G.R. No. 152440 - Borbajo vs. Hidden View Homeowners, Inc.

The case involves petitioner Felicitacion B. Borbajo versus respondents Hidden View Homeowners, Inc., along with several individuals acting in their personal capacities.
The litigation originated from a complaint for an injunction filed by petitioner to enjoin the respondents from obstructing her access through three road lots situated within the Hidden View Subdivision I, which were titled in her name.
Initially, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 58, issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner’s use of the road lots.

The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on 21 September 2001, which was subsequently reversed and set aside by the Supreme Court on 31 January 2005, thereby confirming the writ of preliminary injunction as permanent—subject to the outcome of Civil Case No. 21239 pending before RTC Cebu City, Branch 9.
A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the respondents on 21 March 2005, contesting the earlier decision, based on subsequent developments in a separate, related civil case.

A separate case, Civil Case No. 21239, was pending before RTC Cebu City, Branch 9, involving the legitimacy of the titles over the road lots.
On 22 April 2003, RTC Cebu City, Branch 9, rendered a judgment declaring that petitioner had fraudulently obtained the titles over the three road lots.

The dispositive portion of the judgment specifically declared null and void the deed of sale executed in favor of petitioner and proclaimed the cancellation of the Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT Nos. 117437, 117563, and 117564).
The RTC ordered the Register of Deeds of Cebu City to cancel the petitioner’s titles and issue new ones in favor of the Hidden View Subdivision Homeowners Association, Inc.

An entry of judgment issued on 26 June 2003 recorded the decision as final and executory, evidencing the full execution of the judgment.

Petitioner Felicitacion Borbajo died on 20 December 2002, a fact that only emerged during the deliberations on the Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioner’s counsel argued for the substitution of her six children as her surviving legal heirs, contending that the intervenors in Civil Case No. 21239 did not receive copies of the judgment.

This argument was challenged on the basis that the judgment had already been recorded as final and executory.

It was conceded in the petitioner’s initial filing that until a certificate of title covering the road lots was annulled in direct proceedings, the title would be respected and the registered owner entitled to the protection of the law.

The Supreme Court had earlier confirmed the writ of preliminary injunction in favor of the petitioner, acknowledging her rights as the registered owner of the road lots at the time of the decision.
However, with the final judgment in Civil Case No. 21239 nullifying the petitioner’s titles, the basis for the injunction—namely, her right as owner—ceased to exist.
Consequently, the writ of preliminary injunction, which was made permanent subject to the pending decision in the separate case, was rendered functus officio by the execution of the RTC decision in Civil Case No. 21239.

Whether the final and executory judgment of RTC Cebu City, Branch 9, in Civil Case No. 21239, which declared the petitioner’s titles null and void, effectively extinguishes her right to the writ of preliminary injunction.

The issue centers on the collapse of the petitioner’s title-based rights due to the annulment and cancellation of the certificates of title.
It also touches on whether the intervenors’ alleged lack of notification could affect the finality of the RTC’s decision.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its earlier determination regarding the right of way and attributes of ownership once a Torrens title is under attack by collateral proceedings.

This involves the application of the rule that Torrens titles cannot be collateral attacked.
The issue also includes reconciling the petitioner’s right as the nominal registered owner against the eventual annulment decision.

Whether the legal consequences arising from the final and executory judgment in the separate civil case should drive the fate of the injunction, regardless of earlier decisions in favor of petitioner.