ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 133104. April 7, 1999]
SPS. ROBERTO & MARISSE BAES, et al. vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated APR 7, 1999.
G.R. No. 133104 (Sps. Roberto and Marisse Baes and Sps. Ruben and Divina Baes vs. Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands and the Register of Deeds for Pasay City.)
Before us is a petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-42854 entitled Sps. Roberto and Marisse Baes and Sps. Ruben and Divina Baes vs. Hon Porfirio G. Macaraeg as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 110 Pasay City, Republic of the Philippines and the Register of Deeds for Pasay City.
Briefly, the facts are as follows:
Petitioner are alleged registered owners of two (2) parcels of lands covered by TCT No. 127426 in the name of Roberto and Marisse Baes and TCT No. 124727 in the name of Ruben and Divina Baes which were ordered canceled by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 110 in Civil case No. 0460-P and which decision was eventually affirmed by this Court and became final and executory on August 20, 1993. The said titles were found by this trial court to be derivatives of TCT No. 29593 which was one of the subjects of the complaint in Civil Case No. 0460-P and were acquired by petitioners in 1987, during the pendency of the case before the trial court.1 [Rollo, p. 40-41.]
By virtue of the judgment rendered by this Court, the trial court issued an Order of Execution dated March 6, 1995. In compliance therewith, the Register of Deeds of Pasay City canceled the questioned titles and issued TCT No. 1237299 and TCT No. 137300 in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
Subsequently, Felix and Rafaela Baes filed in Civil Case No. 0469-P a manifestation and Motion for Clarification dated November 11, 1996 and a Motion for Reconsideration dated December 19, 1996 alleging that petitioner's TCT Nos. 124726 and 124727 are not derivatives of TCT No. 29593 and therefore should not be canceled. During the pendency of the motion for reconsideration, however, herein petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with prayer for the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order.2 [Id., at 45-53.]
On July 4, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered the questioned decision dismissing the petition.3 [Id., ay 24-29.] A motion for reconsideration was filed but this was also denied.4 [Id., at 31.]
Hence, this petition with petitioners relying on the following reasons for the allowance of their petition, to wit:
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS, SEINF SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST OF FELIX BAES, ARE BOUND BY THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASAY CITY 9BRANCH 110 IN CIVIL CASE NO. 0460-P.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASAY CITY (BRANCH 110) IN CIVIL CASE NO. 0460-P IN THAT-
A. THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASAY CITY IN CIVIL CASE NO. 0460-P INSOFAR AS IT ORDERED THE CANCELLATION OF TCT NOS. 124726 AND 124727 IS VOID AB INITIO BECAUSE PETITIONERS WHO WERE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES THERETO WERE NOT IMPLEADED AS PARTY DEFENDANTS.
B. PETITIONERS ARE BUYERS IN GOOD FAITH.
C. TCT NOS. 124726 AND 124727 WERE NOT DERIVATIVE TITLES OF TCT NO. 29593 BUT OF TCT NO. 24295. 5 [Id., At 7.]
We deny the petition
The sole issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed petitioners' petition for annulment of judgment of the decision dated November 1990 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City in Civil Case No. 0460-P.
Petitioners argue that the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City in Civil Case No. 0460-P does not bind them because they, as owners of the two parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 124726 and 124727, were not made parties to the case.
We disagree.
Rule 3. Section 19 of the 1997 Revised Rules of the Civil Procedure provides:
Sec. 19. Transfer of Interest. - In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. (underscoring supplied)
Under this provision, the substitution of parties contemplated is not mandatory, it being permissible to continue the action by or against the original party in case of transfer of interest pendente lite. 6 [Regalado, F.D. REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, VOL. 1, 1997 Ed, p. 98.] In Heirs of Francisco Guballa, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, 7 [168 SCRA 518 (1988).] this Court ruled:
It has been held that a transferee pendente lite does not have to be included or impleaded by name in order to be bound by the judgment because the action or suit may be continued for or against the original party or the transferor and still be binding on the transferee (Association de Agricultores de Talisay-Silay, Inc. vs. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., 88 SCRA 462 [1979])
It should be recalled that when the properties were transferred in the names of petitioners, the case against Felix and Rafaela Baes was already pending before the court. Thus, they are privies of the defendants Felix and Rafaela Baes and as such, they have no greater right than the latter as against the respondents Republic of the Philippines.
As to the claim of petitioners that TCT Nos. 124727 were not derivatives of TCT No. 29593, we agree with the Court of Appeals when it rules that:
Even if petitioners are not parties to Civil Case No. 0460, they should await the resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City (Branch 110) on the motion for reconsideration considering that Felix Baes is their predecessor-in-interest and if the motion for reconsideration is favorably decided, then petitioners may still save their title.
WHEREFORE, this Court RESOLVED to DENY the petition for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SIORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
