01 Realty Sales Enterprise vs IAC FULL TEXT

7/25/2019 01 Realty Sales Enterprise vs IAC FULL TEXT

1/7

G.R. No. L-67451 September 28, 1987

REALTY SALES ENTERPRISE, INC. !" #AC$N%RAY &AR#S, INC., petitioners,

vs.

INTER#E%IATE APPELLATE C$'RT (Spe)*+ T*r" C**+ Ce %***o!/, 0$N. RIALINA $NI&ACI$ 3ERA, "e, Cort o &*rt

I!t!)e o R*+, r!) III, #$RRIS G. CARP$, :'E$N CITY %E3EL$P#ENT AN% &INANCING C$RP$RATI$N, !"

C$##ISSI$NER $& LAN% REGISTRATI$N, respondents.

C$RTES, J.:

The litigation over the ownership of the parcels of land which are the subject of this petition started in 1927 when an application for their

registration under the Torrens System was first filed. n the present petition for review !ealty Sales "nterprise, nc. #hereafter referred to as !ealty$

and Macondray%arms, nc. #hereafter referred to as &acondray$ see' a reversal of the !esolution of &ay 2, 19() of the ntermediate *ppellate

+ourt, and an affirmance of the +ourt of *ppeals ecision of ecember 29, 19(2.

Two #2$ adjacent parcels of land located in *lman-a, as /i0as, &etro &anila, having an aggregate area of 7,(( s3. m., situated in the

vicinity of the *yala *labang /roject and 4% 5omes /ara0a3ue are covered by three #$ distinct sets of Torrens titles to wit6

1$ T+T o. 28)8( issued on &ay 29, 197 in the name of !ealty Sales "nterprise, nc., which was derived from :+T

o. 189, issued on &ay 21, 19(, pursuant to ecree o. ;9) in !+ +ases os. 7, 7( and 97, ue-on +ity evelopment and %inancing +orporation

#hereafter referred to as >+%+$ and the +ommissioner of and !egistration alleging that T+Ts os. 9(2 and 9( in the name of >+%+

also covered the same parcels of land subject of the dispute between +arpo and the two corporations, !ealty and &acondray. They thus prayed that

ecree o. ;19( issued on =uly 22, 1971, :+T o. (91 issued on =uly 27, 1971, as well as T+Ts os. 9(2 and 9( derived from :+T

o. (91 be declared null and void.

n its answer to the third;party complaint, >+%+ asserted the validity of its own title alleging that it is the title in the name of !ealty which

is null and void. >+%+ also filed a fourth;party complaint against +armelino *lvendia, "speran-a *lvendia, %elicisimo *lvendia, =osefina *lvendia,

=acinto


2/7

*fter hearing, the @era +ourt rendered judgment on =anuary 28, 19(1, sustaining the title of &orris +%+.

+arpo filed a motion for reconsideration with the appellate court. n the meantime, by virtue and pursuant to 4atas /ambansa 4ldg. 129, or

the =udiciary !eorgani-ation *ct of 19(8, the +ourt of *ppeals was reorgani-ed into the ntermediate *ppellate +ourt #*+$. *s a conse3uence, there

was a re;raffling of cases and the case was assigned to the Second Special +ases ivision which, however, returned the records of the case for

another re;raffling to the +ivil +ases ivisions as it deemed itself without authority to act on a civilcase in view of the allocation of cases to the

different divisions of the *+ under Section ( of 4/ 129. The case was then assigned to the Third +ivil +ases ivision, composed of =ustices de la

%uente, +o3uia, Fosa and 4artolome.

=ustices +o3uia and 4artolome inhibited themselves, and =ustices +amilon and 4idin were assigned to the Third +ivil +ases ivision.

:n &ay 2, 19(), the *+, through its Special Third +ivil +ases ivision, with =ustice Fosa asponente;concurred in by =ustices +amilon

and 4idin, promulgated its !esolution granting +arpoGs motion for reconsideration, reversing and setting aside the decision of ecember 29, 19(2,

and affirming the decision of the trial court. 5ence, this petition doc'eted as


3/7

@

The S/"+* @S: did state in its !"S:HT: of &ay 2, 19() a deliberate falsehood, namely, that &orris


4/7

The +ourt does not agree.

There are two modes by which cases decided by the then +ourts of %irst nstance in their original jurisdiction may be reviewed6 #1$ an

ordinary appeal either to the Supreme +ourt or to the +ourt of *ppeals, or #2$ an appeal on certiorari to the Supreme +ourt. To the latter category

belong cases in which only errors or 3uestions of law are involved. "ach of these modes have different procedural re3uirements.

*s stated earlier, !ealty originally filed a /etition for certiorari with this +ourt doc'eted as +%+.

The basis of the complaint fired by +arpo, which was the same basis for the of the @era +ourt and the *+ Special ivision, is that the

!eyes +ourt had no authority to issue the order of &ay 21, 19( directing the issuance of a decree of registration in favor of &ayuga, predecessor;

in;interest of !ealty, as it was not sitting as a land registration court and also because the original records of !+ +ase o. 7, !ecord o. ;

29((2 were lost andBor destroyed during Corld Car and were still pending reconstitution.

Hnder *ct o. )9, and !egistration *ct, #1982$ as amended by *ct o. 2)7 #191)$, jurisdiction over all applications for registration of

title to and was conferred upon the +ourts of %irst nstance of the respective provinces in which the land sought to be registered is situated.

=urisdiction over land registration cases, as in ordinary actions, is ac3uired upon the filing in court of the application for registration, and is

retained up to the end of the litigation. The issuance of a decree of registration is but a step in the entire land registration processD and as such, does

not constitute a separate proceeding.

n the case at bar, it appears that it was "stanislao &ayuga, father of ominador &ayuga, predecessor;in;interest of !ealty, who originally

filed on =une 2), 1927 a registration proceeding doc'eted as !+ +ase o. 7, +%+.$ +ase o. 7 was jointly tried with two other cases, !+ +ase o. 97,


5/7

/or todas last consideraciones eIpuestas confirmamos la decision apelada en cuanto adjudica a "stanislao &ayuga

los lotes, 1, 2 y de such piano y 3ue e3uivalent a lost lotes, ), y del plano de 4alta-ar y ) y del plans de


6/7

III III III

. . . #T$o re3uire the parties to file their action anew and incur the eIpenses and #suffer$ the annoyance and veIation

incident to the filing of pleadings and the conduct of hearings, aside from the possibility that some of the witnesses may have

died or left the jurisdiction, and also to re3uire the court to again rule on the pleadings and hear the witnesses and then decide

the case, when an along and all the time the record of the former pleadings of the trial and evidence and decision are there and

are not disputed, all this would appear to be not eIactly logical or reasonable, or fair and just to the parties, including the trial

court which has not committed any negligence or fault at all.

The ruling in Nacuais more in 'eeping with the spirit and intention of the reconstitution law. *s stated therein, A*ct 118 was not

promulgated to penali-e people for failure to observe or invo'e its provisions. t contains no penal sanction. t was enacted rather to aid and benefit

litigants, so that when court records are destroyed at any stage of judicial proceedings, instead of instituting a new case and starting all over again,

they may reconstitute the records lost and continue the case. f they fail to as' for reconstitution, the worst that can happen to them is that they lose

the advantages provided by the reconstitution lawA #e.g. having the case at the stage when the records were destroyed$.

*pplying the doctrine in the Nacuadecision to !+ +ase o. 7, the parties thereto did not have to commence a new action but only had

to go bac' to the preceding stage where records are available. The land registration case itself re. mained pending and the +ourt of %irst nstance of

!i-al continued to have jurisdiction over it.

The records were destroyed at that stage of the case when an that remained to be done was the ministerial duty of the and !egistration

:ffice to issue a decree of registration #which would be the basis for the issuance of an :riginal +ertificate of Title$ to implement a judgment which

had become final #"ee


7/7

&oreover, it is not disputed that the title in the name of ominador &ayuga, from whom !ealty derived its title, was issued in 19(, or

twelve years before the issuance of the title in the name of the 4alta-ars in 1978.

n this jurisdiction, it is settled that A#t$he general rule is that in the case of two certificates of title, purporting to include the same land, the

earlier in date prevails . . . . n successive registrations, where more than one certificate is issued in respect of a particular estate or interest in land,

the person claiming under the prior certificate is entitled to the estate or interestD and that person is deemed to hold under the prior certificate who is

the holder of, or whose claim is derived directly or indirectly from the person who was the holder of the earliest certificate issued in respect

thereof . . . .A #egarda and /rieto v. Saleeby, 1 /hi l. 98 K191L at 9;9D ue-on +ity evelopment and %inancing +orporation #>+%+$ alleges that it has been improperly impleaded

as thirty;party defendant inasmuch as !ealtyGs alleged cause of action against it is neither for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief

in respect of +arpoGs claim against !ealty. t li'ewise alleges that !ealty had no cause of action against i t since the third party complaint did not

allege that >+%+ violated any legal right of !ealty, >+%+ also assails the @era +ourt decision in that it declares >+%+ directly liable to +arpo

and not to !ealty.

n the first place, >+%+ did not appeal from the decision of the @era +ourt, nor from the decision of the +ourt of *ppeals dated

ecember 29, 19(2, nor from the resolution of the *+ Special Third +ivil +ases ivision dated &ay 2, 19() J all of which voided >+%+s title to

the disputed property. 5ence, said decisionsBresolution have become final and eIecutory as regards >+%+.

&oreover, even as this +ourt agrees with >+%+ that the third;party complaint filed against it by !ealty was procedurally defective in that

the relief being sought by the latter from the former is not in respect of +arpoGs claim, policy considerations and the factual circumstances of the case

compel this +ourt now to rule as well on >+%+Gs claim to the disputed property. ;;To rule on >+%+Gs claim now is to avoid multiplicity of suits

and to put to rest these conflicting claims over the property. *fter an, >+%+ was afforded fun opportunity, and eIercised its right, to prove its claim

over the land. t presented documentary as well as testimonial evidence. t was even permitted to file a fourth;party complaint which, however, was

dismissed since it failed to prosecute its case.

>+%+ derived its title from +armelino *lvendia et. al., the original registered owners. :riginal +ertificate of Title o. (91 in the name of

Spouses +armelino *lvendia, et. al. was issued on =uly 27, 1971, or thirteen #1$ years after the issuance of &ayugaGs title in 19(.

Since !ealty is claiming under T+T o. 189 which was issued earlier than :+T o. (91 from which >+%+Gs title was derived, !ealtyGs

title must prevail over that of >+%+.

. uring the pendency of this case, /etitioners filed a manifestation alleging that the case at bar is closely connected with

Documents

01 Realty Sales Enterprise vs IAC FULL TEXT