ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 153215.March 31, 2003]

SPS. LUMIBAO vs. HON. INFANTE

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 31 2003.

G.R. No. 153215(Spouses Alfonso M. Lumibao & Coraminda P. Lumibao, Dinna Anna Lee Lumibao Cartojano, et al. vs. Hon. Jaime I. Infante, RTC XI-38, Alabel, Sarangani Province, et al. and Mingkat Talino.)

For consideration is a letter dated February 24, 2003 written by petitioner, Col. (ret.) Alfonso M. Lumibao, addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., DENR Secretary Elisea G. Gozun and Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo and indorsed to the Third Division by the Chief Justice.In his letter, petitioner bewails the alleged injustice he suffered from the regional trial courts, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.

The Court takes notice of petitioner Lumibao's penchant for writing letters, for this is not the first time that a letter of the same nature has been indorsed to us by top officials of the government, from the senators to the President.Consistent in all the letters were allegations of denial of due process and errors supposedly committed by the trial courts and the Court of Appeals, which errors the Supreme Court allegedly ignored to petitioners' detriment.

Foremost among the inaccuracies stated in petitioner Lumibao's numerous letters is the disturbing allegation that a case for reversion of land title was initiated by a private individual and not by the Solicitor General as required by law. This case was allegedly given due course and decided by the regional trial court. Specifically, petitioner was referring to Civil Case 4426 decided by Branch 38 of the Regional Trial Court of Alabel, Sarangani on April 15, 1996.

It is high time to straighten out the facts, not so much for the benefit of petitioners but more for the Court to finally write finis to this case.

The controversy is centered on a 23-hectare parcel of land situated at Sitio Bitu, Alabel, Sarangani Province, known as Lot No. 157, Pls-219.

Private respondent, Mingkat Talino (Mingkat), anchors his right of ownership over the subject land as the sole heir of his parents, Tablo Talino and Dada Gay Talino, who were the original applicants and claimants thereof. After the death of his parents, Mingkat executed an Affidavit of Extrajudicial Settlement of all the properties left by them which, in effect, adjudicated everything to him, including the subject lot.

Petitioners, on the other hand, claim that they acquired ownership of the subject lot through public auction; that a certain Gil Pabillo allegedly purchased the land from Tablo Talino sometime in 1940; that, sometime in 1946, Gil Pabillo defaulted on his payment of a crop loan, secured by the subject land, with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and, as a consequence thereof, the lot was sold at public auction to them as the highest bidder.

Unknown to the parties, a certain Maximo Orlino obtained a free patent over the subject land on June 1953, and the Register of Deeds issued in his favor OCT No. V- 1861.

Consequently, PNB instituted an action for cancellation of title against Maximo Orlino. Petitioners, having acquired the lot from PNB, were joined as party plaintiffs. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 731.

In a decision [1] cralaw dated February 12, 1970, the trial court declared as null and void not only the title of Maximo Orlino but also the previous sale of the land by Tablo Talino to Gil Pabillo, thus:

That the sale of Pabillo, being made after the approval of the homestead application of Tablo Talino, whose application thereto has never been cancelled pursuant to the provision of Section 16 of the Public Land Act, the same could not have been the subject of an execution sale, especially considering that the debtor of the Philippine National Bank was Gil Pabillo and not Tablo Talino (Section 118, C.A. 141). Besides, Tablo Talino, being a native B'laan, and as the sale was never shown to be approved by the Provincial Governor of Cotabato, the same was null and void.

Section 29 of Act No. 2874 provides that after at least the second installment has been paid and after the cultivation of the land has been begun, the purchaser, with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, may convey or encumber his rights to any person, and any sale of encumbrance, made without the previous approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources shall be null and void. Section 118 of the same statute provides the conveyances and encumbrances made by persons belonging to the so called "non-Christian tribes," when proper, shall not be valid unless duly approved by the Director of the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes. In addition, we find the legal provisions requiring contracts or agreements relating to any real property made in the Department of Mindanao and Sulu by any person with any Moro to bear the approval of the provincial governor, and making them null and void if executed in violation of said requirement (Section 145 and 146, Code of Mindanao and Sulu). We agree with the trial court that the documents invoked by the defendant are void because they have never been approved by the proper authorities.�� (Mundiz vs. Saudo/Mandaya/G.R. No. 20722; de Palad vs. Saudo and Hedrazo, SS Phil. 831; Municipality of Magonoy vs. Evangelista, G.R. No. 48289, promulgated June 1, 1942.

xxx����� xxx�������� xxx

ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered declaring null and void Original Certificate of Title No. V-1861 (Homestead Patent No. V-17062) issued by the Office of the Register of Deeds of the City of General Santos in favor of Maximo Orlino over Lot No. 157-Pls-219 situated at Bitu, General Santos City; ordering the reversion of the land to the mass of the public domain owned by the City of General Santos under Republic Act 5412, to be disposed by it as such, giving preferential rights to the heirs of Tablo Talino, and the Register of Deeds of the City of General Santos is ordered to cancel said title upon the finality of this decision. All other matters are hereby dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

On August 18, 1980, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision [2] cralaw dismissing petitioners' appeal and affirming the trial court's decision in toto. The decision became final and executory.A Writ of Execution was accordingly issued on July 29, 1985.

Armed with a court decision giving preferential right over the disputed land to him, Mingkat declared the land for taxation, paid the corresponding land taxes and filed his Free Patent Application therefor.

However, in defiance of the order of the court, petitioners refused to vacate the disputed land.

On September 19, 1985, Mingkat filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Damages with Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Receivership against petitioners docketed as Civil Case No. 3221.

Apparently, and unknown to Mingkat, petitioners had the disputed land subdivided into 5 lots. A free patent was subsequently issued which paved the way for the issuance of land titles to the following petitioners:

NAME ������������������������������������������������������ TITLE NO.��������������������� ISSUED ON

RAUL PABILLO ����������������������������������� OCT No. P-32331 ������� April 29, 1998

ALFONSO LUMIBAO �������������������������� OCT No. P-32373 ������� May 24, 1988

MARCELA VDA. DE PABILLO �������� OCT No. P-32334 ������� April 29, 1988

DINNA ANNA LEE LUMIBAO ����������� OCT No. P-32333 ������� April 29, 1988

JOSEFINA PABILLO �������������������������� OCT No. P-32332 ������� April 29, 1988

Thus, on March 28, 1990, Mingkat filed another case against petitioners, this time for Cancellation and Declaration of Nullity of Title and/or Reconveyance of Title, Damages and Attorney's Fees docketed as Civil Case No 4426. This is the alleged case for reversion of title which petitioner Lumibao erroneously insists should have been initiated by the Solicitor General. However, a perusal of the complaint filed by private respondent Mingkat reveals that what he sought was the reconveyance of the title to the subject land in his favor, not the reversion of title in favor of the Republic of the Philippines.

This remedy availed by Mingkat has its basis in Section 53, paragraph 3 of PD 1529, which provides:

In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder of the decree of registration on the original petition or application, x x x.

Meanwhile, Civil Case No. 4426 was consolidated with Civil Case No. 3221.

On April 15, 1996, the trial court, after hearing the consolidated case, rendered a decision [3] cralaw in favor of Mingkat, ordering the cancellation of the titles issued to petitioners and reiterating the decision of the court in Civil Case No. 731 which gave preferential right to Mingkat over the subject land as the heir of Tablo Talino.

Petitioners filed an appeal at the Court of Appeals but the same was dismissed for failure to pay the required docket fees within the prescribed period. Payment was belatedly made two months after the period to appeal had lapsed. We see no error in the dismissal. Payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory. [4] cralaw While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the proper procedures.

Petitioners then filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals. The same was dismissed on the ground that said petition cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal pursuant to Section 5, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.

On May 17, 2002, petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing their Petition for Annulment of Judgment.

On June 5, 2002, the Court denied the petition.

On August 21, 2002, the Court denied with finality petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

On December 11, 2002, petitioners' motion to refer the case to the Court En Banc was denied.

Petitioners have to be reminded that just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal and exhaust all legal remedies available to him within the prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case and to relish his victory. [5] cralaw

At this point, petitioner Lumibao is advised to be more circumspect with his allegations and to conduct his dealings with the courts in a manner befitting the officer and a gentleman that he is.

WHEREFORE, the letter of Col. (ret.) Alfonso Lumibao is hereby NOTED. Let entry of judgment be made in due course. No further pleadings shall be entertained under pain of contempt.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court



Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Penned by Judge Pedro Samson P. Animas, CFI, General Santos City, Branch XXII.

[2] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Corazon Juliano Agrava and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Paras and Oscar R. Victoriano.

[3] cralaw Penned by Judge Jaime I. Infante, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Alabel, Sarangani Province.

[4] cralaw Gegare vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 587 [1998].

[5] cralaw Videogram Regulatory Board vs. Court of Appeals, 265 SRCA 50 [1996].


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com