Case Digest (G.R. No. 81564)
Facts:
Acting Registrars of Land Titles and Deeds of Pasay City, Pasig and Makati, Metro Manila, Petitioner, v. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, in Makati, Metro Manila presided over by the Honorable Judge Francisco X. Velez, and The Intestate Estate of the Late Delfin Casal, represented by Domingo C. Palomares, Administrator, G.R. No. 81564; and The Intestate Estate of the Late Delfin Casal, represented by Domingo C. Palomares, Administrator, Petitioner, v. Honorable Conrado Vasquez, Jr., Presiding Judge, Branch 118, RTC, Ricardo P. Santiago, et al., G.R. No. 90176, April 26, 1990, Supreme Court En Banc, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court.On November 5, 1985 Domingo C. Palomares, as administrator of the heirs of Delfin (Dolores) Casal, filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 132, Makati, an action for declaratory relief, quieting of title, cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 192, and cancellation of entries upon Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 291, which covered the 2,574-hectare property known as Hacienda de Maricaban. Palomares previously petitioned this Court (G.R. No. 69834) on February 27, 1985 for reissuance of a duplicate owner’s copy of OCT No. 291; that petition was denied on September 9, 1985.
The acting registrars (petitioners here) answered on December 19, 1985. On June 2, 1986 Palomares moved to admit an amended complaint impleading the Republic and the registers of deeds of Pasig, Makati and Pasay City, alleging (inter alia) that OCT No. 291 had been originally issued in 1906 to Dolores Pascual Casal, that no valid conveyances had been made, that TCT No. 192 was spurious, and that parts of the property had been placed under government proclamations (Proclamation Nos. 192 and 423), constituting landgrabbing by the State. The petitioners answered on June 26, 1986, asserting among other defenses that the estate is not a juridical person, real parties in interest were not joined, OCT No. 291 had been cancelled, prior rulings (including a denial by Judge Gregorio Pineda and this Court in G.R. No. 69834) and prescription barred the claims, and that innocent purchasers’ titles could not be overridden.
On August 29, 1986 the respondent RTC judge (Branch 57, Judge Velez) issued a temporary restraining order directing the petitioners to cease the acts complained of. On October 12, 1987 the RTC issued an order authorizing Palomares to: (1) subdivide and survey certain parcels (at plaintiffs’ expense) to facilitate administration of OCT No. 291; and (2) sell, exchange, lease or otherwise dispose of portions of the property subject to approval by the intestate estate court, to cover taxes and administrative expenses. On October 23, 1987 the RTC issued a clarificatory order allowing Palomares to implement the October 12 order without a writ of execution once the order became final, citing Section 39, Chapter IV, B.P. Blg. 129. The petitioners filed a notice of appeal, which the respondent court denied as directed against an interlocutory order.
The petitioners brought G.R. No. 81564 to the Supreme Court, charging Judge Velez with grave abuse of discretion in authorizing acts of ownership over lands that were, petitioners contended, government property. Separately, Palomares filed G.R. No. 90176 seeking relief against a December 15, 1987 order by Judge Conrado Vasquez, Jr., in Branch 118, Pasay City, disposing of parcels Palomares claimed as part of Hacienda de Maricaban. The Court consolidated the petitions. The respondent judge filed comments defending his orders as measures to protect vacant portions from interlopers and to preserve the status quo,...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is Original Certificate of Title No. 291 still valid and subsisting?
- Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the October 12 and October 23, 1987 orders authorizing acts of ownership and disposition over the lands claimed as...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)