G.R. No. 233507 - Spouses Bernardo T. Constantino and Editha B. Constantino vs. Alejandria N. Benitez

On December 1, 2004, respondent Alejandria Benitez filed a petition for the settlement, division, and partition of the intestate estate of her late husband, Romeo Benitez, before the RTC of Batac, Ilocos Norte, Branch 18.
Romeo, who died on June 15, 2004, left several real properties in Laoag and Badoc, including Lot No. 9398‑B (TCT No. T‑26828) and Lot No. 9400‑C (TCT No. T‑27844) with an estimated value of ₱540,000.00.
With no opposition, the court rendered a decision on April 22, 2005, declaring Alejandria, Analiza, and Fritzie Joy as the only lawful heirs and appointing Alejandria as the administrator of the estate, subject to conditions such as filing an inventory and performance of other orders under the supervision of the court.

On October 22, 2007, Alejandria and Analiza filed a petition in the RTC of Laoag City (Branch 65) for the issuance of new owner’s duplicate copies of TCT Nos. T‑26828 and T‑27844, claiming that the original duplicate copies were missing.
The cadastral court, in its April 1, 2008 decision, granted the petition, directing the issuance of new copies and ordering the cancellation of the “lost” duplicate copies.
This ruling, emphasizing the new copies to have the same legal effect as the original, later became a point of contention regarding the legitimacy of the documents.

On April 20, 2011, spouses Bernardo T. Constantino and Editha B. Constantino purchased the lots covered by TCT Nos. T‑26828 and T‑27844 from Ceazar Cu Benitez, a son of Romeo.
After the purchase, Sps. Constantino discovered the April 1, 2008 cadastral court decision and subsequently questioned the status of the titles, alleging that the lost duplicate copies were, in fact, never lost.
They claimed that the original duplicate copies had remained in the custody of Lolita Cu and were later turned over to Ceazar following a Deed of Quitclaim, forming the basis of their ownership claim.

Sps. Constantino filed a petition for annulment of the cadastral court’s decision (CA‑G.R. SP No. 138997), alleging that the affidavit of loss by Alejandria was perjurious and misrepresented.
On February 8, 2013, they further filed a Motion for Intervention in the intestate proceeding of Spec. Proc. No. 4506‑18, seeking to exclude the subject lots from the estate and cancel the notice of lis pendens.
The intestate court, in its February 11, 2013 Order, denied the motion on the grounds that the proceedings had already attained finality by December 8, 2010, with subsequent reconsideration also being denied.

On December 11, 2014, Alejandria moved for the issuance of a Writ of Possession to secure the subject properties.
The intestate court ordered on March 4, 2015 the issuance of a writ directing Sps. Constantino and their daughter to surrender possession of the lots, an order that was later denied reconsideration on March 23, 2015.
Amid these developments, Sps. Constantino filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the validity of the writ of possession and asserting their rightful ownership based on the evidence of the title documents.

The CA, in its Decision dated March 28, 2017, dismissed Sps. Constantino’s petition for certiorari and affirmed the writ of possession orders, holding that issues of ownership should have been resolved in an intervention filed timely.
The CA emphasized that the motion for intervention was improperly filed beyond the prescribed period under Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules.
While a separate CA decision in CA‑G.R. SP No. 138997 reinstated the original titles (TCT Nos. T‑26828 and T‑27844) by ruling that the duplicate copies were never lost and belonged to Sps. Constantino, the CA maintained that such factual issues were not appropriately reviewable via a certiorari petition.

Sps. Constantino argued that, given the reinstatement of the original titles by the CA and their purchase of the property, their motion for intervention should have been given due course despite being filed after judgment finality.
They further contended that the Deed of Quitclaim by Romeo was an admission that he held the properties in trust for Ceazar, with the intention that the properties were ultimately theirs (Sps. Constantino’s) through their purchase.
In contrast, Alejandria argued that the proper remedy was not intervention but rather an action to annul the judgment on grounds of fraud under Rule 47, and that the intestate estate proceeding, being in rem in nature, is binding upon all parties including third parties like Ceazar.

Whether the motion for intervention filed by Sps. Constantino, albeit filed after the judgment had become final, should be given due course in light of the reinstatement of the original titles (TCT Nos. T‑26828 and T‑27844) and their claim to ownership stemming from the purchase transaction.
Whether the intestate court had proper jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession favoring Alejandria, given that the writ encroached upon a determination of title—a matter disputed amongst parties who were not originally part of the intestate proceedings.