May 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 194029 : May 30, 2011]
ANTONIO V. MARTEL, JR. AND SPOUSES PEPITO AND VIOLETA NG V. WILSON ORFINADA, SR., REPRESENTED BY ALICE AFRICA
G.R. No. 194029 (Antonio V. Martel, Jr. and Spouses Pepito and Violeta Ng v. Wilson Orfinada, Sr., represented by Alice Africa). - In Civil Case No. 93-452, which is an action for annulment of title filed by Insurance Savings & Investment Agency, Inc. (ISIA) against the Republic of the Philippines,[1] plaintiff ISIA filed Supplemental Complaint No. 9 against Wilson Orfinada Sr. (Orfinada), Antonio V. Mattel, Jr. (Martel), and Spouses Pepito and Violeta Ng. The Supplemental Complaint involves a parcel of land consisting of about 221,688 square meters (sq m), located along Zapote Road in Almanza, Las Pi�as City, which is part of the vast tracts of land being claimed by ISIA in Civil Case No. 93-452.
The Supplemental Complaint alleged that ISIA bought the subject parcel of land, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 38910-A, from Orfinada. Despite having sold the land, respondent Orfinada maintained his ownership over the said parcel of land by allegedly declaring his title lost and obtaining a new title over the same. Petitioners Martel and Spouses Ng were impleaded on the ground that they assert ownership of about of 185,317 sq m of the 221,688-sqm piece of land.
Petitioners Martel and Spouses Ng filed their Answer with Counterclaim to Supplemental Complaint No. 9, asserting the affirmative defenses of res judicata,[2] stare decisis, imprescriptibility of title, and lack of verification/certification against forum shopping. Petitioners also filed a Cross-Claim against respondent Orfinada, seeking the nullity of his title (TCT No. 38910-A) over the subject property.
Orfinada filed a Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Complaint No. 9, also alleging res judicata.[3] He also filed a motion to dismiss petitioners' Cross-Claim.
Initially, Orfinada's motions to dismiss were denied; but on a motion for reconsideration, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an Order on December 6, 1999, granting the same. The court ordered the dismissal of Supplemental Complaint No. 9 on the main ground of lack of certification against forum shopping. This was followed by another Order issued on December 9, 1999, stating that, with the dismissal of Supplemental Complaint No. 9, the Cross-Claim against Orfinada has no more leg to stand on.
On even date, petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion dated December 9, 1999, stating that they just received that afternoon the December 6, 1999 Order. They averred that the court was silent on their Cross-Claim and counterclaim. They moved that the court should make a ruling on their claims, based on the evidence they presented, considering that Orfinada waived his right to adduce evidence on the Cross-Claim.
This Manifestation and Motion was set for hearing on December 17, 1999 but was postponed to January 7, 2000. During the hearing on January 7, 2000, petitioners manifested in open court that they received the Order dated December 9, 1999 only the day before and were moving for the reconsideration thereof. At the same time, they filed a two-page Manifestation and Motion dated January 6, 2000, where they reiterated that they were entitled to a judgment oh their Cross-Claim.[4]
On August 8, 2000, the RTC issued an Order setting aside the Order dated December 9, 1999, and reinstating the Cross-Claim against Orfinada. Thereafter, on August 22, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment on the Cross-Claim. The RTC declared Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 383 (the derivative title) and TCT No. 38910-A in the name of Orfinada to be null and void ab initio. It ordered the Register of Deeds of Las Pi�as City to expunge from its record TCT No. 38910-A in the name of Orfinada, and that it be withdrawn for the protection of the transacting public.
Aggrieved, Orfinada appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In the assailed Decision dated July 9, 2010, the CA granted the petition and disposed, to wit:
The assailed RTC Decision is SET ASIDE and the 9 December 1999 order dismissing the cross-claim is REINSTATED. The Notice of Lis Pendens on Orfinada's TCT No. 38910-A is cancelled with respect to the entries pertaining to Supplemental Complaint No. 9 and cross-claim in Civil Case No. 93-452 (for Annulment of Title).[5]
The CA explained that petitioners failed to file a written motion for reconsideration of the December 9, 1999 Order (dismissing the Cross-Claim). Petitioners only made a verbal motion during the hearing on January 7, 2000, which was not in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. With no motion for reconsideration filed, the RTC Order dated December 9, 1999 had attained finality. The CA further ruled that, with the dismissal of the Supplemental Complaint and Cross-Claim, there is no need for the notice of lis pendens.
Hence, petitioners filed the instant petition alleging in the main that the CA erred in setting aside the RTC decision dated August 22, 2000.
After a careful consideration of the petition, comments, and reply thereto, the Court upholds the CA Decision.
It must be stressed that rules of procedure are not supposed to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to the parties' substantive rights. Every case must be presented in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.[6] In the case at bar, Rule 37, Section 2, of the Rules of Civil Procedure uses the word "shall," indicating its mandatory character.
Section 2. Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice thereof.- The motion shall be made in writing stating the ground or grounds therefor, a written notice of which shall be served by the movant on the adverse party.
The CA found that the verbal manifestation of petitioners is not sufficient compliance with the Rules. It noted that petitioners had ample time to file a written motion for reconsideration. As admitted, they received the December 9, 1999 Order on January 6, 2000. If there was really an intention to file a motion for reconsideration, they had until January 21, 2000 to prepare the motion which, in this case, they chose not to file. The filing of a motion for reconsideration and filing it on time are not mere technicalities of procedure. These are jurisdictional and mandatory requirements which must be strictly complied with.[7]
Furthermore, the Court finds no reversible error with the Decision of the CA in ruling that the RTC exceeded its jurisdiction in rendering the decision dated August 22, 2000. It must be noted that the present controversy is merely an offshoot of ISIA's claim over vast tracts of land bounded by the Pasig River in the North, by the Tunisan River in the South, by Laguna de Bay in the East, and by the Manila de Bay in the West. The claim covers about 143,102,167 sq m, more or less, comprising one-half of Metro Manila.[8] ISIA's claim, incredible as it may appear, includes the subject parcel of land covered by TCT No. 38910-A, which ISIA seeks to recover from herein parties.
Indeed, the RTC saw that Supplemental Complaint No, 9 was so deficient in form and ordered its dismissal.[9] With the dismissal of the complaint, it subsequently ruled that the Cross-Claim had no leg to stand on. A cross-claim is defined as any claim by one party against a co-party, arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is, the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim. It may include a claim, that the party against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant.[10]
In the instant case, petitioners' Cross-Claim against their co-defendant Orfinada sought and prayed for the nullification of Orfmada's TCT No. 38910-A and its antecedent source OCT No. 383. Petitioners want to bar Orfinada from claiming title on the basis of res judicata (invoking G.R. No. 91413 and G.R. No. 123751),[11] when Orfinada was not even a party to either case. In the RTC decision dated August 22, 2000, the RTC ruled in favor of petitioners on the basis of the evidence presented, considering that respondent had allegedly waived his right to adduce evidence. Respondent strongly refuted this contention in a motion for reconsideration.[12]
We take note of the numerous conflicting claims over the property, and in order as not to subvert justice in the case at bar, it is rather more prudent to allow the parties to thresh out their respective claims in more appropriate proceedings.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolved to DENY the petition.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Filed with the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 147, in 1993.[2] Fusilero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91413, July 2, 1990. Ligaya Fusilero filed an action for quieting of title against Irene Garcia and successors-in-interest Philip Dumbrique, Benito Lopez, and Spouses Ng where the RTC dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the CA declared the successors-in-interest as purchasers in good faith. The SC denied the petition, finding no reversible error with the CA Decision; Heirs of Irene Garcia v. CA, G.R. No. 123751, October 21, 1996, was an action for annulment of title, which was also dismissed on the basis of G.R. No. 91413.
[3] Republic v. Orfinada, G.R. No. 141145, November 12, 2004, where Orfinada's certificate of title over the property was upheld.
[4] Rollo, pp. 21, 71.
[5] Id. at 49.
[6] Mindanao Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. Vda. De Flores, 506 Phil. 399, 406 (2005).
[7] See Lopez Dela Rosa Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148470, April 29, 2005, 457 SCRA 614, 628.
[8] RTC decision dated August 22, 2000; rollo, pp. 76-77.
[9] "x x x non-compliance with the requirement of Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure re certification against forum-shopping," RTC Order dated December 6, 1999; id. at 56.
[10] Ruiz, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101566, August 17, 1992, 212 SCRA 660, 663.
[11] See Note 2.
[12] Rollo, p. 95.
