REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

MANGOTARA
G.R. No. 170375
October 13, 2010
Leonardo-De Castro
Doctrine:
Where there is jurisdiction over the person and subject matter, the resolution of all other questions
arising in the case is but an exercise by the court of its jurisdiction.
Facts:
This is 7 consolidated cases stemmed from the 1914 case of Cacho vs. Governor of the United
States.
In 1914 Cacho Case, the late Dona Demetria applied for the registration of two parcels of land in
the Municipality of Iligan City, Lanao Del Norte.
The government opposed Demetrias applications for registration on the ground that the two
parcels of land were the property of the United States.
The Land Registration Court ruled that Demetria is the owner of the certain portion of land.
However, Demetria should present a deed of the land. Demetria appealed to the Supreme Court but
SC affirmed the LRC Decision.
After 83 year, the Court was again called upon to settle a matter concerning registration of the Lots
in the case of Cacho vs. CA.
Teofilo Cacho, who claims to be the son and heir of Demetria filed before the RTC a petition for
reconstitution of two original certificates.
RTC granted Teofilos petition but subsequently reversed by the CA. CAs decision was reversed by
SC and reinstated the decision of RTC.
However, another 4 cases involving the same parcels of land were instituted:
o Expropriation Case
o Quieting of Title Case
o Ejectment or Unlawful Detainer Case
o Cancellation of the Titles and Reversion Case.
Demetria Vidal and Azimuth International Development Corporation filed an Injunction case against
Teofilo. Vidal claims that she was the sole surviving heir of Demetria, entitled to the parcels of land.
RTC Branch 3 declared Vidal (granddaughter) to be the sole surviving heir and that she alone has
the hereditary right to and interest in the said parcels of land.
Issue:

Whether or not the case involves question of law and whether direct resort by the Republic to the
Supreme Court is proper.
Ruling:
Yes.
Ratio:
According to Rule 41, Section 2(c) of the Rules of Court, a decision or order of the RTC may be
appealed to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, provided that such
petition raises only questions of law.
A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or
jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative
value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists
when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites
calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and
relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole,
and the probability of the situation.
Here, the Petition of the Republic raises pure questions of law, i.e., whether Civil Case No. 106
should have been dismissed for failure to implead indispensable parties and for forum shopping. Thus, the
direct resort by the Republic to this Court is proper.