Republic of the PhiliPPines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

Petitioners

--

CA-G.R. SP No. 143273

Versus -

ETC* ET AL.,

x..-.---.--.- ::lilli-:i-

------------.--.-x
Auzust 19.2016
9:

l5

NOTICE OF DECISION
/ Mudam:

Sir

please take notice that

on Aueust 19. 2016

a Decision, copy hereto attached, was

Court of Appeals, in the above-entitled case, the

rendered by the TWELFTH Division,

original copy of which is on file with this office.

you are hereby REQUIRED to INFORM this Court within five (5) days from
receipt hereof the date when you received this notice.

Respectfully Yours,

TERESITA R. MARIGOMEN
Clerk of
by:

EVANGELI,
l)rvrsron
(,'opy lim'nishecl:
A l'l Y RO\\'EL D. iLACIAN reg. \V/rc
(iar1,-artiel Estrada Ataltante & Ilagan
( L ott fi .\r l
-[o r l)e t i I i one r )
I I l,',,r. lime' Sqttrrrc tsuildirtg
No. 57 l imes St.. cor flantiner St.. West 1'rrangle
I 104 Quezon Ciit.v

A ITY EDITA NOF-I-ACSAMANA reg.

botrnsel lrtr ;;rit,ate respondent JiA Dl)
SLrite 2-N Tori'er A. Adriatico Ciardens
Adriatico Stroet- Malate
100.1 Manila

'lllH I'ItESIDING .ltlDGh

Wrc

reg. \'\r/rc

lll-L'-llranch 71. :\ntipolo Ciq

1370 liizal

IrlltST AIKKA DEVIt.()PN4EN1'. lNC. - rcg W/rc

Ip

it,0

le

re sp ot l.le n

l)

FAI)l Bldg.. No. 5 West Capitol l)rive

cor. San Ratlel Street. Kapitol)'o
l(r00 I'asig Citl

NhLLA Dh .lESLiS-CLIR llS

cio NICKY C'L.rR1 IS

[]nit ,1:\ Gonrez Mansions

27i
I

N'lenio Road

i00 Pusa)' C'it\

tlPJ)

reg W/rc

: LLAMAS

of Court

Republic of tl-re PhiliPPines

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
***

TWELTTH DIVISION
SPOUSES DEMETRIO DE
JESUS AND FLORENCIA DE

CA.G.R. SP NO. 143273

BORJA, substituted by NELIA Members:

DE JESUS.CURTTS,
BATO, JR., R. M.,
Petitioner,

ChairPerson,

BARRIOS, M. M., and

DIY, Wt. p. s., JJ.

- versus -

HON. KEVIN I{ARCE B.

VIVERO, Presiding Judge,

Regional Triat Court of

Antipolo CitY, Branch

FIRST

and

Promdlgated:

7L

AIKI(A

AU6

2016

DEVELOPMENT, INC.,

x---

Respondents.
CnpY

C nirrtrnJ

DECISION

AttY. EV
Division

LLA],'lAS

of Court

BARRIOS, M. M., .it

This is a Petition for Cerrt.iorari uncler Rule 65 of Rules

of Court assailing, on the ground of grave abuse

of
cliscr^etion amol-lnting to lack of or in excess of jurrisdiction,
the Orcler clated 01 .June 2015 of the Regional Triai Court,
Branch 7l , Antipolo Citl, (RTC) ttrat granted the Motion for
Intervention of private responder:rt in the instant land
registratictn case.

Page 2

CA-G.R. SP No. \43273

DBCISION
Also assailed is the RTC Orcler clated 09 October 2015
tl-rrit clenierl petil-ioner s Motion frlr Partial Reconsideratiorr'

TlrE FACTS

Spouses l)emetric'r and Fior"encia De Jesus were the

erstr,lrhile o\\rners of an unregistered parcel of land (Plan
Psu- 174O3g) situatecl at Langhava, Deia Paz, Antipolo citlr,
Rrzai u,ith an area of Thirt,rr-one Thouisand Nine Hundrecl
Four (31,904) square tletcrs"

on 26 November p96, Spouses De Jesr-rs executed a

contract of conditional saiel in favor of private respondent
First Aikka Developmerlt, Inc. (FADI) a real estate
colnpanv

covertr-rg the subject propertv, along rn'ith trvo (2)

other lots, for the aggregate price of Trn'enty Four Million

Flunclreci Sixty-I'hree Thousancl Pesos

(p-21,563,000.00), suitject to the follou'ing terms ancl

Five

conditions, to \\rit:
"x. x. x.
1. The BLIYER shall pc1!/ rz77 Olttion lVIorrcy o.f ONE
MILLTON PESOS (Pl,OOO,OOO.O0) llpon t.lrc ctcceptance by
t.he SEI,LER oJ'ctn Offer to Btty, rtnd sigrt.irtg of t|tis Deed of
Conclitiortal Scile. l:y the ytctfiies here{;

2. TLp BUy'ER s/iall ptoy the SELLE,R t'he ctrrtourtt' o.f'

FOL|R t\[lLLtON PE^SOS (P1,000,000.00) represerttirLg Jilll
rlorurrpctyntent ctfter Jiftr:ert (15) clcttls Jrorn. ttLe receipt of
tlrc oytlion hlctrte,:y rtrtcl sic1rt.il4 o.f this Dee:cl as ct.bottttrrrc:rLtiottec.l.

BLIYER sltctlL pcty tl'Le SELLER aclclitionctl

otnoutlr. o.f FIVE I\'{ILLION PESO^S (P5,000,000.00) four (4)
rton.t'hs ctfter tlrc siclnirlg oJ th.is Agree-ttent.

3. Tlrc

l)ced ol (lorrtiitiotral Sale. Rollo pp. -5t) (rl

Page 3

CA-G.R. SP No. \43273

DtrCISION

the LscLl'cLnce oJ- T)LIRI.EEI\I

MILU)IV F,]\/E [lUtYDRtrD SIXTY THREE TH)L]SANI)
PESOS (P\4,563'000.00) to the SF)LI'ER tlpott signing oJ-

4.

The, BLTYE,R shctll pcLy

t,heDeedoJAbsofuteSrlletclbeexecutedaJie,rthe

lssuarrce of ihe Origin,t Certificate ,.f Title 1n the num.e of

tlrc SELLER.
-{.

-1:.

x.

7, TLe follotl.ling e-V]ei.SeS sLtclll be for

t,Lte

accou'1fi

of

the- BUYER:

(7ct) The registrcLtictrt cutcl/ or titling fitLdicictl) oJ tlrc

sul:jt:ct lots tLrtcler lhe Tr:n-erts ljy'sleirt'

(7b) Cctl:it.ctl gctitts cut.cl (l.oc.untentanl sra/luf ttl.\''s.

n I I t issioi t.
t rcut.s.fer t tLx., regi.st rrttion J ee s and uc1 e: r J's cor
Ja.

x.

ia."

Pursuant to the aforesaicl agreement, on 26 June

lgg7, Spouses De ,J esus llled an Application fbr Land

Registration' over the sutlject propert-y before the Municipal

friil Court of Antipglo, rirhich cr.se w'as later transferfed to
the RTC on 30 May 2000. It rnras averred that said spouses
are the o\^/ners and possessors of saicl lot which is declared
to be alienable ancl clisposable land of the public domain,
and is not subiect to any public land application.

On 10 Ma.v 2005. hornever, urhile the land registration

casc \\,as pending. Demetrio De .Jesus died, leaving as
intestate lreirs, his u,ife Florencia allc1 their chilclren * one
of \\rhom is hele-:in petiticlner Nelia I)e Jesus-Curtis'
Meatru,hile, in October 2005, the heirs of the late Demetr-io
De .Jesgs execu.tecl a Deed of trxtrajuclicial Settlement of his
Estate'r u.herein the subject iot u,as allotted to the rn'iclow
Florencia a-nc1 petitioner Nelia de .Jesus-Curtis. i-ater, on
31 Jul.,. 2OO9, a Deecl of Assignment'r \\ras executed by
Florencia in favor of petitioner Nelia de Jesus-CLlftis
conveying the former's sharre over subject land to the latter'
I

Id.. pp. i-i--10.

lci.. pp. 63-71.

-1 Id.. pp 72-7,1

Page'l

CA-G.R. SP No. 143273

DtrCIS]ON

A year later, or o1t 23 AuSlust 2010, Florencia De Jesr-ts

c1ied.

Nort, then, on 2?, .Ju1y '.2OI2, assfirting tO be the

Current o\\rlfer of the entire propertv, petttioner moved) that
she be substtturtecl as applicant in the instant land
registl'artion case

ln an aplfau"enr reac-tlon to tl-re move, on 30 Jul1' 2A12,

herein responclent FADI movccl" to int.ervene, averring that

it has a legzr1 interest thert needs to be protected in the
pending lancl registration casc considering that the subject
iealty i0,"" already solcl to it by the De Jesus spouses-the
predecessors of petitioner Nelia de Jesus-Curtis. it is
assertecl that u,hile it is reacly ancl able to pay the ful1 price
of subject realty, it cannot do so until after the issuance of
title over the same. Further, it is argued that petitioner
Nelia c1e .Jesus-Curtis cantrot clairn absolute ownership
over the subject property becai-lse the same did not belong
to her parents anymore at the time r,l'hen said propertl''- u'as
supposedir, assignecl to her. l.leitl-rer can petitiotler refuse tcl
honor its rr.ghts under the sales agreement, espectally since
responclent FADI hacl complied rvith its obligations, per
thelr Agreement clatecl 06j FellruarY 2OO7.i in fact, herein
petitioner ancl her co-heirs recognized t"he partial payments
of the purchase price maCe b)' respondent FADI'

Opposing the Motictn for Intervention, petiticlner

arguecl that respondent IrADI does not have allY legal
interest in the ir-lstant land registration case, since it js not

yet the owner of subject property pending the fi-rlfillment of

the condition of pavment under the sales contract.
Elsewise stated, being a mere vendee, respondent FADI s
right or interest tincler thc cleed of conclitiorral sale is oniv
inchoate or contingent, and not clirect or immediate as
requirecl b-v the Rules. Moreover, it is ar-gued that
5

Forrnal Entry olAppearance with Motion for SLrbstitLrtion, ld., pp' 74

80'

6 Motion fbr lntervention of FirstAikl<a Development, lnc., ld., pp.8l-84, Corr-rplaint-ln-[ntervention,

ld., pp 85 - 9-5.
7 ld., pp. 1 89- I 95.

Page 5

CA-G.R. SP No. 1,43273

DtrCISION

respopdent FADI s jutervcntion in this case uroulcl -just

comphcate or prolong thr: process of registration, thereby
resuiting in needless dela1' and prej udice to the rights of
the original applicants and ultimateiy, the successors-ininteresl.

01 'Jutne 2015, the

RTC a1lctu.er-1 tlre sub:ititr,rtion o[' herein iretitioner for herr
cleceased parents as applicant in the registration of sr-rbject
propertv, with the express reservation that it did not rule
Ir-i t-l-re now arssr,ri1er,l Or-der 11atecl

on her ctll,nership claim over saicl realty, On the other hand,

the trial court ,1=u granted respondent FADi's Motion for
Intervention on the ground that it has lega1 rights or
interest uncler the sales agreement that. must be protected
in the pending lanc1 registration case'

Petitioner movccl lor partial reconsideration, Ieasoning

that rcsponclent F AI)l has no legal r:ight ot" interest over the
subject iealt-v to justify ther irrtervention since it had already
.or-,i.5r.c1 the samer 1o one Mar-Bav Homes, inc. on 26 July
2005 i,r1, vir-tue of arr Assignmelt. AgreementtJ that the
former executed in favor of'the iatter.

In the other assailecl c)rder dated 09 october 2015,

the RTC cleniecl petitioner s Motion for Partial
Reconsideration fcrr lerck of merit.

In this petition, it is argued that:

I.

THE

RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED GRAVE

ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, WHEN IT ALLOWED
RESPONDENT FADI TO INTERVENE DESPITE CLEAR
LACK OF RIGHT OR INTEREST IN THE CASE.

A. RESPONDENT FADI'S INTEREST OVER THE CASE

IS MERPLY BASED ON A CONTINGENT INTEREST, A
MERE EXPECTANCY, NOT COVERED BY THE RULES
8

Id., pp. 130

I33.

Page 6

CA-C.R. SP No. 143273

DtrCISiON
ON INTERVENTION.

B. PVEN ASSUMING, WITHOUT ADMITTING,

THAT

RESPoNDENTFADIHASANINTERESTovERTHE
CASE,ITHADLOSTITSSTANDINGWHENTHESAME
WAS ASSIGNED AND SOLD TO MAR-BAY HOMES'

INC. PRIOR TO FILING A MOTION FOR

INTERVENTION.

8.1 THP INTEREST Or. THE INTERVENOR

MUSTBEPRESENTATTHETIMEoFTHEFILINGoT

A MOTION FOR INTERVENTION.

OUR RULING
The petition is devoid of merit.

Section 1, Rule i9 of the Rules of court provides the

remedv of intervention as f,oi1or't's:
",)a.

-{. -{,

SEC. 1. Wlt.o nt.ctt| iti.eruene-' A person who l'tcts ct

legal irtterest bt tLrc rn,cttter in litigct.tiort, or itt. the success o-/'
either oJ't\-te pctrties, or erl irtterest ctqai.tt.st both, or ls so
situatecl es to be aclue:rset.y ctffected bg a distdbtttiorr or
other clisposition of propefty itt the cust.odtl of the cottrt. or
art offtr;er thereof trlaA. t.uith lectue oJ'c:ortt-t, Lse ctllotuecl to
inten.rcne in tlrc ctctiort. 7-1rc cou.rt s"hnll cortsider uthetl'Ler or
not tl'Le interuentiort uill unclttly delay or prejtLciice t.Lrc
rtclltclir:cLtiort cf' tlrc. rig'lis oJ' the originctl p6trties, and

u.,ltether

or not the irtterttenor's rights tn(ta lse fully

protec:te:d irt ct sepctrcLtr: prc:ceeclirry.

,Y.

f.. ,r."

Intervention is a proceeding in a suit or action by

u,hich a third person is per:mitted by the court to make
himself a party, either.joining the plaintiff or defendant, or

Page 7

CA-G.R, SP No. 143273

DtrCiSION

clemancling something adverse to both of them'" Otherwise

stated, it is a reme cly by u.hich a thircl party - not originally
impleaclecl in the action - becomes a litigant therein for a
."itrir-, pLlrpose, that is, to etral;te a thircl partv to protecl'
or preserve a right or intercst that may be affected by those
pro..".1rngs. "' 'lhus. lo suistain a Motion for Intervention,
th'^ tuilot"ir'rg rccluisites rnLlst irr-' satisfied, ttiz: a) the r'rrouldbe interrzenor shou,s thart lre has a substaurtiarl right or
interest in the case ; anci b) such right or interest cannot be
adequatelt, pursLlecl ancl protected in another proceeding' "
Veriiv, thl interest in the case must be actual, material,
direct and immediate, and not simply contingent and
expectant.'2

After a careful revielv of the case recorcls, We affirm

the ruling of the RTC jn allou'ing private respondent FADI

to intervene in the instant lancl registration case,

considertng that it has a direct and material interest
therein that must be protected rn,hich, in turn, cannot be
acldressecl or resolved

in anotl-rer proceeding.

It is a concedecl lact that respondent F'ADI purchasecl

the subject property I}om the prer,,ious owners * Spouses

De .Jesus - Ilursuant to tl-re Deerl of Conditional Sale datecl
26 November 1996 that \,vas executed in favor of the
former. As strpulated therein, ownership over the property
\vas not yet transferrecl to resp<lndent FADI at the time of
execution of their contract, for it must first perform certain
conditions, primordial of u,hich is the fu1l paylnent of the
purchase price g,hich, incider-rta11y, will become due upon
issuance of the titie. Thus, as declarecl in said contract,
the remair-ring balance of the price of said property must be
paid ,,Ltpctt1 sigr-tinq of tLLe Deed oJ' Absolute scile to be
executed ctfter th.e issuance o.l'tLrc Ori.ctrinal Certificctte o.[ T'it.le
in the llome c['seller."':' It was by reason of this condition
9

Navy Ofllcers'Village Association. Inc. vs. Republic of the Philippines^ G.R. No.

3.20t-5.

i0

Ongco vs, Dalisa-v. G.R. No. 190810, July t8,2012.

ll Qninto vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698, February 22,2010.
l2 Navy Officers'Village Association, lnc. vs. Republic of the Philippines, supra,
l3 Stipulation No. 4. Deed ol Conditional Sale. at Note I
.

177 168.

August

Page 8

CA (i.R. S['No. 1+3'273

DECISION

that Spouses De .Jesus

fi1ec1

an Applicatlon 16r Land

Registration 6ver surlljerct lalld fuc1bre the RTC, praying t.hat

an Originarl Ccrtilicate of 'lit-le be issured in their nermt3 s' In
vieu, of their c1e erth" ltclr,l ever, said spouses \\rcre later
substitutecl b-v their claughter - herein petitioner Nelia de
.Jesus-Curtis - u,ho no\v asserts exclusive o\\/nership over
said propcrtr,- bl' virtur: of the extra.juclicial settlernent ancl
partitior ancl sul)seqllent couveyance bv Florencia de Jesus
of her share in her favor'

Premised on these facts, it is Our view that

responclent FADi possesses an actual, material and direct
interest in the aforesaid lanc1 registration proceecling since
it stands to be berrefitecl lrom the issuance of Torrens titie
in the name of the applicant; ancl at the same time, its
contratcted pllrchase of suhject property rvould be greatly
alfected by the rlenial of the application. As earlier stated,
saicl propertv \\ras sold to r"espondent FADI u'ith the
agre-'r:rnent thart the renlzril-ring baiarlce of F14,563,000'00
paicl only after the issuan<:e of the Torrens title'
shal1 be.both
perrtic's cotnirl.i?ll-]ce w'ith t"heir ol;ligations
Veril1.,
uncler the conclitional sale conlract largely depends on the
favorable issuance of title in favor of the seller' Thus,
petrtioner is not entitlecl to claim pavment, rvhile, oil the
other hand, respondent FADI although desirous to
consllmmite the sale * likeu'ise cannot proceed i'vith the
ful1 payment of the purchase price, until and unless a
Torrens title is issued over said 1and. Perforce, respondent
FADI s participation in the proceeding is evidently
\varranted, albeit inchoate at this time, to protect or
preserve its rights and interest over subject property.

Lest it be forgotten, we nered to empha"size that the

issue to be resolved in this case is not the determination of
ou,nership betv,,een lhe parties, but rather, the proprietv of
allouring responclent FADI's intervention in the original land
registrzrtion action. In thls connection, We agree u'ith the
assailecl clisposition of public respondent. The intervention
of responclent FADI is justifiecl to ensr-lre that its rights or
interest under their Deed of Conditional Sale n'ould be

Page !)

CA-G.R. SP No. 143273

DECISION

recognized ancl respectecl. It is inconsequential that

respctnrlent IIADI iracl, on 26 July 2005, execLltecl an
Assignment Agreement over subject propertv to Mar-Bay
Homes, Inc. *ilri.h, incicle'tally, all the 1,lore necessitates
the intervention of respgnclern1 F'ADL This is so becar'lse

uncler said Assignfirent Agrecrrr:nt, respondent

u.arranted that
pr.opert-v .1s

j.rirr.

it

FADI
iras a valid rlt,l'nct'iitrip righ1 ot"er subject

the buycr thcrcrlf frorn the late Spouses De

titling
of |he s.imc ir-r the name of Mar-BaY Homes, hlc. Thus, the
desire of re spotrclent FADI to intervene in the land
registration case is understandable and logical.
arnd covenal-Ltec1 to laciiita.te the registration or

As a final note, it is vvorthu,hile to invoke

the
jurispruclentierl rule that the allourance or diselllorl'ance of a
moti<tn to intervene is aclclressecl tcl the soutrcl discretion of
the coLlrt hearing the suit.' ' Tlre discretion of the court,
OnCe exercisecl, cannot be rel'ier,ved b1'' ceftiorctn nor
controllecl b)' m.andon1.Lts, save in instances rt'here said
discretion has been so exercised in arbitrary or capricious
marlner'5 u,llich situat,iott. ltot:'.'t:ver, is not prcsent in this
CASC.

WHEREF'ORE, the foregoing considerecl, the itrtron

for Certtorart is DENIED. The two (2) assatled Or s of the
v are
Regional Trial Court, Branch 7 7 , Antipolo
SUSTAINED.
SO ORDERED.

ii , "''
MANUSL M. BARRICS
L)*'-.*.:,.:",

Associate .Justice

]J Foster-Oallego vs. Spouses Calang. G.R. Ntt.

l.i Heirs of Restlivet'a vs, De Guzman, C.R. No.

li()llS.
l

-tr6;-10.

.iLrlr 17. l()()1.

.lrrh'

l --1.

100.1.