FIRST DIVISION
UNIVERSITY OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
130912
February 14, 2003
-versus-
GERTRUDES V.
SUSI,
LEONARDO P. DIMACULANGAN,FEMAR
REALTY AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,THE
REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY,THE
CITY ASSESSOR
OF QUEZON CITY, ANDTHE
REGIONAL
TECHNICAL
DIRECTOR OFTHE
LANDS MANAGEMENT
SECTOR, DENR,
Respondents.
|
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
AZCUNA,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is a petition
for review of a Resolution of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 225, of
Quezon City, dated May 13, 1997, in Civil Cases Nos. Q-94-21245 and
Q-94-21637,
which dismissed the second case on the ground of the pendency of the
first
case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner University
of the Philippines, a State institution of higher learning, acquired
from
the Philippine Government its Diliman Campus through a Deed of Sale
dated
March 1, 1949. Pursuant thereto, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9462
was issued and registered in the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City.
Subsequently,
TCT No. 9462 was subdivided into five (5) titles: TCT Nos. RT-27912
(192686);
RT-58201 (192687)’ RT-57441 (192688); RT-107350 (192689); and RT-57197
(192690). Petitioner’s Diliman Campus is approximately 4,930,981.30
square
meters in area.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent Gertrudes
V. Susi claims ownership of a part of petitioner’s aforesaid campus,
particularly
the portion located along Commonwealth Avenue between the Iglesia ni
Cristo
and the Philippine Social Science Building. This is allegedly covered
by
said respondent’s Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 68134, 68135 and
68136. The last two titles were sold by respondent Susi to respondents
Leonardo P. Dimaculangan and Femar Realty and Development Corporation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After three
unsuccessful
attempts by them to enter and fence off said disputed portion,
respondents
filed on August 22, 1994, an action for damages and injunction with a
prayer
for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, against
petitioner and some of its officials, for alleged violation of their
rights
of ownership over said land titles. The case was docketed as Civil Case
No. Q-94-21425 and raffled to Branch 104 of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City.
On September 13, 1994,
petitioner filed an action for cancellation of respondents’ titles with
a prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction,
before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case
No. Q-94-21637.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The damages case and
the cancellation of titles case were later consolidated and assigned to
Branch 225 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 19, 1997,
respondents in the damages case filed a motion to dismiss the
cancellation
of titles case on the ground of forum shopping. Petitioner opposed the
motion on April 7, 1997, stating that the filing of a direct action to
cancel titles is required by law. As aforestated, on May 13, 1997, the
trial court issued the Resolution, now under review, the dispositive
portion
of which states:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"WHEREFORE, premises
considered, Civil Case No. Q-94-21637 filed by the University of the
Philippines
is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Let the pre-trial of this case be set on
July
14, 1997 at 2:00 in the afternoon, Room 231, Hall of Justice Building,
quezon City. Notify all parties concerned.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED."[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The sole issue before
us is whether the cancellation of titles case was properly dismissed on
the ground of forum shopping in view of the filing and pendency of the
damages case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with
petitioner
that the dismissal is erroneous. The damages case cannot possibly deal
with the issue of the cancellation of the titles since such a remedy
can
only be pursued in a separate and direct action for said purpose. It is
settled doctrine that certificates of titles under the Torrens system
of
registration cannot be collaterally attacked.[2]
Hence, there was need for petitioner to file the second case if it were
to seek cancellation of respondents’ titles, and the issue therein is
not,
and cannot be, raised in the first case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to petitioner’s
counterclaim in the damages case, the same referred to a compulsory
claim
for damages and attorney’s fees, and did not seek cancellation of
respondents’
titles. Similarly, respondents in their damages case sought to recover
damages from petitioner and its officials, and not the cancellation of
petitioner’s titles.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Clearly, therefore,
there is no forum shopping.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the petition
is GRANTED and the Resolution of May 13, 1997 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE
and respondents are required to proceed with Civil Case No. Q-94-21637
which is hereby REINSTATED. No Costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Vitug and
Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
Carpio, J.,
no part. Member of U.P. Board of Regents when this case was filed.chan
robles virtual law library
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 28-A.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Domingo v. Santos, 55 Phil. 361 (1930); Director of Lands v. Gan Tan,
89
Phil. 184 (1951); Cimafranca v. IAC, 147 SCRA 611 (1987).chan
|