Case Digest (G.R. No. 81564)
Facts:
The case involves the Acting Registrars of Land Titles and Deeds of Pasay City, Pasig, and Makati, Metro Manila as petitioners against the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57 in Makati, Metro Manila, presided over by Judge Francisco X. Velez, and the intestate estate of the late Delfin Casal, represented by Domingo C. Palomares, as respondents. The events leading to this case began on November 5, 1985, when Domingo Palomares, acting as the administrator of the heirs of Delfin Casal, filed a suit in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 132, Makati, for declaratory relief, quieting of title, and cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 192, along with entries on Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 291. Earlier, on February 27, 1985, Palomares had petitioned the Supreme Court for a duplicate owner's copy of OCT No. 291, which was denied for lack of merit. The case involved a 2,574-hectare parcel of land known as Hacienda de Maricaban, located in various parts of M...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 81564)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- The case involves a 2,574-hectare parcel of land known as Hacienda de Maricaban, located in various parts of Makati, Pasig, Taguig, Pasay City, and Paranaque.
- The private respondent, Domingo Palomares, as administrator of the intestate estate of the late Delfin Casal, filed a suit for declaratory relief, quieting of title, cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 192, and cancellation of entries on Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 291.
History of the Land:
- On October 1, 1906, the Court of Land Registration confirmed the title of Dolores Pascual Casal y Ochoa over the land.
- On October 17, 1906, OCT No. 291 was issued in her name.
- Upon her death, the property devolved to her heirs, including Delfin Casal.
- The private respondent claimed that no conveyances or dispositions were made on the property, and TCT No. 192, which covers the same land, is allegedly spurious.
Government Involvement:
- The State placed portions of the land under military reservation (Fort McKinley, now Fort Bonifacio) and other public uses through Proclamations Nos. 192 and 423.
- The private respondent alleged that the government engaged in "landgrabbing" and that all TCTs derived from TCT No. 192 are null and void.
Previous Proceedings:
- The private respondent had earlier filed a petition (G.R. No. 69834) for the issuance of a duplicate owner's copy of OCT No. 291, which the Supreme Court denied for lack of merit.
- The Court of Appeals also dismissed the private respondent's petition for the issuance of a new owner's copy of OCT No. 291, affirming that the land had been validly delivered to the government.
Orders of the Trial Court:
- On October 12, 1987, the respondent judge authorized Domingo Palomares to perform acts of ownership over the land, including subdivision, sale, lease, or disposal of portions of the property.
- On October 23, 1987, the judge issued another order affirming Palomares' authority to implement the October 12 order without the need for a writ of execution.
Petitioners' Arguments:
- The petitioners, including the Acting Registrars of Land Titles and Deeds, argued that OCT No. 291 had long been cancelled, and the land had been conveyed to the government.
- They contended that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing Palomares to exercise acts of ownership without trial and without notice to the actual possessors of the land.
Issue:
- Whether OCT No. 291 is still valid and subsisting.
- Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders dated October 12 and October 23, 1987, allowing Domingo Palomares to perform acts of ownership over the land.
- Whether the respondent court had jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
- Whether the respondent judge erred in denying the petitioners' notice of appeal.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Disposition
The petition in G.R. No. 81564 was GRANTED:
- The writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court was made permanent.
- OCT No. 291 was declared duly CANCELLED.
The petition in G.R. No. 90176 was DISMISSED.
Judge Francisco Velez was ordered to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be administratively dealt with for his actions.
Costs were imposed against the private respondent.