SECOND DIVISION.
.
RUBEN AUGUSTO AND
ATTY. NOEL D. ARCHIVAL,
Petitioners,
G.R.
No.
131794
December 10, 2003
-versus-
HON. JUDGE
TEODORO
K. RISOS, PRESIDING JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
BRANCH 27, LAPU-LAPU
CITY,CLEOFE OMOLON,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
This is a Petition
for
Certiorari under Rule 65
of the 1997
Rules of Court, as amended, filed by Ruben Augusto and Atty. Noel
D.
Archival, for the nullification of the December 5, 1997 Order[1]
of the Regional Trial Court Branch 7, Lapu-Lapu City. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Antecedents
Felisa Augusto and her
siblings, Jose Augusto, Magdalena Augusto and Alfonso Augusto, all
married,
were the co-owners of a parcel of land, identified as Cadastral Lot No.
4429, with an area of 1,857 square meters. The lot is located in Barrio
Mactan, Opon, Cebu.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 20, 1961, the
then Justice of the Peace and Ex-Officio Notary Public notarized a Deed
of Absolute Sale where Felisa, Jose, Magdalena and Alfonso, all
surnamed
Augusto, sold the property to Guillermo Omolon for P200.00. Guillermo
Omolon
and his wife, Cleofe Omolon, caused the aforesaid document to be
registered
in the Office of the City Assessor of Lapu-Lapu City. Tax Declaration
No.
02729 was issued thereafter, and the vendors took possession of the
property.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the meantime, the
property was registered in the names of Monico, Felisa, Jose, Filomeno,
Teofilo and Sinfroso, all surnamed Augusto, under Original Certificate
of Title (OCT) No. RO-3560.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Guillermo Omolon died
intestate and was survived by Cleofe Omolon.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sometime in July 1995,
Cleofe Omolon filed a petition for the reconstitution of the OCT
covering
Lot No. 4429, before the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City, Branch 54, docketed as
LRC Case No. 21. On January 10, 1997, the RTC rendered a decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
all premises considered, the Court grants the petition and thus directs
the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City to reconstitute the Original
Certificate
of Title for Lot No. 4429 of the Cadastral Survey of Opon strictly in
accordance
with the technical description of said lot.[2]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, upon
presentation
of the aforesaid order to the Office of the Register of Deeds of
Lapu-Lapu
City, Cleofe was informed that the owner's copy had already been issued
to Ruben Augusto, pursuant to an Order issued by the court dated August
23, 1996, and that based on the record, the same was in the possession
of Atty. Noel Archival.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, on May 14, 1997,
Cleofe filed a petition before the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City, docketed as
Cad.
Case No. 21, alleging that as lawful co-owner and possessor of Lot No.
4429, she had every right to have and hold the owner's duplicate of the
said OCT. She prayed that after due proceedings, the respondents Ruben
Augusto and Atty. Noel Archival be ordered to surrender the owner's
copy
of the said title:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that after due
consideration,
respondents be ordered to surrender the owner's copy of Original
Certificate
of Title No. 3560 of the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City to the
petitioner
herein.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their Comment on
the petition, therein respondents Ruben Augusto and Atty. Noel Archival
alleged, inter alia, that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Felisa,
Magdalena, Alfonso and Jose, all surnamed Augusto, was falsified and
fictitious,
and, thus, null and void. In the interim, Cleofe had her adverse claim
annotated at the dorsal portion of the title in the Office of the
Register
of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On October 22, 1997,
the RTC issued an order directing Atty. Noel Archival to produce the
owner's
copy of OCT No. 3560 to allow the annotation of Cleofe's interest, upon
which the owner's duplicate copy of the title may thereafter be
returned:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
respondent Atty. Noel Archival is hereby directed to produce the
owner's
copy of OCT No. 3560, before the Office of the Clerk of Court within
ten
(10) days from receipt of this order to allow the annotation of
petitioner's
interest, after which title may be returned to the respondent.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furnish copies of
this
order to petitioner and respondents as well as their respective
counsels.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court
declared
that, based on the pleadings of the parties, the issue of ownership
over
the property had been raised, a matter which the court, sitting as a
cadastral
court, could not pass upon. The trial court further ruled that pending
resolution of the issue of ownership over the property in an
appropriate
proceedings therefor, there was a need for the annotation of the
petitioners'
interest over the property. The respondents therein filed a "Motion for
a Partial Reconsideration" of the Order alleging that Cleofe's interest
over the property had been sufficiently protected by the annotation of
her adverse claim. The respondents suggested that: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to partially
reconsider
its Order dated 22 October 1997 and issue a new order enjoin (sic) the
respondent to produce the owner's copy of OCT No. 3560 before the
Office
of the Register of Deeds, Lapu-Lapu City on 25 November 1997 at 2:30
p.m.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for under the
premises.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Cebu City, 06
November
1997, Philippines.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, on November
14, 1997, the court issued an Order denying the motion of the
respondents
therein.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 26, 1997,
the respondents filed a notice of appeal from the said order to the
Court
of Appeals. On December 5, 1997, the RTC issued an order denying due
course
therefor, on its perception that the orders subject thereof were
interlocutory;
hence, not appealable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondents, now
the petitioners, filed the instant petition alleging that the public
respondent
committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction
when it issued the assailed orders, and that there is no appeal nor any
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
available
to them. The petitioners argue that contrary to the ruling of the
public
respondent, its October 22, 1997 Order was final and appealable, as the
same disposed of the case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her comment on the
petition, the private respondent averred that the October 22, 1997
Order
of the public respondent was merely interlocutory as it did not fully
dispose
of the case and had reserved the further determination of other
questions.
By its order, the RTC merely required the petitioners to present the
owner's
copy of OCT No. 3560 in the Office of the Register of Deeds for the
annotation
of her proprietary interest over the property and ordered the return of
the said owner's duplicate to the respondents after such annotation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Ruling of the
Court
Section 1, Rule 41 of
the Rules of Court provides that an appeal may be taken only from a
final
order, and not from an interlocutory one.[6]
A final order is one which disposes of the whole subject matter or
terminates
a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to
enforce
by execution what has been determined.[7]
An order or judgment is deemed final if it finally disposes of,
adjudicates,
or determines the rights, or some right or rights of the parties,
either
on the entire controversy or on some definite and separate branch
thereof,
and concludes them until it is reversed or set aside. Where no issue is
left for future consideration, except the fact of compliance with the
terms
of the order, such order is final and appealable.[8]
In contrast, an order is interlocutory if it does not finally dispose
of
the case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, the order
of the public respondent directing the petitioners to produce the
owner's
copy of OCT No. 3560 in the Office of the Register of Deeds for the
annotation
of the private respondent's interest over the property is merely
interlocutory
and not final; hence, not appealable by means of a writ of error. The
public
respondent had not fully disposed of the case as it had not yet ruled
on
whether to grant the private respondent's prayer for the surrender of
the
owner's copy of OCT No. 3560. As gleaned from the order of the
respondent
judge, he believed that he had no jurisdiction to delve into and
resolve
the issue of ownership over the property and was disposed to dismiss
the
petition. Before so doing, he believed it was necessary that the
petitioner's
claim over the property be annotated at the dorsal portion of the title
before the institution of an ordinary motion for the resolution of the
conflicting claims of ownership over the property:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Going over
the pleadings of the parties, the court gathers that ownership over the
land in question is disputed by the parties, which this court, sitting
as a cadastral court, cannot pass upon. However, since the petitioner
has
also shown enough basis for claiming possession of the owner's copy of
OCT No. 3560, by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale (Annex "A"), and
in
view of the willingness of Atty. Archival to have petitioner's interest
annotated at the back of the title, the court feels that for the
protection
of both parties, the owner's copy of OCT No. 3560 in the possession of
Atty. Noel Archival must be produced, in order that petitioner's
interest
may be annotated therein pending resolution of the issue on ownership
in
the proper proceedings. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
respondent
Atty. Noel Archival is hereby directed to produce the owner's copy of
OCT
No. 3560, before the Office of the Clerk of Court within ten (10) days
from receipt of this order to allow the annotation of petitioner's
interest,
after which the title may be returned to the respondent.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In fine, the assailed
order of the respondent judge partook of the nature of an ad cautelam
order.
This is not to say that the respondent court sitting as a cadastral
court
had no jurisdiction to delve into and resolve the issue of ownership
over
the property. Apropos is our ruling in Vda. de Arceo v. Court of
Appeals,
et al.,[10]
viz:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The first
question
must, however, be resolved against the petitioners. We have held that
under
Section 2 of the Property Registration Decree, the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court, sitting as a land registration court, is no
longer
as circumscribed as it was under Act No. 496, the former land
registration
law. We said that the Decree "has eliminated the distinction between
the
general jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and the limited
jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely as
a cadastral court." The amendment was "aimed at avoiding multiplicity
of
suits, the change has simplified registration proceedings by conferring
upon the required trial courts the authority to act not only on
applications
for 'original registration' but also 'over all petitions filed after
original
registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions
arising
from such applications or petitions." At any rate, we have also stated
that the limited jurisdiction-rule governing land registration courts
is
subject to recognized exceptions, to wit, (1) where the parties
mutually
agreed or have acquiesced in submitting controversial issues for
determination;
(2) where they have been given full opportunity to present their
evidence;
and (3) where the court has considered the evidence already of record
and
is convinced that the same is sufficient for rendering a decision upon
such controversial issues. By the same token, it has been held that the
rule is not, in reality, one of jurisdiction, but rather, of mere
procedure,
which may be waived. It is not amiss to state likewise that where the
issue,
say, of ownership, is ineluctably tied up with the question of right of
registration, the cadastral court commits no error in assuming
jurisdiction
over it, as, for instance, in this case, where both parties rely on
their
respective exhibits to defeat one another's claims over the parcels
sought
to be registered, in which case, registration would not be possible or
would be unduly prolonged unless the court first decided it.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Earlier, we ruled
in
Averia, Jr. v. Caguioa,[12]
thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The above provision
has eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested
in the regional trial court and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon
it by the former law when acting merely as a cadastral court. Aimed at
avoiding multiplicity of suits, the change has simplified registration
proceedings by conferring upon the regional trial courts the authority
to act not only on applications for "original registration" but also
"over
all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to
hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or
petitions."
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Consequently, and
specifically
with reference to Section 112 of the Land Registration Act (now Section
108 of P.D. No.
1529),
the court is no longer fettered by its former limited jurisdiction
which
enabled it to grant relief only in cases where there was "unanimity
among
the parties" or none of them raised any "adverse claim or serious
objection."
Under the amended law, the court is now authorized to hear and decide
not
only such non-controversial cases but even the contentious and
substantial
issues, such as the question at bar, which were beyond its competence
before.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED. The December 5, 1997 Order of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Lapu-Lapu City, is AFFIRMED. Costs
against
the petitioners.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez
and Tinga, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Executive Judge Teodoro K. Risos, Presiding Judge, Regional
Trial
Court, Branch 27, Lapu-Lapu City.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Rollo, p. 73.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
SECTION 1. Subject of appeal. — An appeal may be taken from a
judgment
or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular
matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
No
appeal may be taken from:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a)
An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b)
An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking
relief
from judgment;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c)
An interlocutory order;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. JANCOM Environmental
Corporation,
375 SCRA 320 (2002).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Investments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 147 SCRA 334 (1987).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Rollo, p. 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
185 SCRA 489 (1990).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id. at 494–495.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
146 SCRA 459 (1986).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id. at 462.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |
