Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > April 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5989 April 29, 1953 - APOLINARIO DUQUE, ET AL. v. L. PASICOLAN, ET AL.

092 Phil 1044:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5989. April 29, 1953.]

APOLINARIO DUQUE, FLORENTINO DUQUE, PRECILLANO DUQUE, DOROTEA DUQUE, CECILIA DUQUE and PATROCINIA DUQUE, Petitioners, v. L. PASICOLAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, LEONA A. DE TABAQUIN, ROMAN TABAQUIN, SUSANA TABAQUIN, PRESENTACION TABAQUIN, LEONARDO TABAQUIN and FE TABAQUIN, Respondents.

Mariano D. Copuyoc, for Petitioners.

Jorge A. Pascua for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LAND REGISTRATION; CADASTRAL PROCEEDING; REVIEW ON GROUND OF FRAUD. — D was the original owner of two lots by virtue of a homestead patent issued in 1918. He later registered them in his name in accordance with the provision of Act No. 496, having been issued in his name transfer certificate of title No. 337. When cadastral proceedings were instituted, he claimed the lots, but when decision was rendered in 1929, the court decreed that said lots be registered in the names of D and T pro indiviso share and share alike, ordering that certificate of Title No. 337 originally issued in D’s name be surrendered for cancellation so that a new one may be issued as above directed. It was only in 1948 when the Chief of the General Land Registration Office issued Order No. 66, which in substance had the effect of implementing the decision of the cadastral court rendered in 1929. And final decree was not issued until after said Order No. 66. It appears from the record that T came to know of Order No. 66 only when final decree had been issued. Shortly thereafter D filed in the same cadastral case a petition for review, alleging that the court erroneously rendered its 1929 decision because of fraud and misrepresentation committed by T. Then, or after the lapse of 19 years from the 1929 decision aforementioned, T filed a petition in the cadastral case praying that said decision be complied with, to which D filed a vigorous objection invoking the ground that the decision is void ab initio because the court acted without jurisdiction. In 1952, the cadastral court granted the motion and ordered D to surrender the duplicate of certificate of title No. 337 to the Register of Deeds so that a new title may be issued as required by its 1929 decision. Held: Considering the circumstances, the cadastral court has abused its discretion in not giving priority to the petition for review, which D has a right to file under the law and jurisprudence (sec. 38, Act. No. 496). Case is remanded to the court of origin so that action may be taken on D’s petition for review.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the order of July 23, 1952 of respondent Judge which reiterates a previous order of the court dated May 30, 1952 with the modification that, upon the surrender of the original title to the clerk of court, the same shall be delivered to the register of deeds who is ordered to annotate on the back of the new title a notice of lis pendens with respect to the petition for review of the decision rendered in the cadastral case dated November 27, 1929.

Telesforo Duque was the original owner of lots Nos. 743 and 744 by virtue of a Homestead Patent No. 1386 issued in his favor on January 24, 1918. Telesforo Duque later registered these lots in his name in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 496, having been issued in his name transfer certificate of title No. 337. When Telesforo Duque died, said lots were inherited by his heirs, the petitioners herein.

When cadastral proceedings were instituted in the municipality of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, said lots were claimed by Telesforo Duque as the only claimant, but when the decision was rendered on November 27, 1929, the court decreed that said lots be registered in the names of Telesforo Duque and Eusebio Tabaquin, pro indiviso and share and share alike, ordering that the certificate of title No. 337 originally issued in the name of Telesforo Duque be surrendered to the clerk of court for cancellation, who in turn should deliver it to the Office of the General Land Registration so that a new one may be issued as above directed subject to the encumbrance existing in favor of the mortgagees of the property.

On March 18, 1948, the Chief of the General Land Registration Office issued Order No. 66 which in substance had the effect of implementing the decision of the cadastral court rendered on November 27, 1929, and on July 9, 1948, petitioners herein, who were the successors-in-interest of Telesforo Duque, filed in the same cadastral case a petition for review, alleging that the court erroneously rendered said decision because of fraud and misrepresentation committed by Eusebio Tabaquin.

On December 20, 1948, or after the lapse of 19 years from rendition of the decision aforementioned, respondents herein, heirs of Eusebio Tabaquin, filed a petition in the cadastral case praying that said decision be complied with, to which the petitioners filed a vigorous objection invoking the ground that the decision is void ab initio because the court acted without jurisdiction.

On January 7, 1949, the court granted the motion directing the petitioners to surrender the duplicate of title No. 337 issued in the name of their father to the Register of Deeds so that a new title may be issued as required by the decision.

This order was temporarily stayed by an order of August 5, 1949, but was later revived by another order of May 30, 1952. On June 18, 1952, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration wherein the same ground of nullity for lack of jurisdiction was reiterated, but the court denied it in its order of July 23, 1952. These are the orders subject of the present petition for certiorari.

We are of the opinion that the respondent Judge erred in not suspending the effects of the decision rendered by the cadastral court dated November 27, 1929, as urged upon him by petitioners in their motion for reconsideration, considering the petition for review filed by them in the same cadastral case wherein they assailed the validity of said decision on the grounds of error, fraud and misrepresentation. It should be noted that while the decision was rendered on November 27, 1929, the final decree was not issued until March 18, 1948, when the Chief of the General Land Registration Office issued Order No. 66. It appears from the record that the petitioners came to know of this order No. 66 only sometime in March, 1948 and on July 9 of the same year, they filed the aforesaid petition for review. This they have the right to do under the law and jurisprudence (section 38, Act No. 496).

It, therefore, appears that when the heirs of Eusebio Tabaquin, respondents herein, filed their petition for execution of the decision rendered on November 27, 1929, the petition for review was already pending consideration, and the most wise step that the court should have taken was to suspend action on said motion for execution until after the petition for review had been definitely acted upon on the merits. It should be noted that all the different incidents pertaining to the property in question had risen in the same cadastral case and they were all before the court who could have acted on them one in connection with the others. There was therefore no justification for the court to say that it had no jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of the decision, or of Order No. 66 implementing it, simply because said decision has long become final and executory. Considering the circumstances obtaining in the present case, it is our opinion that the respondent Judge has abused his discretion in issuing his order of July 23, 1952, for what he should have done was to give priority to the petition for review.

Wherefore, the Court hereby sets aside the order of respondent Judge dated July 23, 1952, as well as the order dated May 30, 1952 which was revived by it, and directs that the case be remanded to the court of origin so that action may be taken on the petition for review filed by petitioners dated July 9, 1948.

The preliminary injunction issued in this case is hereby declared final.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes and Jugo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-4215-16 April 17, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO DOSAL

    092 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-5198 April 17, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANGLIMA MAHLON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-5539 April 17, 1953 - RUPERTA BOOL v. PERPETUO MENDOZA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-5587 April 17, 1953 - FELIXBERTO MEDEL, ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO ETC., ET AL.

    092 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. L-5686 April 17, 1953 - ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-5770 April 17, 1953 - BRICCIO MADRID, ET AL. v. HON. ANATOLIO C. MAÑALAC, ET AL.

    092 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-5790 April 17, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO DE LA CRUZ

    092 Phil 906

  • G.R. No. L-6103 April 17, 1953 - FORTUNATO MARQUIALA, ET AL. v. HON. FILOMENO YBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. L-4353 April 20, 1953 - TAN KAY KO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 915

  • G.R. No. L-4476 April 20, 1953 - SAMUEL J. WILSON v. B. H. BERKENKOTTER

    092 Phil 918

  • G.R. No. L-4647 April 20, 1953 - FLOR VILLASOR v. AGAPITO VILLASOR

    092 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-5065 April 20, 1953 - ESTEFANIA PISALBON, ET AL. v. HONORATO TESORO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-5242 April 20, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO B. IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 933

  • G.R. No. L-5750 April 20, 1953 - RODRIGO COLOSO v. BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY

    092 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-4940 April 22, 1953 - MADRIGAL & CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    092 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. L-5163 April 22, 1953 - P. J. KIENER CO., LTD. v. SATURNINO DAVID

    092 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-5888 April 22, 1953 - ANTONIO T. CARRASCOSO v. JOSE FUENTEBELLA

    092 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-4831 April 24, 1953 - NATIVIDAD SIDECO, ET AL. v. ANGELA AZNAR, ET AL.

    092 Phil 952

  • G.R. No. L-5515 April 24, 1953 - FELIPA FERIA, ET AL. v. GERONIMO T. SUVA

    092 Phil 963

  • G.R. No. L-4814 April 27, 1953 - LEA AROJO DE DUMELOD, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA VILARAY

    092 Phil 967

  • G.R. No. L-5157 April 27, 1953 - VISAYAN ELECTRIC CO. v. SATURNINO DAVID

    092 Phil 969

  • G.R. No. L-5675 April 27, 1953 - ANTONIO CARBALLO v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    092 Phil 974

  • G.R. No. L-5876 April 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHU CHI

    092 Phil 977

  • G.R. No. L-4144 April 29, 1953 - GEORGE S. CORBET v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-4790 April 29, 1953 - ISIDORO FOJAS, ET AL. v. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 983

  • G.R. No. L-4802 April 29, 1953 - IN RE: . KIAT CHUN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 987

  • G.R. No. L-4948 April 29, 1953 - JUDGE OF THE CFI OF BAGUIO v. JOSE VALLES

    092 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-5062 April 29, 1953 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASS’N.

    092 Phil 997

  • G.R. No. L-5099 April 29, 1953 - BEATRIZ CABAHUG-MENDOZA v. VICENTE VARELA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1001

  • G.R. No. L-5104 April 29, 1953 - IN RE: OSCAR ANGLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 1006

  • G.R. Nos. L-5190-93 April 29, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO BAYSA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-5206 April 29, 1953 - CALTEX (PHIL.) v. PHIL. LABOR ORG., ET AL.

    092 Phil 1014

  • G.R. No. L-5394 April 29, 1953 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    092 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-5470 April 29, 1953 - WOODCRAFT WORKS, LTD. v. SEGUNDO C. MOSCOSO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1021

  • G.R. No. L-5558 April 29, 1953 - ENRIQUE D. MANABAT, ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1025

  • G.R. No. L-5788 April 29, 1953 - CHUA BUN POK, ET AL. v. JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE MANILA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1029

  • G.R. No. L-5826 April 29, 1953 - VICENTE CAGRO, ET AL. v. PELAGIO CAGRO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-5948 April 29, 1953 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1036

  • G.R. No. L-5969 April 29, 1953 - ALFREDO P. DALAO v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    092 Phil 1042

  • G.R. No. L-5989 April 29, 1953 - APOLINARIO DUQUE, ET AL. v. L. PASICOLAN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1044

  • G.R. No. L-6079 April 29, 1953 - SOFRONIO GAMMAD, ET AL. v. MANUEL ARRANZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1048

  • G.R. No. L-6177 April 29, 1953 - GABINO LOZADA, ET AL v. HON. FERNANDO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1051

  • G.R. No. L-4896 April 30, 1953 - APOLINARIO CRUZ v. PATROCINIO KELLY

    092 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-5452 April 30, 1953 - FLORENTINO KIAMKO, ET AL. v. CIRILO C. MACEREN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1057