ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. Nos. 138622-23. June 19, 2006]

ATTY. FLORENCIO D. GONZALES v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND DIVISION, HON. NIOVADY M. MARIN, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6; PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY, MANILA; COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICER (CENRO), DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, KALIBO, AKLAN; AND HON. JOSE YAP, MUNICIPAL MAYOR, MALAY, AKLAN

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUNE 19, 2006

G.R. Nos. 138622-23 (Atty. Florencio D. Gonzales v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Second Division, Hon. Niovady M. Marin, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 6; Philippine Tourism Authority, Manila; Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO), Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Kalibo, Aklan; and Hon. Jose Yap, Municipal Mayor, Malay, Aklan.)

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, which oddly seeks to directly annul [1] cralaw the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. 3683. The appealed Court of Appeals (CA) Decision disposed thus:

"WHEREFORE: (1) the appeal by Plaintiffs-appellants, Defendants-appellants, and the Second-set of intervenors are hereby DISMISSED, and WITHDRAWN as prayed for; and (2) the petition for annulment of judgment is DENIED DUE COURSE and is ordered DISMISSED." [2] cralaw

The antecedents of the case are narrated by the CA as follows:

"On April 29, 1996 the Presiding Judge of Branch 6, Regional Trial Court, 6th Judicial Region, Kalibo, Aklan, rendered a decision in Civil Case 3683:

'(1.) Dismissing the complaint filed by the plaintiffs as well as the complaint in intervention filed by the second set of intervenors Casimeros, et al. for lack of merit;

'(2.) Declaring the two deeds of sale (Exhibits 29 and 30) as null and void insofar as they affect the two-thirds (2/3) share of intervenors Jesus and Rosita;

'(3.) Declaring (the first-set), intervenors Jesus delos Santos and Rosita delos Santos Flores as the lawful owners of the two-thirds portion of the land in question or 9.915 square meters on the northwest portion, representing as their share in the intestate estate of Leonardo delos Santos;

'(4.) Declaring defendant Fred Elizalde as the rightful owner of one-third of the land in question or 4,957 square meters on the southeast portion, segregated by the boundary line running from the seashore to the inland or from southwest to northeast;

'(5.) Ordering the cancellation or revision of Tax Declaration No. 4422 in the name of Fred Elizalde (Exhibit 26) and all tax declarations issued subsequent thereto to conform to paragraphs 3 and 4 hereof as well [as] the issuance of a new tax declaration to intervenors Jesus delos Santos and Rosita Flores covering their two-thirds (2/3) share;

'(6.) Ordering the plaintiffs or any persons claiming interest therein to deliver complete possession of the land to defendants and first set of intervenors.'

x x xx x xx x x

"The Defendants, the Second-set of intervenors, and the Plaintiffs filed their respective notices of appeal, which were given due course.

x x xx x xx x x

"On July 31, 1998, Atty. Florencio D. Gonzales filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment (CA-G.R. SP No. 48475), naming the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA, for short), the Community Development and Natural Resources Officer of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR, for short), Kalibo, Aklan, and the Municipal Mayor of Malay, Aklan, as respondents, invoking as ground 'lack of jurisdiction', that the PTA, and the DENR be ordered to enforce their supervisory and regulatory functions in the island of Boracay, in accordance with Proclamation No. 1801, and for the DENR, and the Municipal Government of Malay, Aklan, through its Mayor, to disseminate informations for the protection of the subject-matter of Civil Case 3683 as part of the public domain.

"To avoid 'any conflicting decisions', the petition was consolidated with Civil Case 3683.

"No appellants' brief was filed by plaintiffs-appellants, defendants-appellants, and the Second-Set of intervenors-appellants.

x x xx x xx x x

"On October 8, 1998, this Court received a 'Joint Manifestation and Motion' by defendant-appellant Fred Elizalde and the First-Set of intervenors-appellees, relaying the information that they have 'x x x entered into an amicable settlement among themselves', and prayed that 'x x x defendants-appellants' appeal be deemed mooted and for said reason withdrawn x x x. x x x." [3] cralaw

The CA found that the appeal in Civil Case No. 3683 should be dismissed for failure of the appellants to file their respective briefs and in accordance with the prayer in their Motions.

On the Petition for Annulment, the appellate court ruled that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case was conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the Complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff was entitled to all or some of the claims asserted. It emphasized that Proclamation 1801 could not deprive the RTC of its jurisdiction as expressed in BP 129. Hence, the instant Petition. [4] cralaw

Petitioner contends that the CA "should have taken judicial notice that Proclamation 1801 [which declared certain islands, coves and peninsulas in the Philippines as Tourist Zones and Marine Reserve] by operation of law rendered x x x Boracay Island in Aklan as 'UN-CLASSIFIED PUBLIC DOMAIN' and x x x therefore beyond the commerce of man." [5] cralaw He argues that those lands were "not ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE; hence, no claim of title or cases for Quieting of Title should be entertained by the Regional Trial Courts for LACK OF JURISDICTION [o]ver the subject land of the case." [6] cralaw

The Petition has no merit.

First, petitioner's choice of remedy was improper. The annulment of judgment, which is a recourse equitable in character, is allowed only in exceptional cases, as when there is no available or other adequate remedy. [7] cralaw The annulment is a last remedy; thus, it cannot be resorted to if ordinary remedies like a new trial, an appeal, a petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies are still available, or are no longer available as a result of the fault of the petitioner. [8] cralaw Only a judgment that is already final and executory may be the subject of a case for the annulment of a judgment. In Civil Case No. 3683, the judgment that petitioner had originally sought to be annulled by the CA was then pending appeal and, hence, not yet final. Petitioner had other adequate remedies. Therefore, the Petition for Annulment of Judgment was correctly dismissed by the CA.

Second, jurisdiction is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the complaint.

The subject matter of any given case is determined, not by the nature of the action to which a party is entitled to bring under the facts and the law; but by the nature and character of the pleadings and issues submitted by the parties to the court for trial and judgment. [9] cralaw Jurisdiction over the subject matter means jurisdiction over the nature of the cause of action and relief sought. [10] cralaw Having been conferred by law, [11] cralaw a court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is determined by inquiring into the provision of the law. [12] cralaw

Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 provides that the RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction "in all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein x x x." More particularly, Section 1 of Rule 63 of the Rules of Court provides that it is in the appropriate RTC that an action may be brought to quiet title to real property, to remove any cloud of doubt over it, or to consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code. Consequently, the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and decide Civil Case No. 3683, which was for the quieting of title.

Third, suits to quiet title are technically neither in rem nor in personam . [13] cralaw They are characterized as quasi in rem . The judgments in those proceedings are conclusive only between the parties. [14] cralaw "The rules on quieting of title expressly provide that any declaration in a suit to quiet title shall not prejudice persons who are not parties to the action." [15] cralaw Consequendy, petitioner has no cause of action for the annulment of the title, because he was not a party to the case for the quieting of title; and he was not prejudiced or affected by the judgment in Civil Case No. 3683.

Finally, we address the point that this suit was filed by petitioner as a taxpayer. Indeed, a recent trend is to allow taxpayer suits; more particularly, "where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is a wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law." [16] cralaw In the present case, however, there is no allegation, let alone proof, that any illegal use or expenditure of public money is involved. Considering that petitioner as a taxpayer does not stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment on the suit, his Petition cannot be allowed to prosper.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED . Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw The prayer in the Petition reads: "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed [that] the Honorable Court x x x [a]nnul the [j]udgment of the lower [c]ourt in Civil Case No. 3683 and CV-54136 for [l]ack of [j]urisdiction over the subject land in the case located at Boracay Islands Province of Aklan, by virtue of Proclamation 1801." Petition dated May 31, 1999, p. 3; rollo , p. 6.

[2] cralaw CA Decision, p. 14; rollo , p. 25.

[3] cralaw CA Decision, pp. 2-4; rollo , pp. 13-15.

[4] cralaw To resolve old cases, the Court created the Committee on Zero Backlog of Cases on January 26, 2006. Consequently, the Court resolved to prioritize the adjudication of long-pending cases by redistributing them among all the justices. This case is being decided pursuant to that project.

[5] cralaw Petition, p. 2; rollo , p. 5.

[6] cralaw Id.

[7] cralaw RULES OF COURT, Rule 47, Sec. 1, provides:

"Coverage -- This rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner."

[8] cralaw J. FERIA AND M.C. NOCHE, CIVIL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED 219, Vol. 2 (2001).

[9] cralaw Republic v. Sebastian, 72 SCRA 222, July 30, 1976. See also F. REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 20 (1999; citing Viray v. CA, 191 SCRA 308 November 9, 1990).

[10] cralaw Sps . Lacierda v. Platon , 468 SCRA 650, August 31, 2005.

[11] cralaw F. REGALADO, supra note 9, at 9.

[12] cralaw Ganadin v. Ramos, 99 SCRA 613, September 11, 1980.

[13] cralaw "Classification of civil action as to object:

'1. In personam - The technical object of the suit is to establish a claim against some particular person, with a judgment which generally, in theory, binds his body, or to bar some individual claim or objection, so that only certain persons are entitled to be heard in defense.

'2. In rem - The object is to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established, and if any one in the world has a right to be heard on the strength of alleging facts, which if true, show an inconsistent interest, the proceedings is In Rem.

'3. Action quasi in rem - Proceedings which are not strictly and purely in rem but are brought against a defendant personally although the real object is to deal with a particular property or subject it to the discharge of claim asserted therein. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not necessary. Service of summons is required only for the purpose of complying with due process." O. HERRERA, REMEDIAL LAW 176, Vol. 1 (1994).

[14] cralaw Portic v. Cristobal , 456 SCRA 577, April 22, 2005 (citing Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc. v. IAC, 154 SCRA 328, September 28,1987).

[15] cralaw Foster-Gallego v. Sps. Galang , 435 SCRA 275. 293, July 27, 2004, per Carpio, J. See also RULES OF COURT, Rule 63, Secs. 1 and 2.

[16] cralaw Sps . Constantino v. Cuisia , GR No. 106064, October 13, 2005, per Tinga, J.


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