Facts:

The case involves Francisco Alonso, who was substituted by his legal heirs—Mercedes V. Alonso, Tomas V. Alonso, and Asuncion V. Alonso—against the Cebu Country Club, Inc. and the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). The events leading to the case began in 1992 when Francisco discovered documents indicating that his father, Tomas N. Alonso, had acquired Lot No. 727 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate from the Government in 1911. Although a final deed of sale was executed in favor of Tomas N. Alonso in 1926, it was never registered due to the lack of necessary approvals. Francisco later found that the title to Lot 727-D-2 had been administratively reconstituted in favor of the Cebu Country Club, which had been in possession of the land since 1931.

In September 1992, Francisco filed a case in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City seeking the declaration of nullity of the deed/title, cancellation of certificates of title, a...

Facts:

Parties and Substitution

• Petitioner Francisco M. Alonso originally initiated action on his own behalf and was later substituted by his legal heirs—Mercedes V. Alonso (surviving spouse), Tomas V. Alonso (son), and Asuncion V. Alonso (daughter)—after his death.
• Respondent Cebu Country Club, Inc. is the registered owner involved in the controversy, with its title matters linked to prior administrative proceedings and later validated by legislative enactment, while the Government is represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

Land Title and Property Background

• The subject property is Lot No. 727 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate.
• Documents discovered by Francisco revealed that his father, Tomas N. Alonso, acquired Lot No. 727 around 1911 through a transaction involving a sales certificate, assignment, and issuance of Patent No. 14353.
• A final deed of sale executed on March 27, 1926 by the Director of Lands was not registered due to lack of requirements such as securing the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
• Subsequently, the certificate of title covering Lot No. 727-D-2 was “administratively reconstituted” from the owner’s duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-1310 and later re-registered in the name of Cebu Country Club, evolving into TCT No. 94905, which appears in the records since August 8, 1985.

Procedural History and Lower Court Decisions

• In 1992, Francisco Alonso formally demanded that Cebu Country Club restore his claimed ownership and possession of Lot 727-D-2; however, the club denied his demand and refused delivery.
• Francisco commenced an action in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the declaration of nullity of the deed/title, cancellation of certificates of title, and recovery of the property.
• The RTC rendered a decision in favor of Cebu Country Club on May 7, 1993, which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on March 31, 1997.
• Francisco’s motion for reconsideration was denied in October 1997 and after subsequent appeal in G.R. No. 130876, the Supreme Court declared that Lot No. 727-D-2 legally belonged to the Government.
• In late 2004, the Government, through the OSG, moved for the issuance of a writ of execution in the RTC, which was opposed by Cebu Country Club, and further compounded by ongoing legislative measures in Congress.

The Impact of Republic Act No. 9443

• Republic Act No. 9443, enacted effective July 27, 2007, validated all existing TCTs and reconstituted titles covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate, including the one held by Cebu Country Club.
• Both Cebu Country Club and the OSG presented the implications of R.A. No. 9443 before the RTC as part of their submissions regarding the writ of execution motion.
• On December 28, 2007, the RTC denied the motion for issuance of the writ of execution.
• A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners on February 1, 2008 was also denied after the OSG manifested that the Government was no longer seeking the execution of the earlier Supreme Court decision.

Defects in the Petition for Review on Certiorari

• Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari challenging the RTC orders despite the Supreme Court’s prior ruling and ensuing legislative changes.
• The petition contained a certification against forum shopping signed only by one petitioner (Tomas V. Alonso) while the co-petitioners did not execute their certifications, thus failing to comply with procedural requirements.
• The petitioners’ repeated insistence on asserting a claim over Lot No. 727-D-2 was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s earlier finding that neither Tomas N. Alonso nor his heirs ever acquired valid title to the land.

Issue:

Whether the petitioners were the real parties in interest entitled to question the RTC’s denial of the writ of execution based on the OSG’s motion.

• Examination of the proper standing to challenge the decision arising from the Government’s interest in the matter.

Whether Republic Act No. 9443 conferred upon the petitioners a legal interest to assail the RTC’s orders.

• Analysis of whether the legislative validation of titles affected the petitioners’ claims, despite their prior adverse judgment in G.R. No. 130876.

Whether the petitioners could properly appeal by petition for review on certiorari as representatives of the OSG’s interests despite procedural and substantive defects.

• Consideration of the breach of the hierarchy of courts and the limitation of such appeals only to questions of law.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)