Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38622)
Facts:
Valentin Bermudo v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Former Sixth Division; The Honorable Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch I and The Chinese Nationalist Party of Tacloban, G.R. No. L-38622, October 26, 1987, Supreme Court Third Division, Fernan, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Valentin Bermudo sought relief by special civil action for certiorari and prohibition after a long series of litigation concerning Lot 776 (505 sq. m.) in Tacloban City. The original record shows that Tom Chow and Go Se Pieng obtained Judicial Decree of Registration No. 494657 (October 8, 1931) and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 10256 (issued November 3, 1932) as co-owners of the lot. Before issuance of the decree and title, however, Tom Chow and Go Se Pieng executed a renunciation (June 27, 1931) claiming they were merely trustees for the Chinese Nationalist Party of Tacloban; subsequently, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 858 was issued in the Party’s name on September 4, 1940.
On June 23, 1964 Bermudo filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Leyte, Branch I, a petition to reconstitute OCT No. 10256, alleging he was vendee to the extent of one-half of Lot 776 and attaching a Register of Deeds certification that the original record had been destroyed. With no opposition appearing, the CFI issued an order (November 23, 1964) reconstituting the OCT; the reconstituted title resulted in issuance of TCT No. 1948 to Bermudo and Go Se Pieng (December 8, 1964).
The Party filed a petition for relief from judgment (January 23, 1965), asserting the reconstitution was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud and that it had not been given notice despite actual possession under TCT No. 858. In opposition Bermudo contended notice had been published and attacked the Party’s legal capacity to own land. The CFI, in a decision dated January 6, 1968, set aside its reconstitution order, annulled TCT No. 1948, declared TCT No. 858 valid, and found Bermudo acted in bad faith.
Bermudo appealed to the Supreme Court (docketed L‑30730); procedural defects led to initial denial but a later resolution (September 24, 1969) referred the case to the Court of Appeals because mixed questions of law and fact were involved. The Court of Appeals, in a decision of December 11, 1972, dismissed Bermudo’s petition, finding he had not acquired a valid title and upholding the Party’s capacity to sue (citing Articles 1667 and 1356, old Civil Code). Bermudo sought review in the Supreme Court again (docketed L‑36156) but the petition was denied January 29, 1973 and a motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Bermudo then filed the instant certiorari and prohibition petition to the Supreme Court (the present matter). The Court considered procedural and substantive contentions: whether the Court of Appeals exceeded authority by affirming a CFI order that had become final and execute...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals act beyond its authority in affirming the CFI’s annulment of the reconstitution order after that order had become final and been executed?
- Did Bermudo validly acquire a one-half interest in Lot 776 through the reconstitution process, or was his claim defeated by bad faith and procedural defects?
- Was the Chinese Nationalist Party of Tacloban legally entitled to own Lot 776 and, if title is que...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)