Case Digest (G.R. No. 156380)
Facts:
Domingo A. Canero v. University of the Philippines, G.R. No. 156380, September 08, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Domingo A. Canero and his spouse filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) covering a lot in Barangay Culiat, Tandang Sora, Quezon City, on December 26, 1991. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82, Quezon City, issued an order dated January 9, 1992 directing notice by publication in the Official Gazette and posting, and the RTC thereafter granted the reconstitution on April 1, 1992; the Register of Deeds issued TCT No. RT-57204(240042) in favor of the Caneros. The record shows publication and posting but no service to adjoining private landowners.
After issuance of the reconstituted title and Canero’s tax declaration in 1992, petitioner learned that respondent University of the Philippines (UP) had an existing title and an older tax declaration covering the same land (TCT No. 192689, originating from earlier registration). On September 6, 1994 Canero filed Civil Case No. Q-94-21587 in the RTC (quieting of title and cancellation of entry in the tax declaration) against UP and the City Assessor of Quezon City. The City Assessor answered explaining a tax-map overlap with UP’s earlier-declared property. UP moved to dismiss, alleging long open possession since 1914, prior registration of the area under UP’s title, and that the reconstitution proceedings were void for failure to comply with the notice requirements of Republic Act No. 26 (RA 26).
During pretrial and hearings the parties adduced testimony and voluminous documentary exhibits; the trial court (later transferred to Branch 222) denied UP’s Motion to Dismiss, finding a factual dispute on possession that warranted a full trial and upholding the presumption of regularity in the reconstitution proceedings. UP sought relief by petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction by the trial court. The CA granted certiorari, reversed the trial court’s interlocutory orders dated April 23 and September 15, 1998, set them aside, and dismissed Canero’s complaint. Canero’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied. He elevated the case to this Court by ordinary appeal (filed January 8, 2003), raising due proce...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss Canero’s complaint for quieting of title and in allowing a full trial despite the asserted defects in the reconstitution proceedings?
- Were the judicial reconstitution proceedings that produced Canero’s reconstituted title valid under R.A. No. 26, specifically as to the statutorily required notices (Sections 12 and 13)?
- Is Canero’s claim barred by prior decisions and earlier registration of title in favor of UP (res judicata and indefeasibility of Torrens title)?
- Has Canero’s action to quiet title prescribed or otherwise fail...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)