ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136344. July 14, 1999]

PUERTO AZUL LAND, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 14, 1999.

G.R. No. 136344 (Puerto Azul Land, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and the Republic of the Philippines.)

This is a petition for certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals' resolution1 [Former Special Fourteenth Division, Justice Austria-Martinez, chairman, Justices Adefuin-dela Cruz (ponente) and Abesamis, members, dated October 8, 1998, Rollo pp. 98-104.] denying the motion to dismiss the petition the petition for annulment of title and reversion of lands2 [In CA_GR SP No. 45174 entitled "Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Judge RTC of NAIC, Cavite, Branch XV, Puerto Azul Land, Inc. (PALI), et al.] filed by the Republic of the Philippines against Puerto Azul Land, Inc. (PALI).

The petition arose from the 1994 application for registration of two (2) parcels of land3 [Located in Sapang, Ternate, Cavite.] filed with Branch XV, RTC, Naic Cavite by PALI's predecessor-in-interest Rebecco Panlilio.4 [Docketed as LRC case No. NC-578.] On July 26, 1994, during the pendency of the land registration case, Dr. Panlilio sold the parcels of land to PALI. Two days later, PALI substituted Dr. Panlilio as applicant.

On January 24, 1995, the cadastral court rendered judgment ordering the issuance of a decree of registration in favor of PALI. The Office of the Solicitor Genreal was furnished a copy of the judgment on February 1, 1995. No appeal has been taken. On March 14, 1995, the trial court issued a certificate of finality of judgment.

On June 9, 1995, the Register of Dees, Cavite, issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-2961 to PALI.

Almost two years later, on April 27, 1997, the Republic filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for "Annulment of Title and Reversion of Lands" praying that OCT No. 0-2961 issued in the name of PALI be declared null and void; and that the lands covered by the said title reverted to the public domain.

In its Comment dated December 29, 1997, PALI moved for the outright dismissal of the petition with the appellate court based on the following reasons: (1) the petition was in the nature of the reversion suit, original jurisdiction of which lies with the regional trial court; (2) as a petition for annulment of judgment, it was fatally defective for failing to comply with the provisions of Section 1, Rule 47, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; and (3) the Republic was guilty of forum shopping.

However, the Court of Appeals, in its resolution of October 8, 1998, gave due course to the petition and denied the motion to dismiss.

Hence, this petition for certiorari.

PALI contends that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion (1) in not dismissing the petition docketed as CA-GR SP No. 45174 which it treated as an action for annulment of judgment despite Republic's failure to avail itself of the ordinary remedies provided under the rules; and (2) in not finding that OCT No. 0-2961 has become indefeasible.

The petition is devoid of merit.

What determines the nature of an action, as well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought.5 [Jaime Morta, Sr. and Purificacion Padilla vs. Jaime Occidental, Atty. Mariano Baranda, Jr., and Daniel Corral, G.R. No. 123417, June 10 , 1999 citing Ca�iza vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 640.] Although the petition filed with the appellate court was captioned "Annulment of Title and Reversion of Lands" and would ordinarily be within the original exclusive jurisdiction of the regional trial court, the averments in the complaint, as found by the appellate court, showed otherwise. The petition in CA-GR SP No. 45174 was for the annulment of January 21, 1995 judgment of the Regional Trial Court, which even the petitioner admitted.

However, PALI moved for the dismissal of the petition with the appellate court because the petition was fatally defective due to the Republic's failure to avail itself of ordinary remedies mandated by the 1997 Rules of Procedure in assailing the January 21, 1995 decision.

We disagree. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 (2), Batas Pambansa 129, the Court of Appeals has exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgment of regional trial courts. Failure on the on the part of Republic to avail itself of ordinary remedies such as new trial appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies is of no moment. Despite the fact that the Republic was represented by the public prosecutor in the land registration case and the Office of the Solicitor General received a copy of the judgment, the government could not be barred from filing the petition for annulment of judgment. The inaction of its agents is not binding on the government. it is a principle long settled and recognized that estoppel does not operate against the government for the acts of its agents.6 [Palomo vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SRCA 392.]

Having found that the appellate court committed no error in not dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment, the filing of this petition with this Court is premature. We need not discuss the indefeasibility of OCT No. 0-29161, which is an issue that should be threshed out before the appellate court.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. Let the proceedings in CA- GR SP No. 45174 proceed with deliberate dispatch.

Very truly yours,

VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE