July 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > July 2007 Resolutions >
Name[G.R. No. 161639 : July 30, 2007] ALBERTO D. HILAPO, ET AL, V. HON. ALBERTO L. LERMA, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC OF MUNTINLUPA CITY, BR. 256, THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. :
[G.R. No. 161639 : July 30, 2007]
ALBERTO D. HILAPO, ET AL, V. HON. ALBERTO L. LERMA, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC OF MUNTINLUPA CITY, BR. 256, THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 30 July 2007:
G.R. No. 161639 (Alberto D. Hilapo, et al, v. Hon. Alberto L. Lerma, as Presiding Judge of RTC of Muntinlupa City, Br. 256, the Republic of the Philippines, et al.)
This petition for review under Rule 45 seeks the reversal of the October 10, 2003 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. R. No. SP No. 77969, which affirmed the December 19, 2002 Resolution of the Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 256, denying the applications for writs of preliminary injunction and dismissing Civil Case No. 99-075 for annulment of titles, contracts, sale and conveyances and/or recovery of possession, as well as the April 21, 2003 Order denying the motion for reconsideration of said Resolution; and the subsequent January 8, 2004 Resolution denying petitioners heirs of Hilapo, et al.'s Motion for Reconsideration.
This case has its antecedents in the transactions involving Lot No. 392, consisting of approximately 244 hectares, which was part of the Friar Lands purchased by the Government of the Republic of the Philippine Islands and, thereafter, formed part of the Muntinlupa Estate in the Province of Rizal.[2]
In 1907, the Muntinlupa Estate was subdivided and later, or on September 20, 1913, registered in the name of public respondent Republic of the Philippines under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 684 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal issued by the Land Registration Court in Case No. 6137. Concurrently, the Alabang Stock Farm was established by the Bureau of Animal Industry and other government agencies in said land.
Also, various other private entities, claimants, and squatter families settled on the land especially during the 1970s.[3]
A subdivision of Lot No. 392 was commenced on October 13, 1972 under Cad-14695 and the portions delineated were utilized by government agencies and institutions. Moreover, in a special investigation conducted in 1989 by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Lands Management Bureau (DENR-LMB), the heirs of Rufino Esteban Hilapo were among those found occupying and staking a claim on Lot No. 392. Petitioner's claim over the entirety of Lot No. 392 was based on an alleged purchase of the said lot under Sales Certificate No. 279 issued by the Bureau of Lands of Muntinlupa, Rizal on June 29, 1910 in the name of Rufino Hilapo and approved by the alleged Director of Lands Serafin P. Hilado. In 1960, said lot was declared in the name of petitioner Alberto D. Hilapo.[4]
In Special Proceedings No. M-2899-P[5] of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch III, Pasay City, Lot No. 392 was among those properties listed under the name of deceased spouses Rufino Esteban Hilapo and Gregoria Arevalo. In a May 15, 1981 Order, Alberto D. Hilapo and Isabela M. Esporlas were appointed administrators of the said estate. As administrators, they filed a petition for declaratory relief before the Makati City RTC, Branch 139, which sought to determine their rights under Sales Certificate No. 279.[6]
A motion to dismiss the petition for declaratory relief was filed by respondent Director of Lands through the Office of the Solicitor General. On August 22, 1986, Makati City RTC Judge Nicolas A. Gerochi, Jr. issued an order granting the motion to dismiss essentially based on the following: (1) petitioners' admission that Rufino Hilapo defaulted in the payment of installments to the Republic; (2) declaratory relief was not the proper remedy; (3) the purported right to Lot No. 392 has already prescribed, was waived or deemed abandoned because of the lapse of 72 years after the inception of the right being asserted by petitioners; and (4) the documents presented to sustain the claim of inherited ownership by virtue of purchase appeared to be nebulous, particularly Sales Certificate No. 279, the certification of which was issued and affirmed in the Court by a minor employee of the Bureau of Lands who appeared to be lacking not only in knowledge of the aforesaid transaction but also in authority.[7]
Having lost in the trial court, petitioners filed an appeal with the CA but the appeal was dismissed on January 21, 1988 for failure to file the appellants' brief on time.
On September 20, 1990, the DENR executed a memorandum of agreement with the Public Estates Authority (PEA), which designated the PEA as the project manager to undertake the development, planning, and marketing of the DENR's real estate holdings, especially Lot No. 392. An invitation to bid for a possible joint venture agreement with the government was published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on February 1991. Of the qualified bidders, the PEA decided that the proposal of the Filinvest Development Corporation (FDC) ranked highest and negotiated with the latter for the development of Lot No. 392.[8]
Unshaken, the heirs of Rufino Esteban Hilapo and Gregoria Arevalo, through counsel, on October 15, 1991, remitted to the Bureau of Lands a manager's check in the amount of PhP 73,500 as full payment of the account covered by friar lands Installment Record No. 358, namely, Lot No. 392, and wrote a letter to then President Fidel Ramos, praying for the approval of their claim and assailing the award made to the FDC.[9]
While negotiations with the FDC were ongoing, then President Corazon Aquino created a multi-sectoral committee to examine the PEA proposal. The said committee recommended the nullification of the selection process of the PEA and, through a memorandum issued by then Executive Secretary Franklin Drilon, ordered PEA to re-bid the said project. This prompted the FDC to file a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the trial court, alleging that there was already a perfected contract between the FDC and the Republic. A judgment in favor of the FDC was rendered by the trial court and this case was appealed to the CA and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 29172.[10] The government and the FDC, arriving at an amicable settlement, filed a joint motion for the approval of a compromise agreement with joint venture agreement. The CA, granting the said motion, rendered a Judgment Based on Compromise Agreement.[11]
On April 14, 1993, the Republic and FDC formally executed a joint venture agreement for the development of the Muntinlupa Estate, especially Lot No. 392.[12]
Insistent on their claim, the heirs of Rufino Esteban Hilapo and Gregoria Arevalo filed with this Court, on June 9, 1993, a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.[13] In said petition, petitioners assailed the judgment made in CA-G.R. SP No. 29172 based on the compromise agreement and alleged that they were and will continue to be the owners of Lot No. 392 of the Muntinlupa Estate.[14]
In the July 1, 1993 Resolution, the Court en banc dismissed the petition as follows:
"Memorandum of Agreement" executed between the PEA and Filinvest Alabang, Inc. (FAI) were annotated on the back of TCT No. 185552.[16] Subsequently, or on September 26, 1995, derivative titles under TCT No. 185552 were issued in the names of both the Republic (26%) and FAI (74%).[17]
On March 23, 1998, the heirs of Rufino Esteban Hilapo, et al., filed a complaint with the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) against FDC and/or the PEA. In the COSLAP complaint, the Heirs of Hilapo prayed that they be declared as the owners of Lot No. 392 under the provisions of the Friar Lands Act.[18]
In its July 7, 1999 Decision, the COSLAP dismissed the complaint because: (1) the claims of the Heirs of Hilapo, et al., have already been ventilated in various fora; (2) the issue of ownership of Lot No. 392 had already been ruled upon in the petition for declaratory relief filed by the Heirs of Hilapo in Civil Case No. 4065 filed before the Makati City RTC, Branch 139, which was dismissed for lack of legal basis; (3) the special investigation team of the DENR-LMB already found in its investigation over Lot No. 392 that the Republic remains the owner of the subject lot; (4) the Court already ruled in G.R. No. 110308 that the Heirs of Hilapo had no legal right to the lot in question; and (5) the Heirs of Hilapo have no legal basis to support their claim of ownership over the disputed property.[19]
Dissatisfied with the above judgment, in January 2000, Alberto D. Hilapo and Isabela M. Esporlas, as administrators of the estate of Rufino Esteban Hilapo and Gregoria Arevalo, instituted Civil Case No. 99-075, subject of this instant petition, for annulment of titles, contracts, sale and conveyances, and/or reconveyance and recovery of possession with prayer for preliminary injunction and immediate issuance of temporary restraining order, in the Muntinlupa City RTC, Branch 256[20] against the Republic, FDC, and FAI, claiming that they were the true owners of Lot No. 392 by virtue of Sales Certificate No. 279 issued over the said lot in the name of Rufino Esteban Hilapo.
In dismissing the above complaint, the Muntinlupa City RTC issued a resolution stating that: (1) petitioners heirs of Hilapo, et al. failed to pay the docket fees; (2) they failed to state the correct assessed value of the property which would have been the basis for payment of docket fees; (3) Civil Case No. 99-075 was barred by prior judgment in Civil Case No. 4065 already decided by the Makati City RTC; (4) the Court already ruled in G.R. No. 110308 that heirs of Hilapo, et al. have no clear legal right to Lot No. 392; (5) the issues raised in Civil Case No. 99-075 had already been definitively resolved by other tribunals, such as the Makati City RTC, COSLAP, and the Supreme Court, and the rulings of the latter are res judicata; and (6) the Special Power of Attorney executed between heirs of Hilapo, et al. and Romeo C. Campos was extinguished upon the death of Alberto D. Hilapo; hence, all acts performed by Romeo C. Campos, including the filing of the complaint in Civil Case No. 99-075, were all invalid.[21]
A Motion for Reconsideration of the above resolution was then denied by an April 21, 2003 Order of the trial court.[22] This prompted petitioners Hilapo, et al. to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 77969 entitled Alberto D. Hilapo, et al. v. Hon. Alberto L. Lerma, et al., raising essentially the same issues already resolved in Civil Case No. 99-075 and submitting the same evidence.
In denying due course to the petition for certiorari filed by heirs of Hilapo, et al., and in affirming the resolution and order of the trial court in Civil Case No. 99-075, the CA, in its October 10, 2003 Decision, found that: (1) Hilapo, et al.'s basis for a claim of ownership, namely, Sales Certificate No. 279, is on its face spurious, fake and of doubtful authenticity;[23] and (2) heirs of Hilapo, et al. mentioned that they requested the DENR-LMB/Bureau of Lands for a certified true copy of Sales Certificate No. 279 on January 5, 2001�to date, however, no such certified true copy had been actually issued and could no longer be issued as the Records Management Division of the Bureau of Lands, in its letter sent and received on January 10, 2001, informed heirs of Hilapo, et al., that the Original Records of Sales Certificate No. 279 and Installment Record No. 358 can no longer be found in their files.[24]
Unconvinced of the CA Decision and the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration through the January 8, 2004 CA Resolution,[25] petitioners Heirs of Hilapo, et al. filed the present petition for review.
In essence, the issues alleged by the petitioners heirs of Hilapo, et al. are as follows:
Regarding the first issue, the CA correctly pointed out that a court will only acquire jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee.[26] Thus, the CA was merely reiterating our previous ruling in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion,[27] where this Court held that it is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the proper court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.[28]
In Civil Case No. 99-075, the proper docket fee was never paid and the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the said case; accordingly, it was properly dismissed. The CA, in upholding the dismissal of the trial court, did not err in ruling against petitioners.
Regarding the sub-issue of the termination of the special power of attorney in favor of petitioners, the CA correctly found it to have already expired.
With respect to the second issue, it is settled that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction as an ancillary or preventive remedy to secure the rights of a party in a pending case is entirely within the discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case, the only limitation being that this discretion should be exercised based on the grounds and in the manner provided by law. The exercise of sound judicial discretion by the lower court in injunctive matters should not be interfered with except in cases of manifest abuse.[29] The CA correctly ruled that there was no such abuse in this case and the trial court acted entirely within the lawful bounds of its discretion.
Anent the third issue, laches, in a general sense, is a failure or neglect, for any unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier�it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable length of time, warranting a presumption that a party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[30] In Republic v. Heirs of Felix Caballero, a case also involving Friar Lands, this Court ruled that the failure to exercise due diligence over the land in dispute for 37 years is a clear indication of laches.[31]
In this case, assuming arguendo that herein petitioners had rights over Lot No. 392, they nevertheless utterly failed to exercise said rights for 74 years. Clearly, petitioners are guilty of laches; therefore, the CA did not err in denying due course to their petition.
In the course of thoroughly examining this case, this Court finds that the CA denied due course to the petition filed by the heirs of Hilapo, et al. based on applicable laws. The alleged legal basis for the claim of ownership by the heirs of Hilapo, et al. over Lot No. 392 is Sales Certificate No. 279.
It is not denied, and it has not been satisfactorily explained, why this sales certificate was signed by a person nineteen (19) years before he assumed office and was granted authority to issue such sales certificates. As a matter of fact, the purported authorized public officer who allegedly signed the said sales certificate in 1910, namely Serafin P. Hilado, graduated from the University of the Philippines College of Law in 1913, was admitted to the Philippine Bar in the same year, and was appointed Director of Lands in 1929 in accordance with official records.
In 1910, according to official records�records that are readily verifiable�the Director of Lands was a certain C.H. Sleeper, and not Serafin P. Hilado.
Telling is the fact that the official repository of such sales certificates, namely, the Records Management Division of the Bureau of Lands, certified that Sales Certificate No. 279 does not exist.
The conclusion is inescapable that Sales Certificate No. 279, allegedly issued in the name of Rufino Esteban Hilapo and covering Lot No. 392, is fraudulent or otherwise of dubious authenticity. The appellate court rightly concluded that there was no legal basis for the claim by the heirs of Hilapo, et al. over Lot No. 392.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit, and the October 10, 2003 and the January 8, 2004 Resolutions of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 77969 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 161639 (Alberto D. Hilapo, et al, v. Hon. Alberto L. Lerma, as Presiding Judge of RTC of Muntinlupa City, Br. 256, the Republic of the Philippines, et al.)
This petition for review under Rule 45 seeks the reversal of the October 10, 2003 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. R. No. SP No. 77969, which affirmed the December 19, 2002 Resolution of the Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 256, denying the applications for writs of preliminary injunction and dismissing Civil Case No. 99-075 for annulment of titles, contracts, sale and conveyances and/or recovery of possession, as well as the April 21, 2003 Order denying the motion for reconsideration of said Resolution; and the subsequent January 8, 2004 Resolution denying petitioners heirs of Hilapo, et al.'s Motion for Reconsideration.
This case has its antecedents in the transactions involving Lot No. 392, consisting of approximately 244 hectares, which was part of the Friar Lands purchased by the Government of the Republic of the Philippine Islands and, thereafter, formed part of the Muntinlupa Estate in the Province of Rizal.[2]
In 1907, the Muntinlupa Estate was subdivided and later, or on September 20, 1913, registered in the name of public respondent Republic of the Philippines under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 684 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal issued by the Land Registration Court in Case No. 6137. Concurrently, the Alabang Stock Farm was established by the Bureau of Animal Industry and other government agencies in said land.
Also, various other private entities, claimants, and squatter families settled on the land especially during the 1970s.[3]
A subdivision of Lot No. 392 was commenced on October 13, 1972 under Cad-14695 and the portions delineated were utilized by government agencies and institutions. Moreover, in a special investigation conducted in 1989 by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Lands Management Bureau (DENR-LMB), the heirs of Rufino Esteban Hilapo were among those found occupying and staking a claim on Lot No. 392. Petitioner's claim over the entirety of Lot No. 392 was based on an alleged purchase of the said lot under Sales Certificate No. 279 issued by the Bureau of Lands of Muntinlupa, Rizal on June 29, 1910 in the name of Rufino Hilapo and approved by the alleged Director of Lands Serafin P. Hilado. In 1960, said lot was declared in the name of petitioner Alberto D. Hilapo.[4]
In Special Proceedings No. M-2899-P[5] of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch III, Pasay City, Lot No. 392 was among those properties listed under the name of deceased spouses Rufino Esteban Hilapo and Gregoria Arevalo. In a May 15, 1981 Order, Alberto D. Hilapo and Isabela M. Esporlas were appointed administrators of the said estate. As administrators, they filed a petition for declaratory relief before the Makati City RTC, Branch 139, which sought to determine their rights under Sales Certificate No. 279.[6]
A motion to dismiss the petition for declaratory relief was filed by respondent Director of Lands through the Office of the Solicitor General. On August 22, 1986, Makati City RTC Judge Nicolas A. Gerochi, Jr. issued an order granting the motion to dismiss essentially based on the following: (1) petitioners' admission that Rufino Hilapo defaulted in the payment of installments to the Republic; (2) declaratory relief was not the proper remedy; (3) the purported right to Lot No. 392 has already prescribed, was waived or deemed abandoned because of the lapse of 72 years after the inception of the right being asserted by petitioners; and (4) the documents presented to sustain the claim of inherited ownership by virtue of purchase appeared to be nebulous, particularly Sales Certificate No. 279, the certification of which was issued and affirmed in the Court by a minor employee of the Bureau of Lands who appeared to be lacking not only in knowledge of the aforesaid transaction but also in authority.[7]
Having lost in the trial court, petitioners filed an appeal with the CA but the appeal was dismissed on January 21, 1988 for failure to file the appellants' brief on time.
On September 20, 1990, the DENR executed a memorandum of agreement with the Public Estates Authority (PEA), which designated the PEA as the project manager to undertake the development, planning, and marketing of the DENR's real estate holdings, especially Lot No. 392. An invitation to bid for a possible joint venture agreement with the government was published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on February 1991. Of the qualified bidders, the PEA decided that the proposal of the Filinvest Development Corporation (FDC) ranked highest and negotiated with the latter for the development of Lot No. 392.[8]
Unshaken, the heirs of Rufino Esteban Hilapo and Gregoria Arevalo, through counsel, on October 15, 1991, remitted to the Bureau of Lands a manager's check in the amount of PhP 73,500 as full payment of the account covered by friar lands Installment Record No. 358, namely, Lot No. 392, and wrote a letter to then President Fidel Ramos, praying for the approval of their claim and assailing the award made to the FDC.[9]
While negotiations with the FDC were ongoing, then President Corazon Aquino created a multi-sectoral committee to examine the PEA proposal. The said committee recommended the nullification of the selection process of the PEA and, through a memorandum issued by then Executive Secretary Franklin Drilon, ordered PEA to re-bid the said project. This prompted the FDC to file a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the trial court, alleging that there was already a perfected contract between the FDC and the Republic. A judgment in favor of the FDC was rendered by the trial court and this case was appealed to the CA and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 29172.[10] The government and the FDC, arriving at an amicable settlement, filed a joint motion for the approval of a compromise agreement with joint venture agreement. The CA, granting the said motion, rendered a Judgment Based on Compromise Agreement.[11]
On April 14, 1993, the Republic and FDC formally executed a joint venture agreement for the development of the Muntinlupa Estate, especially Lot No. 392.[12]
Insistent on their claim, the heirs of Rufino Esteban Hilapo and Gregoria Arevalo filed with this Court, on June 9, 1993, a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.[13] In said petition, petitioners assailed the judgment made in CA-G.R. SP No. 29172 based on the compromise agreement and alleged that they were and will continue to be the owners of Lot No. 392 of the Muntinlupa Estate.[14]
In the July 1, 1993 Resolution, the Court en banc dismissed the petition as follows:
There are several reasons why this petition must be dismissed.On June 14, 1993, the Makati City Registry of Deeds issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 185552 in the name of respondent Republic over the 244 hectares of Lot No. 392 (under OCT No. 684). The "Joint Venture Between the Republic of the Philippines, Owner, and Filinvest Development Corporation, Developer," and the
First - Petitioners are not parties in the case filed by Filinvest against public respondents. Not being parties thereto, they have no legal personality to appeal from and/or assail the decision rendered therein.
Second - Petitioners have no clear legal right to the land in question. Hence, mandamus will not lie.
It appears from the record that petitioners Heirs of Hilapo, through a letter dated October 21, 1991, sent to the Land Management Bureau, a manager's check in the amount of P73,500.00 allegedly for the balance of the purchase price of Lot No. 392 under Sales Certificate No. 358. The Land Management Bureau returned the same, stating�
Sir:
We are returning to you herewith Citytrust Manager's Check No. 436623 in the amount of P73,500.00 which you enclosed to your letter of October 15, 1991.
We regret that we cannot accept said remittance as we have always been of the stand that Lot 392 of the Muntinlupa Estate has never been disposed of by the government to anyone especially to your client's predecessor-in-interest Rufino Esteban Hilapo.
We reiterate our earlier findings that the claim of Rufino Esteban Hilapo to Lot 392 of the Muntinlupa (sic) was merely an illusion if not a concoction. Such being the case, we have treated his claim to be devoid of merit.
Hence the return of your supposed remittance, (p. 88, Rollo)
Third - Assuming that petitioners may have a right to the property in question, the instant petition is not the proper action, nor is this Court the proper forum for them to try to establish said right; and
Fourth - Petitioners stated in their "Verified Statement of Material Dates" (p. 33, Rollo) that they learned of the questioned decision on May 6, 1993. They, however, filed the instant petition only on June 9, 1993, which is clearly beyond the reglementary period even for the parties therein to initiate a petition such as the one at hand.
WHEREFORE, for utter lack of merit, this petition is ordered DISMISSED.[15]
"Memorandum of Agreement" executed between the PEA and Filinvest Alabang, Inc. (FAI) were annotated on the back of TCT No. 185552.[16] Subsequently, or on September 26, 1995, derivative titles under TCT No. 185552 were issued in the names of both the Republic (26%) and FAI (74%).[17]
On March 23, 1998, the heirs of Rufino Esteban Hilapo, et al., filed a complaint with the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) against FDC and/or the PEA. In the COSLAP complaint, the Heirs of Hilapo prayed that they be declared as the owners of Lot No. 392 under the provisions of the Friar Lands Act.[18]
In its July 7, 1999 Decision, the COSLAP dismissed the complaint because: (1) the claims of the Heirs of Hilapo, et al., have already been ventilated in various fora; (2) the issue of ownership of Lot No. 392 had already been ruled upon in the petition for declaratory relief filed by the Heirs of Hilapo in Civil Case No. 4065 filed before the Makati City RTC, Branch 139, which was dismissed for lack of legal basis; (3) the special investigation team of the DENR-LMB already found in its investigation over Lot No. 392 that the Republic remains the owner of the subject lot; (4) the Court already ruled in G.R. No. 110308 that the Heirs of Hilapo had no legal right to the lot in question; and (5) the Heirs of Hilapo have no legal basis to support their claim of ownership over the disputed property.[19]
Dissatisfied with the above judgment, in January 2000, Alberto D. Hilapo and Isabela M. Esporlas, as administrators of the estate of Rufino Esteban Hilapo and Gregoria Arevalo, instituted Civil Case No. 99-075, subject of this instant petition, for annulment of titles, contracts, sale and conveyances, and/or reconveyance and recovery of possession with prayer for preliminary injunction and immediate issuance of temporary restraining order, in the Muntinlupa City RTC, Branch 256[20] against the Republic, FDC, and FAI, claiming that they were the true owners of Lot No. 392 by virtue of Sales Certificate No. 279 issued over the said lot in the name of Rufino Esteban Hilapo.
In dismissing the above complaint, the Muntinlupa City RTC issued a resolution stating that: (1) petitioners heirs of Hilapo, et al. failed to pay the docket fees; (2) they failed to state the correct assessed value of the property which would have been the basis for payment of docket fees; (3) Civil Case No. 99-075 was barred by prior judgment in Civil Case No. 4065 already decided by the Makati City RTC; (4) the Court already ruled in G.R. No. 110308 that heirs of Hilapo, et al. have no clear legal right to Lot No. 392; (5) the issues raised in Civil Case No. 99-075 had already been definitively resolved by other tribunals, such as the Makati City RTC, COSLAP, and the Supreme Court, and the rulings of the latter are res judicata; and (6) the Special Power of Attorney executed between heirs of Hilapo, et al. and Romeo C. Campos was extinguished upon the death of Alberto D. Hilapo; hence, all acts performed by Romeo C. Campos, including the filing of the complaint in Civil Case No. 99-075, were all invalid.[21]
A Motion for Reconsideration of the above resolution was then denied by an April 21, 2003 Order of the trial court.[22] This prompted petitioners Hilapo, et al. to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 77969 entitled Alberto D. Hilapo, et al. v. Hon. Alberto L. Lerma, et al., raising essentially the same issues already resolved in Civil Case No. 99-075 and submitting the same evidence.
In denying due course to the petition for certiorari filed by heirs of Hilapo, et al., and in affirming the resolution and order of the trial court in Civil Case No. 99-075, the CA, in its October 10, 2003 Decision, found that: (1) Hilapo, et al.'s basis for a claim of ownership, namely, Sales Certificate No. 279, is on its face spurious, fake and of doubtful authenticity;[23] and (2) heirs of Hilapo, et al. mentioned that they requested the DENR-LMB/Bureau of Lands for a certified true copy of Sales Certificate No. 279 on January 5, 2001�to date, however, no such certified true copy had been actually issued and could no longer be issued as the Records Management Division of the Bureau of Lands, in its letter sent and received on January 10, 2001, informed heirs of Hilapo, et al., that the Original Records of Sales Certificate No. 279 and Installment Record No. 358 can no longer be found in their files.[24]
Unconvinced of the CA Decision and the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration through the January 8, 2004 CA Resolution,[25] petitioners Heirs of Hilapo, et al. filed the present petition for review.
In essence, the issues alleged by the petitioners heirs of Hilapo, et al. are as follows:
I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED THE CASE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BYThis petition for review must fail.
AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL OF CIVIL CASE NO. 99-075 FOR NON-PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY RULING ON THE MERITS IN ANY PRIOR CASE; AND FOR TERMINATION OF SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DESPITE THE SD3SISTENCE OF THE SAME.
II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED THE CASE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT REFUSED TO ISSUE A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST RESPONDENTS.
III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APEALS HAS DECIDED THE CASE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT FOUND PETITIONERS' ACTION TO HAVE PRESCRIBED AND THAT THEY ARE GUILTY OF LACHES.
Regarding the first issue, the CA correctly pointed out that a court will only acquire jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee.[26] Thus, the CA was merely reiterating our previous ruling in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion,[27] where this Court held that it is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the proper court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.[28]
In Civil Case No. 99-075, the proper docket fee was never paid and the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the said case; accordingly, it was properly dismissed. The CA, in upholding the dismissal of the trial court, did not err in ruling against petitioners.
Regarding the sub-issue of the termination of the special power of attorney in favor of petitioners, the CA correctly found it to have already expired.
With respect to the second issue, it is settled that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction as an ancillary or preventive remedy to secure the rights of a party in a pending case is entirely within the discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case, the only limitation being that this discretion should be exercised based on the grounds and in the manner provided by law. The exercise of sound judicial discretion by the lower court in injunctive matters should not be interfered with except in cases of manifest abuse.[29] The CA correctly ruled that there was no such abuse in this case and the trial court acted entirely within the lawful bounds of its discretion.
Anent the third issue, laches, in a general sense, is a failure or neglect, for any unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier�it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable length of time, warranting a presumption that a party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[30] In Republic v. Heirs of Felix Caballero, a case also involving Friar Lands, this Court ruled that the failure to exercise due diligence over the land in dispute for 37 years is a clear indication of laches.[31]
In this case, assuming arguendo that herein petitioners had rights over Lot No. 392, they nevertheless utterly failed to exercise said rights for 74 years. Clearly, petitioners are guilty of laches; therefore, the CA did not err in denying due course to their petition.
In the course of thoroughly examining this case, this Court finds that the CA denied due course to the petition filed by the heirs of Hilapo, et al. based on applicable laws. The alleged legal basis for the claim of ownership by the heirs of Hilapo, et al. over Lot No. 392 is Sales Certificate No. 279.
It is not denied, and it has not been satisfactorily explained, why this sales certificate was signed by a person nineteen (19) years before he assumed office and was granted authority to issue such sales certificates. As a matter of fact, the purported authorized public officer who allegedly signed the said sales certificate in 1910, namely Serafin P. Hilado, graduated from the University of the Philippines College of Law in 1913, was admitted to the Philippine Bar in the same year, and was appointed Director of Lands in 1929 in accordance with official records.
In 1910, according to official records�records that are readily verifiable�the Director of Lands was a certain C.H. Sleeper, and not Serafin P. Hilado.
Telling is the fact that the official repository of such sales certificates, namely, the Records Management Division of the Bureau of Lands, certified that Sales Certificate No. 279 does not exist.
The conclusion is inescapable that Sales Certificate No. 279, allegedly issued in the name of Rufino Esteban Hilapo and covering Lot No. 392, is fraudulent or otherwise of dubious authenticity. The appellate court rightly concluded that there was no legal basis for the claim by the heirs of Hilapo, et al. over Lot No. 392.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit, and the October 10, 2003 and the January 8, 2004 Resolutions of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 77969 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.)LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 67-94.
[2] Id. At 67.
[3] Id. At 68.
[4] Id.
[5] This case is entitled In the Matter of the Intestate of Deceased Rufino Esteban Hilapo and Gregoria Arevalo and Petition for the Appointment of Administrators.
[6] Rollo, p. 68.
[7] Id. at 68-69.
[8] Id. at 70-71.
[9] Id. at 70.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at 71.
[12] Id.
[13] Id., docketed as G.R. No. 110308 entitled The Heirs of RUfino Esteban Hilapo as represented by the Court-Appointed Administratrix Isabela M. Esporlas and Co-Administrator Alberto D. Hilapo v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.
[14] Id.
[15] Id. at 71-73.
[16] Id. at 249. Filinvest Development Corporation assigned its rights and obligations under the Joint Venture Agreement to Filinvest Alabang, Inc.
[17] Id. at 73.
[18] Id., docketed as COSLAP Case No. 98-73.
[19] Id. at 73-75.
[20] Id. at 75.
[21] Id. at 81-84.
[22] Id. at 84.
[23] In particular, the Court of Appeals found that Sales Certificate No. 279 was purportedly signed by Serafin Hilado as Director of Lands in the year 1910 when the Official Register of public officials clearly showed that said Serafin Hilado was officially appointed and became Director of Lands only in the year 1929 after having graduated from the University of the Philippines College of Law in 1913. The Director of Lands at the time of the issuance of said Sales Certificate No. 279 was C.H. Sleeper. No explanation or reason whatsoever was given by the petitioners to refute such facts which rendered the very document upon which they anchor their claim of ownership over Lot No. 392 highly dubious and "nebulous."
[24] Rollo, p. 89. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama (Chairperson) and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guarifia III and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.
[25] Id. at 95.
[26] Id. at 93; citing Suson v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 126749, August 21, 1997, 278 SCRA 284, 293
[27] G.R. Nos. 7993738, February 13, 1980, 170 SCRA 274.
[28] Id. at 285.
[29] Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, Inc. v. Bitanga, G. R. Nos. 137934 & 137936, August 10, 2001, 362 SCRA 635, 651.
[30] Republic v. Heirs of Felix Caballero, No. L-27473, September 30, 1977, 79 SCRA 177, 189.
[31] Id.
