Facts:

In the case of Oscar R. Badillo, Giovanni C. Ong, Edgar A. Ragasa (represented by the heirs Cynthia G. Ragasa and their children Joseph, Catherine, and Charmaine Ragasa), Rolando Sancada, and Dionisio Umbalin v. Court of Appeals, Register of Deeds of Quezon City, Goldkey Development Corporation, Josefa Conejero, Ignacio D. Sonoron, Pedro Del Rosario, and Dowal Realty and Management System Company, the petitioners, who are the registered owners of several lots adjoining a road known as Lot 369-A-29 (Apollo Street), filed a complaint for annulment of documents and injunction in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The petition was filed against various respondents, including Pedro del Rosario, the registered owner of the road lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-20895. An annotation on this title specified that it could not be sold or disposed of without prior court approval. However, Del Rosario allegedly sold an unsegregated portion to Conejero and Sonor

...

Facts:

Background of the Dispute

• Petitioners (Badillo, Ong, Ragasa, Sancada, and Umbalin) are the registered owners of several lots adjoining a road lot identified as Lot 369-A-29 (Apollo Street) in subdivision plan Psd-37971.
• The road lot is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-20895, which bears an annotation mandating that the lot “shall not be closed or disposed of by the registered owner without previous approval of the court.”

Alleged Violation and Subsequent Transactions

• Petitioners alleged that the registered owner, Pedro del Rosario, in gross violation of the court order contained in TCT No. RT-20895, sold an unsegregated portion of the road lot without obtaining the necessary judicial approval.
• Following the sale, del Rosario, along with his co-respondents (Josefa Conejero and Ignacio Sonoron), entered into a partition agreement that divided the road lot into four separate lots.
• This partition resulted in the partial cancellation of the original TCT and the issuance of new titles: TCT Nos. 35899 and 35100 in the name of Conejero, TCT No. 35101 in the name of del Rosario, and TCT No. 35102 in the name of Sonoron.
• It is further alleged that TCT No. 35101 was subsequently sold to Goldkey Development Corporation, which is also a respondent.

Procedural History and Admissions

• Petitioners initiated several legal actions regarding the disputed property. Initially, a complaint was filed in May 1991 with the Office of the Building Official of Quezon City, which led to a building case when Goldkey began constructing cement fences along portions of the lot.
• On 10 September 1991, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) issued a Development Permit to Goldkey, classifying the property as a “Residential Townhouse Subdivision” project in accordance with the Quezon City Zoning Ordinance.
• Separate from the building case, petitioners filed a case for Annulment of Title and Damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.
• In its 5 June 1995 order, Branch 222 of the RTC dismissed the petitioners’ case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the building official’s decision reclassifying the property as a residential lot and the HLURB’s issuance of the development permit removed the subject matter from the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

Underlying Claims and Contentions

• Petitioners claim that the sale and subsequent partition of the road lot violated the court order noted in the back of the original TCT.
• They further contend that the registration of the sales and the issuance of new titles by the Register of Deeds were illegal, as they were done without obtaining prior court approval as required by the annotation.
• Petitioners argue that such unauthorized transactions blocked their access to the main road from their adjoining lots due to the installation of cement fences by Goldkey.
• They prayed that the sales to Conejero, Sonoron, and Goldkey and the partition of the road lot be declared void.

Issue:

Jurisdictional Issue

• Whether the appellate court exceeded or acted without jurisdiction by holding that jurisdiction over the subject matter does not lie with the regular courts but with the HLURB.

Question on Assigned Error

• Whether the dismissal of petitioners’ appeal on the ground that they did not assign an error of fact was proper.

Adequacy of the Remedies Chosen

• Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is the proper remedy given that petitioners only raised questions of law, effectively substituting for an appeal that should have been filed directly to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)