( 0as recentl( affirmed b( the Court in :eirs o" &regorio 5engco v. :eirs o" Jose and 9ictoria li*alas, thus: - - - $itle to the propert( ha/in' become incontro/ertible, such ma( no lon'er be collaterall( attac8ed. %f indeed there had been an( fraud or misrepresentation in obtainin' the title, an action for re/ersion instituted b( the Solicitor >eneral 0ould be the proper remed(.

%t is e/ident from the fore'oin' 5urisprudence that despite the lapse of one (ear from the entr( of a decree of re'istration=certificate of title, the State, throu'h the Solicitor >eneral, ma( still institute an action for re/ersion 0hen said

decree=certificate 0as ac4uired b( fraud or misrepresentation. %ndefeasibilit( of a title does not attach to titles secured b( fraud and misrepresentation. Fell-settled is the doctrine that the re'istration of a patent under the $orrens s(stem does not b( itself /est title< it merel( confirms the re'istrant;s alread( e-istin' one. Veril(, re'istration under the $orrens s(stem is not a mode of ac4uirin' o0nership.9,3+:

.ut then a'ain, the Court had se/eral times in the past reco'niBed the ri'ht of the State to a/ail itself of the remed( of re/ersion in other instances 0hen the title to the land is /oid for reasons other than ha/in' been secured b( fraud or misrepresentation. One such case is S#ouses Morandarte v. Court o"
9,3,:

##eals,

0here the .ureau of !ands 6.O!7, b( mista8e and o/ersi'ht, 'ranted a patent

to the spouses Morandarte 0hich included a portion of the Miputa8 Ri/er. $he Republic instituted an action for re/ersion ,+ (ears after the issuance of an OC$ in the name of the spouses Morandarte. $he Court ruled:
.e that as it ma(, the mista8e or error of the officials or a'ents of the .O! in this re'ard cannot be in/o8ed a'ainst the 'o/ernment 0ith re'ard to propert( of the public domain. %t has been said that the State cannot be estopped b( the omission, mista8e or error of its officials or a'ents. %t is 0ell-reco'niBed that if a person obtains a title under the Public !and Act 0hich includes, b( o/ersi'ht, lands 0hich cannot be re'istered under the $orrens s(stem, or 0hen the #irector of !ands did not ha/e 5urisdiction o/er the same because it is a public domain, the 'rantee does not, b( /irtue of the said certificate of title alone, become the o0ner of the land or propert( ille'all( included. Other0ise stated, propert( of the public domain is incapable of re'istration and its inclusion in a title nullifies that title.

Another e-ample is the case of )e#u<lic o" the (hils. v. C1I o" 4anao del /orte, 2r. I9,9,3*: in 0hich the homestead patent issued b( the State became null and /oid because of the 'rantee;s /iolation of the conditions for the 'rant. $he Court ordered the re/ersion e/en thou'h the land sub5ect of the patent 0as alread( co/ered b( an OC$ and the Republic a/ailed itself of the said remed( more than ,, (ears after the cause of action accrued, because:
$here is merit in this appeal considerin' that the statute of limitation does not lie a'ainst the State. Ci/il Case No. ,?E* of the lo0er court for re/ersion is a suit brou'ht b( the petitioner Republic of the Philippines as a so/erei'n state and, b( the e-press pro/ision of Section ,,E of Common0ealth Act No. ,1,, an( transfer or alienation of a homestead 'rant 0ithin fi/e 627 (ears from the issuance of the patent is null and /oid and constitute a cause for re/ersion of the homestead to the State. %n Republic /s. RuiB, *? SCRA ?1E, Fe held that Xthe Court belo0 committed no error in orderin' the re/ersion to plaintiff of the land 'rant in/ol/ed herein, not0ithstandin' the fact that the ori'inal certificate of title based on the patent had been cancelled and another certificate issued in the names of the 'rantee heirs. $hus, 0here a 'rantee is found not entitled to hold and possess in fee simple the land, b( reason of his ha/in' /iolated Section ,,E of the Public !and !a0, the Court ma( properl( order its recon/e(ance to the 'rantor, althou'h the propert( has alread( been brou'ht under the operation of the $orrens S(stem. nd, this right o" the government to <ring an a##ro#riate action "or reconve!ance is not <arred <! the la#se o" time3 the Statute o" 4imitations does not run against the State.X 6%talics supplied7. $he abo/e rulin' 0as reiterated in Republic /s. Mina, ,,1 SCRA @12.

%f the Republic is able to establish after trial and hearin' of Ci/il Case No. 33E3 that the decrees and OC$s in #oHa #emetria;s name are /oid for some reason, then the trial court can still order the re/ersion of the parcels of land co/ered b( the same because indefeasibilit( cannot attach to a /oid decree or

certificate of title. $he R$C-.ranch 1 5umped the 'un 0hen it declared that the cause of action of the Republic for re/ersion in Ci/il Case No. 33E3 0as alread( lost or e-tin'uished b( prescription based on the Complaint alone.

All told, the Court finds that the R$C-.ranch 1 committed re/ersible error in dismissin' the Complaint for Cancellation of $itles and Re/ersion of the Republic in Ci/il Case No. 33E3. Resultantl(, the Court orders the reinstatement of said Complaint. Oet, the Court also deems it opportune to recall the follo0in' statements in Saad8 gro Industries, Inc. v. )e#u<lic9,3?::
%t has been held that a complaint for re/ersion in/ol/es a serious contro/ers(, in/ol/in' a 4uestion of fraud and misrepresentation committed a'ainst the 'o/ernment and it is aimed at the return of the disputed portion of the public domain. %t see8s to cancel the ori'inal certificate of re'istration, and nullif( the ori'inal certificate of title, includin' the transfer certificate of title of the successors-in-interest because the same 0ere all procured throu'h fraud and misrepresentation. $hus, the State, as the part( alle'in' the fraud and misrepresentation that attended the application of the free patent, bears that burden of proof. Graud and misrepresentation, as 'rounds for cancellation of patent and annulment of title, should ne/er be presumed but must be pro/ed b( clear and con/incin' e/idence, mere preponderance of e/idence not e/en bein' ade4uate. It is 8%t B%"ici&%s t& !@%i ! th! G&7! n<!nt, in an acti&n '& !7! si&n, t& sh&6 th! "!tai(s att!n"in# th! iss%anc! &' tit(! &7! th! a((!#!" ina(i!na8(! (an" an" !,p(ain 6hy s%ch iss%anc! has "!p i7!" th! Stat! &' th! c(ai<!" p &p! ty. 6 mphasis supplied.7

%t ma( do 0ell for the Republic to remember that there is a #rima "acie presumption of re'ularit( in the issuance of #ecree Nos. ,+?31 and ,E@3@, as 0ell as OC$ Nos. +-,*++ 6a.f.7 and +-,*+, 6a.f.7, in #oHa #emetria;s name, and

the burden of proof falls upon the Republic to establish b( clear and con/incin' e/idence that said decrees and certificates of title are null and /oid. IV DISPOSITIVE PART

/HEREFORE, premises considered, the Court renders the follo0in' 5ud'ment in the Petitions at bar:

,7

%n G.R. N&. )23425 6 -propriation Case7, the Court GRANTS the

Petition for Re/ie0 of the Republic of thePhilippines. %t REVERSES an" SETS ASIDE the Resolutions dated "ul( ,*, *++2 and October *1, *++2 of the Re'ional $rial Court, .ranch , of %li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte. %t further ORDERS the reinstatement of the Complaint in Ci/il Case No. ,+3, the admission of the Supplemental Complaint of the Republic, and the return of the ori'inal record of the case to the court of ori'in for further proceedin's. No costs.

A1

%n G.R. N&s. )2=22> an" )2==>; 6Auietin' of $itle Case7, the

Court DENIES the consolidated Petitions for Re/ie0 of !andtrade Realt( Corporation, $eofilo Cacho, and=or Att(. >odofredo Cabildo for lac8 of merit. %t AFFIRMS the #ecision dated "anuar( ,@, *++) and Resolution dated "ul( 1, *++) of the Court of Appeals in CA->.R. CV. No. ++123, affirmin' in toto the #ecision dated "ul( ,), *++1 of the Re'ional $rial Court, .ranch ? of

%li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte, in Ci/il Case No. 112*. Costs a'ainst !andtrade Realt( Corporation, $eofilo Cacho, and Att(. >odofredo Cabildo.

?7

%n G.R. N&. )23535 6$he

5ectment or Cnla0ful #etainer Case Q

e-ecution pendin' appeal before the Re'ional $rial Court7, the Court DENIES the Petition for Re/ie0 of !andtrade Realt( Corporation for bein' moot and academic 'i/en that the Re'ional $rial Court, .ranch , of %li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte had alread( rendered a #ecision dated #ecember ,*, *++2 in Ci/il Case No. 33,?. No costs. 17 %n G.R. N&s. )24455-5: an" )245:4-:; 6$he 5ectment or Cnla0ful

#etainer Case Q e-ecution pendin' appeal before the Court of Appeals7, the Court GRANTS the consolidated Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition of the National Po0er Corporation and National $ransmission Corporation. %t SETS ASIDE the Resolution dated "une ?+, *++3 of the Court of Appeals in CA->.R. SP Nos. ++E21 and ++EE@ for ha/in' been rendered 0ith 'ra/e abuse of discretion amountin' to lac8 or e-cess of 5urisdiction. %t further ORDERS the Court of Appeals to issue a 0rit of preliminar( in5unction en5oinin' the e-ecution of the #ecision dated #ecember ,*, *++2 of the Re'ional $rial Court, .ranch , of %li'an Cit(, !anao del Norte, in Ci/il Case No. 33,?, 0hile the same is pendin' appeal before the Court of Appeals in CA->.R. SP Nos. ++E21 and ++EE@. %t finall( DIRECTS the Court of Appeals to resol/e 0ithout further dela( the pendin' appeals before it, in CA->.R. SP Nos. ++E21 and ++EE@, in a manner not inconsistent 0ith this #ecision. No costs.

27

%n G.R. N&. )24;3) 6Cancellation of $itles and Re/ersion Case7, the Petition for Re/ie0 of the Republic of the

Court GRANTS the

Philippines. %t REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Orders dated #ecember ,?, *++2 and Ma( ,3, *++3 of the Re'ional $rial Court, .ranch 1 of %li'an Cit( in Ci/il Case No. 33E3. %t further ORDERS the reinstatement of the Complaint in Ci/il Case No. 33E3 and the return of the ori'inal record of the case to the court of ori'in for further proceedin's. No costs. SO ORDERED.