Case Digest (G.R. No. 131903)
Facts:
Oscar R. Badillo, Giovanni C. Ong, Edgar A. Ragasa Represented by Heirs Cynthia G. Ragasa, and Their Children Joseph, Catherine and Charmaine All Surnamed 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, G.R. No. 131903, June 26, 2008, First Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (owners of several lots) alleged that their properties front on a short access road, Lot 369‑A‑29 (Apollo Street) of subdivision plan Psd‑37971, covered by TCT No. RT‑20895 registered in the name of respondent Pedro del Rosario, with an annotation (Entry No. 605/T‑22655, dated 18 August 1953) ordering that the street lot "shall not be closed or disposed of by the registered owner without previous approval of the court." Petitioners claimed that del Rosario, without prior court approval, sold an unsegregated portion of the road lot to Josefa Conejero and Ignacio Sonoron, and the three co‑owners executed a partition that produced new titles (TCT Nos. 35899, 35100 in Conejero; 35101 in del Rosario; 35102 in Sonoron). Del Rosario later sold TCT No. 35101 to Goldkey Development Corporation (Goldkey), which allegedly erected cement fences that blocked petitioners' ingress and egress.
In May 1991 petitioners filed Building Case No. R‑10‑91‑006 with the Quezon City Office of the Building Official (against Manuel Chua) asserting the parcel was a road lot; the building official concluded the parcel was a residential lot and that ruling became final. On 10 September 1991 the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) issued a Development Permit to Goldkey for a residential townhouse subdivision. On 4 November 1991 petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 222, Quezon City, Civil Case No. Q‑91‑10510, an action for Annulment of Documents with prayer for injunctive relief and damages, seeking to void the sales and partition of the road lot.
On 5 June 1995 the trial court dismissed petitioners' complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, reasoning that administrative determinations by the building official and the HLURB—both unappealed—had rendered the road‑lot contention moot and that agency expertise and statutory grants conferred finality. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 17 September 1997 the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that petitioners' complaints essentially sought enforcement of developers' contractual and statutory obligations regarding subdivision roads and thus fell within the HLURB's exclusive jurisdiction under PD 957, PD 1216 and PD 1344 (and implementing executive orders); further, the CA held that the issue raised was a pure question of law and that where only questions of law are involved the proper recourse was a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45, not an ordinary appeal to the CA.
Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking r...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion by dismissing petitioners' appeal on the ground that jurisdiction over the controversy lies with the HLURB.
- Whether the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion by dismissing petitioners' appeal on the ground that petitioners did not assign any error of fact (i.e., that the appeal raised only questions of law).
- Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Ru...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)