G.R. No. 163902 - Casent Realty and Development Corp. vs. Premiere Development Bank

The petition was for certiorari to review an order by Judge Bienvenido Tan of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Rizal City branch).
The challenged order (promulgated February 28, 1948) set aside a previous order (dated July 25, 1946) issued by Judge Eulalio Garcia.
The latter order instructed the register of deeds of Rizal to:

Reconstruct Original Certificate of Title No. 24486.
Cancel the reconstructed title and issue a new certificate in the name of Celso Icasiano, who purportedly purchased the land.

Raymunda Santos was the registered owner of a tract of land in Quezon City measuring 249,625 square meters.
Jose F. Zamora acted as attorney in fact for Raymunda Santos and administered the property.

On April 18, 1944, Antonio Quirino, acting as a broker for Teofilo Rivera, made a written offer to purchase the land at P1.70 per square meter, subject to certain conditions.
Jose F. Zamora accepted and confirmed Rivera’s offer on June 15, 1944.
On June 16, 1944, Ambrosio Padilla sent a separate written offer to Quirino proposing to buy the property at P2 per square meter, amounting to a total of P526,762, with payment scheduled on specified dates.
Quirino accepted and confirmed Padilla’s offer.
The next day, June 17, 1944, Jose Zamora conveyed the property to Celso Icasiano for P499,250, apparently executing an absolute sale.

Also on June 17, 1944, Teofilo Rivera initiated an action for specific performance against Raymunda Santos and Jose F. Zamora, alleging that they had failed to consummate the sale in accordance with his previously accepted offer.
On September 6, 1944, Celso Icasiano filed a motion to intervene, asserting his purchase of the property on June 17.
Ambrosio Padilla later filed a complaint in intervention, seeking a declaration that he and/or Teofilo Rivera were the rightful owners of the estate, thus reflecting conflicting claims over the property.

With the case pending trial, on June 22, 1946, Icasiano, through counsel, filed an ex parte motion for the issuance of the certificate of title.
Icasiano contended that he was the absolute owner of the tract of land.
He further alleged that both the Original Owner’s Certificate of Title and the Transfer Certificate had been destroyed during the war.
The motion was heard solely by Judge Garcia without notifying other interested parties.

Icasiano later raised an issue regarding his alleged inability to present evidence to show that he had not committed fraud or misrepresentation in applying for the certificate of title.

This request for oral evidence was made only in his motion for reconsideration.
During the initial opposition and hearing, no such request to adduce oral evidence was submitted.

After obtaining a copy of the certificate of title following Judge Garcia’s order, Icasiano conveyed the land to Emerito Ramos, his business partner.
Subsequently, Ramos mortgaged the property to the Philippine Trust Co. for P30,000.
Neither Ramos nor the Philippine Trust Co. intervened in the initial or subsequent proceedings, despite their apparent connection and interest in the matter.
In his opposition to the motion to set aside Judge Garcia’s order, Icasiano did not disclose that he had already disposed of the property; this fact was only later raised in his motion for reconsideration.

Whether Judge Tan’s order setting aside Judge Garcia’s previous order was within his jurisdiction.
Whether it was proper for the petitioner to seek certiorari on the basis of alleged abuse of discretion when no claim of jurisdictional excess was made.

Whether Icasiano’s complaint regarding the denial of his request to present oral evidence was a valid ground for intervening in the proceedings.
Whether the court’s discretion in evidentiary matters, particularly in the taking of oral evidence pursuant to Section 112 of the Land Registration Act, was properly exercised.

The effect of Icasiano’s subsequent conveyance of the property to Emerito Ramos and its mortgage to Philippine Trust Co. on the pending proceedings.
Whether such disposals should be considered in the evaluation of Icasiano’s claims regarding the certificate of title.