Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

These two consolidated cases seek to annul, reverse and set aside the: a) decision ** of the Court of Appeals dated November 28, 1986 in CA G.R. No. 08247 entitled "Apolinario Hidalgo v. Hon. Rosarito Dabalos, Et. Al." ordering the respondent Judge to cause the removal from the Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Butuan City OCT No. P-1882; and b) resolutions dated March 17, 1987 denying the motions for reconsideration.

The facts as found by the Court of Appeals are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Involved in this case is Lot No. 447 of the Butuan Cadastre located at Langihan, Butuan City, which was subjected to a cadastral proceeding, Cad. Case No. 1, Cad. Rec. No. 321, conducted before the last war by the then Court of First Instance of Agusan. On July 26, 1941, said Court issued a decree for Lot No. 447, in the name of the spouses Montano Hidalgo and Policarpia Estioko, Decree No. 753974, by reason of which an original certificate of title was issued to said spouses. However, the original certificate of title issued to said spouses was lost during the war.

"On August 29, 1968, the late Lazaro Hidalgo, one of the heirs of the deceased spouses Montano Hidalgo and Policarpia Estioko and a brother of petitioner herein, filed with the then CFI of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City, Branch II, in Cad. Case No. 1, Cad. Rec. No. 321, a petition for reconstitution of lost certificate of title for lot No. 447, the lot in question in this case. To that petition, the late Hermogena Rolloque, together with her children (respondents, now petitioners, Ricarida R. Catarman, Mercedes R. Estrella, Solomon Rolloque, Virginia Rolloque and Maria Rolloque), filed an opposition on April 29, 1969, alleging therein that they are the owners of the Western portion of Lot No. 447, containing an area of 10,179 square meters, which Hermogena Rolloque and her deceased husband, Cayo Rolloque, allegedly acquired during their marriage and had been in their possession in the concept of absolute owners.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

"On February 27, 1970, while the petition for reconstitution of lost certificate of title for Lot No. 447 was still pending trial, Hermogena Rolloque and her children filed with the Court of First Instance of Agusan a complaint for removal of clouds of doubt, declaration of ownership, reconveyance and damages, involving Lot No. 447, against Anacleto Belinguit, Lorenzo Estemosa, and the heirs of Montano Hidalgo and Policarpia Estioko, namely: Ildefonso, Gregorio, Lazaro, Dominga, and Paul, all surnamed Hidalgo, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 1321. Hermogena Rolloque and her children reiterated their allegations in their opposition to Lazaro Hidalgo’s petition for reconstitution of lost certificate of title. Civil Case No. 1321 is still pending trial up to the present.

"On February 21, 1978, after a protracted hearing on Lazaro Hidalgo’s petition for reconstitution of lost certificate of title was terminated, the then CFI of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City rendered a decision thereon, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘WHEREFORE, the Court hereby grants the instant petition and orders the Register of Deeds of the City of Butuan to reconstitute Original Certificate of Title No. N.A., covering Lot No. 447, Cad. Case No. 1, LRC (GLRO) Cad. Record No. 321, in the name of Montano Hidalgo, of legal age, Filipino, married to Policarpia Estioko and a resident of Butuan City, Philippines, using as basis the authenticated copy of Decree No. 753974 (Exhs. E and E-1) and the pertinent evidence taken before the Clerk of Court. Provided, however, that the reconstituted title, being an original certificate, shall be subject to a first lien in favor of the National Government to guarantee the payment of the special taxes assessed pursuant to the provisions of Section 18 of Act 2259 as amended, in the absence of evidence to show that the same has already been cancelled; and provided, further, that no certificate of title of whatever nature covering the same parcel of land exist in the Office of the Register of Deeds concerned which may be adversely affected thereby.

"The oppositors to the petition for reconstitution then appealed from the trial court’s aforesaid decision to the Supreme Court, which in a resolution issued in Case G.R. No. L-54075 (Hermogena Rolloque, Et. Al. v. Court of Appeals, Et. Al.), dated October 15, 1980, dismissed the appeal of oppositors, for having been filed late. The dismissal of the appeal became trial and executory on February 15, 1982. Thereafter, the Office of the Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City forwarded to the Registry of Deeds of Butuan City, for proper action, copies of the following documents, to wit: (1) copy of the decision rendered in the aforesaid petition for reconstitution of lost certificate of title; (2) copy of the entry of judgment issued by the Supreme Court in Case G.R. No. L-54075; (3) copy of the evidence submitted in the petition for reconstitution of lost certificate of title; (4) copy of the report of the Land Registration Commission regarding the status of Lot No. 447; (5) copy of the technical description of Lot No. 447; and (6) blue print copy of sketch plan of Lot No. 447. The Register of Deeds of Butuan City, however, by a letter dated May 4, 1984, returned the aforementioned documents to the Acting Clerk of Court III of the Regional Trial Court of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City, informing that his office shall hold whatever action is appropriate on the matter, because a `portion of Lot No. 447, Cad. 84 covering an area of 10,180 square meters has been issued Free Patent No. 895754 by the Bureau of Lands in the name of Hermogena Rolloque and a subsequent title was issued to her under Original Certificate of Title No. P-1882.’ The Register of Deeds also requested the Acting Clerk of Court III to ‘inform immediately the presiding judge regarding this duplication of title involving the 10,180 square meters, which form part of Lot No. 447 for whatever action the court may undertake’ and to ‘inform this office the action taken by the Court.’chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

"No action whatsoever was taken on the aforesaid letter of the Register of Deeds. Because of this inaction, the heirs of Montano Hidalgo and Policarpia Estioko, as represented by petitioner herein (now private respondent), on October 30, 1984, instituted with the CFI of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City a civil action by filing a complaint for ‘cancellation of title, reconveyance, damages and attorney’s fees with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction,’ in Civil Case No. 2880, against the private party respondents herein (now petitioners). Private party respondents (now petitioners) then filed a motion to dismiss said complaint on the ground of pendency of another action, referring to Civil Case No. 1321, which the Rolloque heirs filed against the Hidalgo heirs on February 27, 1970, while Lazaro Hidalgo’s petition for reconstitution of lost certificate of title was already pending trial. Acting on that motion, the respondent Judge herein issued an order, on May 7, 1985, dismissing Civil Case No. 2880 on the ground of pendency of another action. Petitioner herein (now private respondent) then filed a motion for reconsideration on May 29, 1985. Since at that time petitioner’s (now private respondent) counsel, Atty. Carlito S. Yebes, was out of the country, petitioner (now private respondent) engaged the services of Atty. Froilan Montalban, who on May 29, 1985, filed a motion in Civil Case No. 2880 for extension of time within which to submit a supplemental memorandum to support the motion for reconsideration. After scanning the record of Lazaro Hidalgo’s petition for reconstitution of lost certificate of title, petitioner’s (now private respondent) counsel came to the conclusion that Civil Case No. 2880 was unnecessary and so on May 30, 1986, he filed a motion to withdraw the motion for reconsideration, which was granted in an order dated June 20, 1985.

"Petitioner’s counsel then filed in behalf of petitioner a petition for cancellation of OCT No. P-1882, pursuant to Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 (formerly Section 112 of Act No. 496), in the same case, where Lazaro Hidalgo’s petition for reconstitution of lost certificate of title was filed, Cad. Case No. 1, Cad. Rec. No. 321. On August 27, 1985 after petitioner (now private respondent) and private party respondents (now petitioner) had submitted their memoranda in support of their respective positions on the petition for cancellation, the respondent Judge issued an order, dismissing said petition on the ground, among others, that said court as a Land Registration Court is without jurisdiction over the action of the petitioners (now private respondent). Petitioner’s (now private respondent) motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order filed on September 11, 1985, was also denied in another order issued by respondent Judge on November 25, 1985." (Rollo, G.R. No. 78109, Annex "A", pp. 20-25).

On December 18, 1985, Apolinario Hidalgo came to this Court on a petition for certiorari and mandamus, dated December 10, 1985, docketed as G.R. No. 73100, to set aside the order of dismissal by the Honorable Trial Court of his petition for cancellation of titles and to command said court to do or cause to be done those very same acts that the said court refused to do for lack of jurisdiction and in view of the pendency of another action before said court which could properly resolve the matters sought to be resolved by the petitioner (private respondent herein) in his summary petition for cancellation of titles (Rollo, G.R. No. 78109, pp. 7-8).

Per resolution dated January 13, 1986, this Court referred the said petition to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition and determination (Rollo, G.R. No. 78109, p. 8).

The Court of Appeals promulgated its decision on November 28, 1986, the dispositive part of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, finding the respondent judge to have acted with grave abuse of discretion, tantamount to lack and/or in excess of jurisdiction, in dismissing the petition for cancellation of OCT No. P-1882 and its derivatives, and denying the motion for reconsideration thereof, the same is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and respondent judge ordered to cause the removal from the Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Butuan City OCT No. P-1882 and all of the transfer certificates of titles derived therefrom which are declared null and void, and the issuance of a reconstituted owner’s duplicate certificate of title for Lot No. 447 in the name of Montano Hidalgo and Policarpia Estioko, and to issue a writ of possession accordingly. Costs against respondents.cralawnad

SO ORDERED." (Rollo, G.R No. 78109, Annex "A", pp. 30-31).

Concordio Rivera filed a separate motion for reconsideration of said decision on December 16, 1986 (Rollo, G.R. No. 78109, Annex "B", pp. 32-33). On the other hand, the other respondents, Solomon Rolloque, Et Al., filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration of the said decision (Rollo, G.R. No. 78109, Annex "C", pp. 34-35).

In its resolution dated January 19, 1987, the Court of Appeals referred Concordio Rivera’s motion for reconsideration to Apolinario Hidalgo for comment and in the same resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration filed by Solomon Rolloque, Et Al., citing as authority for such denial the ruling of the Supreme Court in Habaluyas case (G.R. No. 70895, August 5, 1985) (Rollo, G.R. No. 78109, Annex "D", p. 36). However, the latter, the denial of the motion for extension notwithstanding, filed their motion for reconsideration of the decision dated November 28, 1986 (Rollo, G.R. No. 78109, Annex "E", pp. 37-52).

On January 30, 1987, Solomon Rolloque, Et Al., filed another motion for reconsideration, this time, on the resolution dated January 19, 1987 which denied the motion for extension for filing a motion for reconsideration and for admission of their motion for reconsideration of the November 28, 1986 decision (Rollo, G.R. No. 78109, Annex "F", pp. 46-50).

On March 17, 1987, the Court of Appeals promulgated its resolution denying both the motions for reconsideration filed by Concordio Rivera and Solomon Rolloque, Et Al., (Rollo, G.R. No. 78109, Annex "G", pp. 51-52).

Hence, these petitions: G.R. No. 78179 filed by Concordio Rivera and G.R. No. 78109 filed by Solomon Rolloque, Et Al., both assailing the November 28, 1986 decision of the Court of Appeals.

Both petitions raised the issue of whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Court of Appeals in deciding the merits of private respondent’s petition for certiorari and mandamus.

An additional issue to be resolved in G.R. No. 78109 is whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Court of Appeals in denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of its November 28, 1986 decision.



Petitioners in both petitions contend that the respondent Court of Appeals acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction in altering a decision that had already become final and executory (Rollo, G.R. No. 78109, Petition, p. 10; and Rollo, G.R. No. 78179, Petition, p. 9).

The contested dispositive portion of the public respondent trial court in the reconstitution case states in part:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Court hereby grants the instant petition . . .; and provided, further, that no certificate of title of whatever nature covering the same parcel of land exist in the Office of the Register of Deeds concerned which may be adversely affected thereby." (Rollo, p. 22, Petition, Annex "A", p. 4). (Emphasis ours)

It is clear that the decision quoted above is one with a condition. This Court has ruled that "orders or judgments of this kind, . . ., are not final until the condition is performed" (Jaucian v. Querol, 38 Phil. 707, 715 [1918] cited in Cu Unjieng e Hijos v. Mabalacat Sugar Co., 70 Phil. 381, 384 [1940]). Thus, the appealed judgment has never become final, it having left matters to be settled for its completion in a subsequent proceeding, matters which remained unsettled up to the time the petition is filed in the instant case (Ignacio v. Hilario, 76 Phil. 605 [1946]).

Petitioners questioned the act of respondent Court of Appeals in deciding the merits of the case in CA-G.R. No. SP-08247.chanrobles law library

The Court held in the case of Epifanio Cruz and Evelina Cruz v. Intermediate Appellate Court, Et Al., 169 SCRA 9 [1989]), that." . . in the broader interest of justice, the respondent court nevertheless proceeded to decide the petition for certiorari and ruled on the specific points raised therein in a matter akin to what would have been done on assignments of errors in a regular appeal."cralaw virtua1aw library

Since the judgment rendered by the trial court in the reconstitution case never attained finality, it is within the power of the respondent Court of Appeals to decide the case on its merits.

It should also be noted that this case has been pending for more than twenty (20) years now. In the interest of justice, the same should be laid to rest. A remand of the case to the lower court would not serve any useful purpose where there are enough basis to end the basic controversy.



Petitioners in G.R. No. 78109 contend that respondent Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying their motion for reconsideration.

In Habaluyas, Inc. v. Japson, 142 SCRA 208 [1986]), the Supreme Court ruled that: "Beginning one month after the promulgation of this resolution, the rule shall be strictly enforced that no motion of extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals)." (Naguiat v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 164 SCRA 505 [1988]).

Based on the aforequoted ruling of the Habaluyas case, motions for extensions of time to file motion for new trial or reconsideration may no longer be filed before all courts, lower than the Supreme Court. The rule in Habaluyas applies even if the motion is filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended, because the fifteen (15) day period for filing a motion for new trial or reconsideration with said courts, is non-extendible (Ibid.).

But as resolved also in the Habaluyas case, the rule that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate Court, shall be strictly enforced "beginning one month after the promulgation of this Resolution." The Court promulgated the Habaluyas resolution on May 30, 1986. Thus, the Habaluyas ruling became effective and strictly enforced, only beginning July 1, 1986 (Ibid.).chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Petitioners filed its motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration of respondent Court of Appeals’ decision dated November 28, 1986 on December 18, 1986, way beyond the one month grace period allowed. Hence, the respondent Court of Appeals correctly denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

The filing by petitioners of a motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration did not toll the fifteen (15) days period before a judgment becomes final and executory.

Since the decision of respondent Court of Appeals dated November 28, 1986 has long become final and executory at the time of the filing of this petition, this Court can no longer alter or modify the same.

One point worth stressing, petitioners filed this instant petition for certiorari as a belated remedy to annul or set aside the decision of respondent Court of Appeals. It has been consistently held by this Court that certiorari is not a substitute for a lapsed appeal (Edra v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 75041, November 13, 1989).

WHEREFORE, (1) the instant petitions are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit; (2) the decision of respondent Court of Appeals dated November 28, 1986 is hereby AFFIRMED; and (3) the decision is made IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

---

** Penned by then Associate Justice (now Presiding Justice) Rodolfo A. Nocon and concurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido C. Ejercito and Antonio M. Martinez.