November 2001 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2001 > November 2001 Decisions >
G.R. No. 91486 November 20, 2001 - ALBERTO G. PINLAC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. :
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 91486. November 20, 2001.]
ALBERTO G. PINLAC, ATTY. ERIBERTO H. DECENA, RODOLFO F. REYES, FELIPE BRIONES, JUANITO METILLA, JR., FELIPE A. FLORES, HERMINIO ELEVADO, NARCISO S. SIMEROS, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, ATTY. CORAZON A. MERRERA, ATTY. JEAN MAKASIAR-PUNO, SERGIO ACABAN, represented by Atty. Ramon Gerona, ATTY. ROGELIO VELASCO, MARTINA S. NONA, OVIDEO MEJICA, ALFREDO ITALIA, MARIANO GUEVARRA, JESUS YUJUICO, DOMINADOR RIVERA, SATURNINA SALES, represented by Atty. Consolacion Sales-Demontano, FRED CHUA, SONIA SY CHUA, LAWRENCE CHUA, CAROLINA C. RUBIO, represented by Tessie Sebastian, GEORGE G. GUERRERO, BEATRIZ TANTOCO, represented by Filomena Cervantes, ATTY. MARCELA CELESTINO-GARCIA, FEDERICO GARCIA, ILDEFONSO MORALES, LEONCIA VELASCO, OCRAVIO F. LINA, ANA MARIA JARAMILLO, ESTRELLA BASA, JOSE ESTEVA, JR., CIRILO GONZALES, VILLY TOBIAS, MIGUEL DELA PAZ, RUBEN GUILLERMO, FAUSTO YADAO, represented by Jeremias Panlilio, RICARDO YAP, ROSAURO/PATRICK MARQUEZ, represented by Emmanuel Marquez, MODESTA FABRIG and MAXIMINO SALCEDA, MELIA LATOMBO, TERESITA PANGILINAN-RIVERO, ARCH. DANILO C. DE CASTRO, JOSE S. LEDESMA, JAIME P. ANG, VEICENTE P. ANG, MAURO U. GABRIEL, ATTY. VIRGINIA GOMEZ, GIL S. BONILLA, LOURDES BLANCO, represented by Catalina Blanco, JOSEFA SANCHEZ and ROSALINA VILLEGAS, represented by Heidi Bobis, SHIRLEY BUCAG, QUIRINA O. TUVERA, represented by Wilfredo Orejuros, GREGORIO AVENTINO, represented by Enrico Aventino, LEONARDO L. NICOLAS, NICOMEDES PENARANDA, FRANCIS CAMEDRANO, OFELIA IGNACIO, ROSENDO ABUBO, represented by Santos Chavez, SOLEDAD BAUTISTA DE COLUMNA, represented by Zenaida Valle, MARQUITA/SEBASTIAN LOPEZ, represented by Emmanuel Marquez, DELIA DORION, GERARDO L. SANTIAGO, FIDEL PANGANIBAN, represented by Manuel dela Roca, MATEO and OFELIA INOVEJAS, REMEDIOS C. DOVAS, represented by Josefa Capistrano, DOMINGO ALTAMIRANO and SPOUSES ROLANDO ALTAMIRANO and MINERVA FETALVERO, BEATRIZ RINGPIS, ROSARIO DE MATA, RUFINA CRUZ, represented by JOSEFA MANABAT, SPOUSES ANITA SALONGA-CAPAGCUAN and MAYNARD CAPAGCUAN, DISCORA YATCO, represented by VICTORINA Y. FIRME, and CONSUELO YATCO, GENEROSA MEDINA VDA. DE NOGUERA, represented by ATTY. RAYMUNDO M. NOGUERA, BEATRIZ SALANDANAN and LOURDES ALONTE-VASQUEZ, PEDRO COSIO and VICTORINA CARINO, RUTH C. ZARATE, PRECIOSISIMA YAPCHULAY, BASILISA YAPCHULAY, OFELIA YAPCHULAY, FELISA YAPCHULAY, FE B. YAPCHULAY, WILMA B. YAPCHULAY, FELIX B. YAPCHULAY, MARIANO B. YAPCHULAY, GEN. ALFREDO LIM, and other registered OWNERS OF VILAR-MALOLES (VILMA) SUBDIVISION, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
In the Decision promulgated on January 19, 2001, the Court disposed of the case as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 17596 is AFFIRMED and the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Dissatisfied with the aforequoted Decision, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the said Decision, raising the following grounds:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
First. There was valid summons by publication on the private respondents.
Second. The portion of the court a quo’s judgment concerning Lot No. 3 originally covered by OCT No. 333 was never appealed and thus, could not be annulled by the Court of Appeals.
On the first ground, we find no compelling reason to reconsider our earlier finding that there was no valid service of summons by publication on the private respondents.
Under the second ground, petitioners argue that the portion of the Partial Decision of the trial court concerning Lot No. 3 be reinstated on the grounds that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1) Lot No. 3 was originally covered by OCT No. 333, different and far-removed from Lot No. 2 covered by OCT No. 614, mother title of the private respondents’ derivative titles.
2) The defendants whose properties are located on Lot No. 3 and whose titles were derived from OCT No. 333 never appealed nor questioned the Partial Decision rendered against them.
3) There being no timely appeal, the Partial Decision is already final and executory insofar as it affects Lot No. 3 and the defendants whose properties lie therein and whose titles were derived from OCT No. 333.
We find merit in petitioners’ contention in this regard. The court a quo’s Partial Decision disposed in part:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
4) Declaring the area of TCT No. 333 in excess of its true and actual area of 4,574 sq. meters, as well as the TCTs subsequently issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, covering the area in excess of said actual area, with the exception of those belonging to non-defaulted respondents, as null and void ab initio;
5) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel all TCTs subsequently issued based on OCT No. 333 in excess of the actual area of 4,574 sq. meters, with the exception of those titles belonging to the non-defaulted respondents; . . .
The petition for annulment of judgment with certiorari, prohibition and mandamus was filed by the individual owners of lots within the Vilma Maloles Subdivision whose properties are within Lot No. 2, and whose titles were derived through a series of transfers from OCT No. 614. Those whose titles emanated from OCT No. 333 did not appeal, nor question, the disposition of the court a quo insofar as it affected them.
When the Court of Appeals rendered its decision in the petition for annulment of judgment, it granted the petition and annulled the entire Partial Decision of the court a quo, including that aforequoted portion concerning Lot No. 3 originally covered by OCT No. 333. Since the owners of titles derived from OCT No. 333 did not appeal the Partial Decision, the judgment insofar as Lot No. 3 is concerned was erroneously annulled by the Court of Appeals and, hence, must be reinstated.
The point is well-taken. Insofar as the defendants whose properties are within Lot No. 3 and whose titles were derived from OCT No. 333, the Partial Decision of the court a quo, as to them, had long become final and executory. Since no appeal was taken by said defendants in due time from the judgment of the court a quo, the same attained finality by mere lapse of time. 1 It is of no moment that this matter has been brought to this Court’s attention for the first time by way of the Motion for Reconsideration, for when the questioned Partial Decision became final and executory, the appellate court lost jurisdiction to alter said final judgment 2 to favor the defendants who did not appeal therefrom.
The petition for annulment pursued by the lot owners of Vilma Maloles Subdivision does not inure to the benefit of the other defendants who did not appeal, nor can it be deemed to be an appeal of such other parties from the judgment against them. 3 Moreover, there is no common cause or interest between the titled owners of the Vilma Maloles Subdivision located in Lot No. 2 on the one hand, and the owners of parcels in Lot No. 3 on the other hand, as these properties, as well as their mother titles, are different.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED and our Decision promulgated on January 19, 2001 is MODIFIED as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1) reinstating paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Partial Decision of the court a quo; and
2) affirming the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 17596 in all other respects.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno Kapunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 17596 is AFFIRMED and the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Dissatisfied with the aforequoted Decision, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the said Decision, raising the following grounds:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
First. There was valid summons by publication on the private respondents.
Second. The portion of the court a quo’s judgment concerning Lot No. 3 originally covered by OCT No. 333 was never appealed and thus, could not be annulled by the Court of Appeals.
On the first ground, we find no compelling reason to reconsider our earlier finding that there was no valid service of summons by publication on the private respondents.
Under the second ground, petitioners argue that the portion of the Partial Decision of the trial court concerning Lot No. 3 be reinstated on the grounds that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1) Lot No. 3 was originally covered by OCT No. 333, different and far-removed from Lot No. 2 covered by OCT No. 614, mother title of the private respondents’ derivative titles.
2) The defendants whose properties are located on Lot No. 3 and whose titles were derived from OCT No. 333 never appealed nor questioned the Partial Decision rendered against them.
3) There being no timely appeal, the Partial Decision is already final and executory insofar as it affects Lot No. 3 and the defendants whose properties lie therein and whose titles were derived from OCT No. 333.
We find merit in petitioners’ contention in this regard. The court a quo’s Partial Decision disposed in part:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
x x x
4) Declaring the area of TCT No. 333 in excess of its true and actual area of 4,574 sq. meters, as well as the TCTs subsequently issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, covering the area in excess of said actual area, with the exception of those belonging to non-defaulted respondents, as null and void ab initio;
5) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel all TCTs subsequently issued based on OCT No. 333 in excess of the actual area of 4,574 sq. meters, with the exception of those titles belonging to the non-defaulted respondents; . . .
The petition for annulment of judgment with certiorari, prohibition and mandamus was filed by the individual owners of lots within the Vilma Maloles Subdivision whose properties are within Lot No. 2, and whose titles were derived through a series of transfers from OCT No. 614. Those whose titles emanated from OCT No. 333 did not appeal, nor question, the disposition of the court a quo insofar as it affected them.
When the Court of Appeals rendered its decision in the petition for annulment of judgment, it granted the petition and annulled the entire Partial Decision of the court a quo, including that aforequoted portion concerning Lot No. 3 originally covered by OCT No. 333. Since the owners of titles derived from OCT No. 333 did not appeal the Partial Decision, the judgment insofar as Lot No. 3 is concerned was erroneously annulled by the Court of Appeals and, hence, must be reinstated.
The point is well-taken. Insofar as the defendants whose properties are within Lot No. 3 and whose titles were derived from OCT No. 333, the Partial Decision of the court a quo, as to them, had long become final and executory. Since no appeal was taken by said defendants in due time from the judgment of the court a quo, the same attained finality by mere lapse of time. 1 It is of no moment that this matter has been brought to this Court’s attention for the first time by way of the Motion for Reconsideration, for when the questioned Partial Decision became final and executory, the appellate court lost jurisdiction to alter said final judgment 2 to favor the defendants who did not appeal therefrom.
The petition for annulment pursued by the lot owners of Vilma Maloles Subdivision does not inure to the benefit of the other defendants who did not appeal, nor can it be deemed to be an appeal of such other parties from the judgment against them. 3 Moreover, there is no common cause or interest between the titled owners of the Vilma Maloles Subdivision located in Lot No. 2 on the one hand, and the owners of parcels in Lot No. 3 on the other hand, as these properties, as well as their mother titles, are different.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED and our Decision promulgated on January 19, 2001 is MODIFIED as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1) reinstating paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Partial Decision of the court a quo; and
2) affirming the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 17596 in all other respects.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno Kapunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Dorotheo v. Court of Appeals, 320 SCRA 12, 171[1997] .
2. Republic v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 376, 382 [1999].
3. GSIS v. Court of Appeals, 308 SCRA 559, 573 [1999].
