ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 138992.� August 8, 2005]
MAJECH TRADING vs. RP
THIRD DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 8 2005.
G.R. No. 138992 (MAJECH TRADING CORPORATION, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY.)
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision [1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals dated April 7, 1999 and its Resolution dated June 9, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 49942.
On July 9, 1998, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), herein respondent, through the Land Registration Authority, filed with the Regional Trial Court, branch 153, Pasig, Rizal, [2] cralaw a complaint against Majech Trading Corporation, petitioner, Cirilo Padilla Mariano, Bonifacio N. Choa, and the Register of Deeds, same province, for "Declaration of Nullity of Titles With Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary Injunction," docketed as Civil Case No. 66905.
In its complaint, respondent alleged, among others, that a verification of titles in the Registry of Deeds of Rizal, conducted by the Land Title Verification Task Force of the Land Registration Authority, shows that Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 7125-R and 7126-R registered in the name of petitioner corporation are void, having been derived from fabricated TCT Nos. 485121 and 485122 in the name of Cirilo Padilla Mariano which, in turn, originated from TCT Nos. 40036 and 40037 in the name of Froilam Bayona. However, there is no annotation on the TCTs of Mariano that the lots covered by said titles were conveyed to him by Bayona.� Moreover, Mariano's titles were allegedly issued on August 12, 1975 at 3:49 p.m. However, what were issued on such date and time were TCT Nos. 485121 and 485122 in the name of Imelda Romualdez Marcos, not in the name of Cirilo Padilla Mariano. Thus, his titles are spurious. It follows that petitioner's titles derived thereform are likewise spurious.
Petitioner seasonably filed a motion to dismiss petitioner's complaint on the grounds that: (a) it states no cause of action: and (2) that it is barred by litis pendentia.
On October 7, 1998, the trial court issued an Order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss. Thereupon, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in an Order dated November 23, 1998.
Consequently, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari alleging that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying its motion to dismiss and subsequent motion for reconsideration.
On April 7, 1999, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dismissing the petition, thus:
"The petition has no merit.
x x x
The trial court did not, therefore, abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss on ground of lack of cause of action for it found that the Republic, represented by the Land Registration Authority, stands to be injured by the final outcome of the case, when it would appear that the Assurance Fund will be held liable for damages to any party, hence, it is a proper party in interest.
As to the claim of petitioner that the case is barred by litis pendentia because there are two other cases filed by two different parties-in-interest against the titles of Majech Trading Corporation, we find this claim also without merit.
The two cases mentioned by the defendant are for Declaration of Nullity of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-7125-R and 7126-R in the name of Majech Trading Corporation and the other action for Reconveyance and Damages to cancel Certificates of TitleNos. 7125-R and 7126-R likewise in the name of Maject Trading Corporation. The Republic is not a party to these cases filed against Majech Trading Corporation nor is it a representative of either of the plaintiffs therein.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, it appearing that public respondent did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned orders.
SO ORDERED. [3] cralaw
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated June 9, 1999. [4] cralaw
Hence, the present petition ascribing to the Court of Appeals the following assignments of error:
"1. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES HAS A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF TITLES IN THE NAME OF A PRIVATE PARTY.
"2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NONE OF THE LEMENT OF LITIS PENDENTIA ARE PRSENT TO UPHOLD THE ABATEMENT OR DISMISSAL OF CIVIL CASE NO.66905." [5] cralaw
Time and again, we have held that a denial of a motion to dismiss is merely an interlocutory order which, in the absence of abuse of discretion, cannot be a basis for certiorari. Neither is it appealable. We have had occasion to rule that:
"We find occasion here to state the rule, once more, that an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and therefore not appealable, nor can it be subject of a petition for review on certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial. The ordinary procedure to be followed in that event is to file an answer, go to trial, and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from the final judgment." [6]
Verily, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by herein petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 49942 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Justice Salome A. Montoya (retired) and concurred in by Justices Eloy R. Bello, Jr. (retired) and Ruben T. Reyes.
[2] cralaw Now Pasig City.
[3] cralaw Rollo at 104-105.
[4] cralaw Id. at 115.
[5] cralaw Id. at 8.
[6] cralaw Dasmari�as Village Association, Inc. vs. Bernado Lichaytoo, Antonio P. Tambunting, Emil� A. Andre and Capt. Jerry Codilla vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, The Regional Trial Court of Makati (formerly Branch 66 now Branch 147) and Colegio De San Agustin, Inc., G.R. No. 127276, December 3, 1998, citing Espino Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 511 (1997).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
