G.R. No. 142913 - Estate of Salvador Serra Serra vs. Heirs of Hernaez

On December 27, 1967, a petition was filed before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bacolod City for the reconstitution of the alleged lost original certificates of title (OCT) and owner’s duplicate copies in the name of Eleuterio Hernaez for Lot No. 1316 of Kabankalan Cadastre and Lot Nos. 2685 and 717 of Ilog Cadastre, Negros Occidental.
Petitioners in the original proceedings were the successors-in-interest of Eleuterio Hernaez, namely Primitivo, Rogaciana, and Luisa Hernaez.

On April 6, 1968, the CFI granted the petition, ordering the reconstitution of the OCTs and duplicate copies.
The Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental issued reconstituted OCT Nos. RO-10173, RO-10174, and RO-10175 corresponding to the subject lots.
On May 29, 1969, upon presentation of a “declaration of heirship” by Hernaez, the reconstituted OCTs were cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-51546, T-51547, and T-51548 were issued to the heirs of Hernaez.

Salvador Serra Serra, representing his co-heirs, registered an adverse claim over the subject properties asserting that they held valid and existing certificates of title and that they had in fact possessed the properties continuously and actually.
The trial court denied the petitioners’ motion to cancel the reconstituted titles and instead granted Hernaez’s prayer for possession of the properties.

Petitioners challenged the trial court’s decision before the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. No. SP-00139).
On June 7, 1971, the appellate court issued a writ of preliminary injunction, which was later lifted by a resolution on August 3, 1971.
Without filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioners advanced their challenge before the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus (consolidated under G.R. Nos. L-34080 and L-34693) seeking to annul the resolution that lifted the preliminary injunction.

On March 22, 1991, the Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the appellate order that lifted the preliminary injunction, nullifying the writ of possession, and remanding the records to the trial court for hearing the motion for cancellation of the reconstituted titles.
Following the remand, the trial court on November 25, 1998, rendered a judgment dismissing a petition filed by movants Serra Serra and declaring several TCTs (T-27644, T-22344, and T-22351) null and void on the ground that they were issued to foreigners.
The trial court’s decision also declared the oppositors Hernaez as the rightful owners of the properties and ordered the movants Serra Serra to return possession.

Petitioners assailed the trial court’s decision via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which on March 3, 2000, dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
The appellate court’s decision emphasized that the evidence presented by petitioners was insufficient to establish ownership, specifically noting the absence of the original certificates of title.
In addition, it was found that petitioners, being Spanish citizens, were disqualified from acquiring private lands in the Philippines under the 1935 Constitution.

Petitioners contended that the failure to file a motion for reconsideration should not bar their petition, invoking exceptions where the same substantive issues had been addressed by the trial court or where due process might have been lacking.
They argued that the rule requiring a motion for reconsideration is subject to well-settled exceptions, including urgency or the need to correct an error before proceeding to certiorari.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that the petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the lower court prior to filing a petition for certiorari.
Whether any of the well-settled exceptions to the rule requiring a preliminary motion for reconsideration applied in this case.

Whether the petitioners’ evidence was sufficient to establish their superior claim of ownership over the subject properties in contest with the oppositors Hernaez.
Whether the absence of the original certificates of title (OCT) undermined the petitioners’ claim over the properties.
Whether petitioners, as Spanish citizens (aliens), were materially disqualified from owning private lands in the Philippines pursuant to constitutional provisions.

Whether the appellate court properly applied the standard that in cases of annulment or reconveyance of title, clear and convincing evidence is required rather than a mere preponderance of evidence.
Whether the trial courts’ and the Court of Appeals’ findings regarding the citizenship and the evidentiary shortcomings of petitioners should be binding.