Case Digest (G.R. No. 130228)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 130228)
Facts:
Bernabe Foster-Gallego v. Spouses Romeo and Vivien Galang, G.R. No. 130228, July 27, 2004, Supreme Court First Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Bernabe Foster‑Gallego (petitioner) claims title to a 330‑sqm parcel in Barrio Kaybiga, Paranaque formerly covered by TCT No. 435402. Vive Realty Corporation (VRC) bought the parcel at a public auction conducted by the Municipal Treasurer of Paranaque on October 29, 1982; a Final Bill of Sale in favor of VRC was executed on November 25, 1983. In Civil Case No. 5801, RTC, Branch 138 (Makati) rendered a decision dated December 19, 1983 ordering cancellation of TCT No. 435402 and issuance of new titles in VRC's name.
On June 22, 1984 the Spouses Galang bought the property from VRC; the Register of Deeds later issued TCT No. (86872) 22786 in their names. They took possession, declared the property for taxation, and paid taxes. In March–April 1989, Lito Gallego (defendant in the quieting case) built a fence on the property; the Spouses filed a complaint for Quieting of Title with Damages on May 16, 1989. The case was raffled among RTC branches and proceeded against Lito Gallego, who alleged his brother (petitioner) was the true owner.
Petitioner attempted to intervene. After several rafflings and procedural motions (intervention initially admitted by one branch, third‑party complaint filed against VRC and municipal officers, various defaults and re‑rafflings), the case was ultimately tried before RTC, Branch 148. On July 8, 1993 the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the Spouses Galang, quieting title and awarding moral damages, attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses against Lito Gallego. Thereafter, on October 12, 1993 the trial court reconsidered and denied petitioner’s intervention and struck off his answer‑in‑intervention and third‑party complaint; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner received the denial on January 23, 1995 and filed a notice of appeal on January 26, 1995; he thereafter joined Lito Gallego’s appeal to the Court of Appeals instead of prosecuting his own appeal separately.
The Court of Appeals, in CA‑G.R. CV No. 43439, rendered a decision dated July 22, 1997: it affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the Spouses Galang but deleted the awards for moral damages, attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses; it also held that petitioner had no legal personality to join Lito Gallego’s appeal and that any appeal from the orders denying intervention was untimely. The Spouses and Lito Gallego did not appeal the CA decision; petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review with the Supreme Court challenging primarily (a) the denial of his motion to intervene and the trial court orders that struck his pleadings, (b) the supposed invalidity of the tax sale and the RTC‑Branch 138 decision cancelling his original title, and (c) whether he was an indispensable party to the quieting action.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing petitioner’s attempt to challenge the trial court’s orders denying his motion to intervene (procedural standing and timeliness)?
- Can the RTC‑Branch 138 Decision of December 19, 1983 cancelling petitioner’s title be declared void or effectively overturned in the Spouses Galang’s action for quieting of title?
- Is petitioner an indispensable party to the Spouses Galang’s action for quieting of title?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)