ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 140162. November 17, 1999]

AYALA LAND, INC. vs. SPOUSES CARPO

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 17, 1999.

G.R. No. 140162(Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Spouses Morris Carpo and Socorro Carpo.)

Respondent spouses filed in the Regional Trial Court of Makati a complaint for quieting of tide covering a parcel of registered land in Las Piñas City against petitioner corporation Considering the location of the property in dispute, the case transferred to the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas, Branch 255. Petitioner moved for summary judgment which was denied by the trial court. Petitioner questioned the order of denial in the Court of Appeals which directed the trial court to render summary judgment. Petitioner and respondent spouses separately appealed to this Court. Petitioner assailed the Court of Appeals' own refusal to render summary judgment in the case, while private respondent questioned the holding that trial in the case was unnecessary. The Court, however, denied both appeals. Consequently, the trial court rendered its decision in the case. It ruled that the title of respondent spouses was superior to that of petitioner because petitioner's tide was merely based on a survey plan not approved by the Director of the Bureau of Lands. The trial court thus nullified petitioner's certificate of title and all the derivate titles covering the subject parcel of land.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, but it failed to pay the full amount of the required docket fees within the reglementary period. The amount it paid was deficient by P5.00. As a result, its appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal likewise denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition for review, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals in dismissing its appeal.

Petitioner contends that the dismissal of its appeal by the Court of Appeals is too harsh a sanction for the P5.00 deficiency in the payment of the required legal fees. The contention has no merit. It is settled, that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. (Asuncion v. NLRC, 273 SCRA 498 (1997); Bank of America v. Gerochi, Jr., 230 SCRA 9 (1994)) Failure to comply with the requirement for the timely payment of full appeal fees renders the decision final since appeal is only a statutory privilege and, therefore, it should be exercised in the manner provided by law. (Luna v. NLRC, 282 SCRA 486 (1997)) As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, �1 of Rule 50, in relation to �4 of Rule 41, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the dismissal of the appeal for failure to pay the full amount of the required docket and other lawful fees.

Moreover, even on the merits, the instant petition should be denied for failure to clearly show that the appeal from the decision of the trial court is meritorious. There is no showing that the trial court erred in nullifying petitioner's certificate of title over the subject parcel of land. In Republic Cement Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 734 (1991), it was held that any title emanating from a survey plan which is not approved by the Director of the Bureau of Lands, is irregular and void. In the instant case the trial court found that petitioner had admitted in its answer to the complaint that its title and that of respondents both originated from Decree No. 131141, issued on October 15, 1969, in the name of Apolonio Sabater. Petitioner, however, failed to show that its certificate of title is based on a survey plan duly approved by the Director of Bureau of Lands. The trial court also found that while respondents' ride indicated that the survey of the subject parcel land in their favor was made on January 4-6 1927, petitioner's title showed July 28, 1930 as the date of survey. The trial court, therefore, rightly concluded that respondents' predecessor-in-interest had claimed ownership over the subject property earlier than petitioner's predecessors in-interest. As the trial court correctly held:

The submission of the plan is a statutory requirement of mandatory character and unless the plan and its technical description are duly approved by the Director of Lands the same are not of much value (Republic vs. Vera, 120 SCRA 210). In another case, it was ruled that the Land Registration Commission has no authority to approve original survey plan (Director of Lands, et al. vs. Honorable Salvador Reyes et al., 68 SCRA 177).

Evidently the SWO survey of the property which defendant ALI (petitioner herein) claimed to have been originated from OCT No. 242 had not been approved by the Director of the Bureau of Lands, but was apparently prepared and approved by the then Land Registration Commissioner and under the law, the same is void.

It will also be noted that aside from the admissions made by defendant ALI in its answer, it clearly appears in its title TCT No. T-5333 that the date of survey was on July 28, 1930. Plaintiffs' property covered by TCT No. 296463 was surveyed on January 4-6, 1927. This means that plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest had claimed ownership of the property ahead of that of defendant ALI's predecessor-in-interest. The principle of prior registration cannot be applied in this case because the land previously surveyed cannot anymore be the subject of another survey, and there is already a record of a prior survey in the Bureau of Lands. This is precisely the reason why the survey plan has to be approved by the Director of the Bureau of Lands. This must be the reason why the later survey in favor of Ayala's predecessor-in-interest did not anymore bear the approval of the Director of Lands because had it been submitted for approval the records of the Bureau of Lands will show that an earlier survey of the same land had already been made and approved by the Director of the Bureau of Lands.

Evidently, Ayala's claim of superiority of its title over that of the plaintiffs' cannot therefore be sustained. Be that as it may, the fact that cannot be disputed on the basis of Ayala's answer is its admission that the SWO survey without the approval of the Director of the Bureau of Lands was submitted in the alleged registration proceedings, rendering the decree and the title issued thereunder to be tainted with irregularity and therefore void.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Acting Div. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE