April 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > April 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 155688 : April 09, 2008] NATIVIDAD FIGURACION, FILMA RABOR AND CATHERINE MANALASTAS V. SPOUSES CRESENCIANO AND AMELITA LIBI :
[G.R. No. 155688 : April 09, 2008]
NATIVIDAD FIGURACION, FILMA RABOR AND CATHERINE MANALASTAS V. SPOUSES CRESENCIANO AND AMELITA LIBI
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 09 April 2008:
G.R. No. 155688 - Natividad Figuracion, Filma Rabor and Catherine Manalastas v. Spouses Cresenciano and Amelita Libi
In its November 28, 2007 Decision, the Court granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners Natividad Figuracion, Filma Rabor and Catherine Manalastas (petitioners); annulled and set aside the March 20, 2002 Decision and August 20, 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and February 23, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court; and dismissed the complaint in Civil Case No. CER-21193, for the following reasons:
From the November 28, 2007 Decision, respondents .filed with the Court a Motion for Reconsideration[1] dated December 26, 2007 on the grounds that. 1) they are real parties-in-interest because they have the legal standing to question the passage and validity of Cebu City Resolutions No. 330 and. No. 2345;[2]2) the reconveyance of the subject lot was void because the Cebu City government was misled into thinking that the same was no longer being used as part of a public road;[3] and 3) the reconveyance may only be in favor of the former owner, Galileo Figuration, but not any of his successors-in-interest, such as petitioners.[4]
Though impleaded as co-defendant of petitioners in CEB-21193, the Cebu City government did not appeal from the February 23, 2002 RTC Decision rendered in said case, but has instead filed with the Court a Motion for intervention With Attached Motion for Reconsideration[5] dated January 2, 2008 and a.Motion for Reconsideration[6] dated January 2, 2008, on the following grounds: 1) it has legal interest in the subject lot for it "was undisputedly decreed by the [RTC]"' as a road lot;[7]' 2) its legal interest is also based on "the pronouncement of this Honorable Court in its decision that the proper party which has the legal personality to file reversion of the said lot, subject of this case, is the City of Cebu,[8] 3) the removal of the subject lot from public use "by reason and as consequence of the [November 28, 2,007 Decision] would grossly endanger the pedestrians x x x;[9] and 4) the reconveyance of the subject lot to petitioners was allowed only because the Cebu City was misled, into thinking that petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Isagani Figuracion, was the owner when in fact its was Galileo Figuracion who was the owner of the property.[10]
Petitioners filed their Opposition[11] to the motions for reconsideration and motion for intervention.
Judicial estoppel bars the Cebu City government from abandoning the judicial admissions it made in the pleadings and documentary evidence it introduced in the proceedings in CEB-21193, specifically: a) in its Answer where it stated that the subject lot was not utilized in the construction of Escario street;[12] b) in its city resolutions where it repeatedly stated that the subject lot is not being utilized as part of Escario street and that Isagani Figuracion is the successor-in-interest of Galileo Figuracion;[13] and c) in its deeds of reconveyance to Figuracion where it reiterated that the subject lot is not being devoted to public use and that Isagani Figuracion is the successor-in-interest of Galileo Figuracion.[14]
If indeed the Cebu City government was misled into reconveying the subject lot to petitioners, respondents' recourse to question Cebu City Resolutions No. 330 and No. 2345 is a petition for declaratory relief filed in due time with the RTC where they can present evidence on their allegation that Cebu City was misled when it allowed the reconveyance of the subject lot to respondents,[15] and not an action for reversion that only the Solicitor General or his representative may institute m accordance with Section 101 of the Public Land Act. an express provision of law from which there can be no derogation even in the name of equity.
Contrary to the claim of counsel for Cebu City Government, the nature of the subject lot remained very much a disputed issue when petitioners appealed to the CA and this Court; and it is of record that the removal of Lot 899-D-2-A. from public use was by virtue of Cebu City Resolutions No. 330 and No. 2345. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that nowhere in its November 23, 2007 Decision did the Court pronounce that it is the City of Cebu which should file the reversion proceedings.
Finally, intervention being a proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is permitted by the court to make himself a party,[16] while the Cebu City government is already a party to the case, having been imp leaded as defendant in CEB-21193, a legal standing it did not lose when it failed to appeal from the February 23, 2002 RTC Decision and March 20; 2002 CA Decision, for its rights and interest remained intertwined with petitioners and are therefore now affected and bound by the November 23, 2007 Decision rendered herein.[17]
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DENY with finality respondents' Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit; and to DENY with finality the Cebu City government's Motion for Intervention and Motion for Reconsideration for lack of legal basis.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 155688 - Natividad Figuracion, Filma Rabor and Catherine Manalastas v. Spouses Cresenciano and Amelita Libi
RESOLUTION
In its November 28, 2007 Decision, the Court granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners Natividad Figuracion, Filma Rabor and Catherine Manalastas (petitioners); annulled and set aside the March 20, 2002 Decision and August 20, 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and February 23, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court; and dismissed the complaint in Civil Case No. CER-21193, for the following reasons:
1) CEB-21193 being in essence an action for reversion of the subject lot to Cebu City, the proper party to institute the same is not respondents spouses Cresenciano and Amelita Libi but the Solicitor General, as provided under Section 101 of the Public Land Act; and
2) Even if the merits of CEB-21193 were resolved, the same would still be dismissed for lack of basis: the questioned reconveyance of the subject lot by the Cebu City government to petitioners being completely valid.
2) Even if the merits of CEB-21193 were resolved, the same would still be dismissed for lack of basis: the questioned reconveyance of the subject lot by the Cebu City government to petitioners being completely valid.
From the November 28, 2007 Decision, respondents .filed with the Court a Motion for Reconsideration[1] dated December 26, 2007 on the grounds that. 1) they are real parties-in-interest because they have the legal standing to question the passage and validity of Cebu City Resolutions No. 330 and. No. 2345;[2]2) the reconveyance of the subject lot was void because the Cebu City government was misled into thinking that the same was no longer being used as part of a public road;[3] and 3) the reconveyance may only be in favor of the former owner, Galileo Figuration, but not any of his successors-in-interest, such as petitioners.[4]
Though impleaded as co-defendant of petitioners in CEB-21193, the Cebu City government did not appeal from the February 23, 2002 RTC Decision rendered in said case, but has instead filed with the Court a Motion for intervention With Attached Motion for Reconsideration[5] dated January 2, 2008 and a.Motion for Reconsideration[6] dated January 2, 2008, on the following grounds: 1) it has legal interest in the subject lot for it "was undisputedly decreed by the [RTC]"' as a road lot;[7]' 2) its legal interest is also based on "the pronouncement of this Honorable Court in its decision that the proper party which has the legal personality to file reversion of the said lot, subject of this case, is the City of Cebu,[8] 3) the removal of the subject lot from public use "by reason and as consequence of the [November 28, 2,007 Decision] would grossly endanger the pedestrians x x x;[9] and 4) the reconveyance of the subject lot to petitioners was allowed only because the Cebu City was misled, into thinking that petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Isagani Figuracion, was the owner when in fact its was Galileo Figuracion who was the owner of the property.[10]
Petitioners filed their Opposition[11] to the motions for reconsideration and motion for intervention.
Judicial estoppel bars the Cebu City government from abandoning the judicial admissions it made in the pleadings and documentary evidence it introduced in the proceedings in CEB-21193, specifically: a) in its Answer where it stated that the subject lot was not utilized in the construction of Escario street;[12] b) in its city resolutions where it repeatedly stated that the subject lot is not being utilized as part of Escario street and that Isagani Figuracion is the successor-in-interest of Galileo Figuracion;[13] and c) in its deeds of reconveyance to Figuracion where it reiterated that the subject lot is not being devoted to public use and that Isagani Figuracion is the successor-in-interest of Galileo Figuracion.[14]
If indeed the Cebu City government was misled into reconveying the subject lot to petitioners, respondents' recourse to question Cebu City Resolutions No. 330 and No. 2345 is a petition for declaratory relief filed in due time with the RTC where they can present evidence on their allegation that Cebu City was misled when it allowed the reconveyance of the subject lot to respondents,[15] and not an action for reversion that only the Solicitor General or his representative may institute m accordance with Section 101 of the Public Land Act. an express provision of law from which there can be no derogation even in the name of equity.
Contrary to the claim of counsel for Cebu City Government, the nature of the subject lot remained very much a disputed issue when petitioners appealed to the CA and this Court; and it is of record that the removal of Lot 899-D-2-A. from public use was by virtue of Cebu City Resolutions No. 330 and No. 2345. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that nowhere in its November 23, 2007 Decision did the Court pronounce that it is the City of Cebu which should file the reversion proceedings.
Finally, intervention being a proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is permitted by the court to make himself a party,[16] while the Cebu City government is already a party to the case, having been imp leaded as defendant in CEB-21193, a legal standing it did not lose when it failed to appeal from the February 23, 2002 RTC Decision and March 20; 2002 CA Decision, for its rights and interest remained intertwined with petitioners and are therefore now affected and bound by the November 23, 2007 Decision rendered herein.[17]
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DENY with finality respondents' Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit; and to DENY with finality the Cebu City government's Motion for Intervention and Motion for Reconsideration for lack of legal basis.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Asst. Clerk of Court
LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 208.
[2] Id. at 178-181.
[3] Id. at 187-189.
[4] Id. at 189-190.
[5] Id. at 178.
[6] Id. at 186.
[7] Id. at 187.
[8] Id. at 181.
[9]
[10] Rollo, pp. 189-190.
[11] Id. at 208, 213.
[12] Records, p. .26.
[13] Id. at 14-15, 18.
[14] Id. at 15-16.
[15] Liga ng mga Barangav National v. Atienza, Jr, G.R.. No. 154599. January 21, 2004 420 SCRA 562, 572.
[16] Alfelor v. Halasan, G.R.No. 165987, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 451,161.
[17] Chan, Jr y. Iglesia Ni Cristo, Inc., G.R. No. 160283, October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 177.
