G.R. No. 190810 - Ongco vs. Dalisay

On 15 October 2007, respondent Valeriana Ungco Dalisay filed an Application for Land Registration before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Binangonan, Branch 2, for a parcel designated as Lot 1792, Cad-609-D.
During the hearings, no oppositor appeared except the Republic of the Philippines; no written opposition was filed. Consequently, an Order of General Default was issued against the whole world except the Republic.
On 15 October 2008, the court ruled that respondent had clearly established a registrable right over the property and ordered the issuance of a decree of registration once the Decision became final.

Petitioner Lorenza C. Ongco did not intervene during the trial court proceedings.
The Republic filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 92046.
While the case was pending on appeal, petitioner Ongco filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene dated 23 June 2009, attaching an Answer-in-Intervention.
The Answer-in-Intervention sought dismissal of respondent’s application, asserting that the property was not free from adverse claims, citing her actual possession recognized in an earlier DENR case where she applied for a free patent.

Respondent Dalisay opposed the Motion on grounds that Ongco had no legal interest over the property.
She argued that intervention at this stage would unduly delay the proceeding, which was already on appeal.
Dalisay pointed out that Rule 19, Section 2 of the Rules of Court limits intervention to before rendition of judgment by the trial court.
The Republic did not object to the Motion for Leave to Intervene.

On 30 September 2009, the CA denied the Motion for Leave to Intervene, holding that it was filed beyond the allowable period.
The CA stressed intervention is not a matter of right and must meet statutory conditions including legal interest and timeliness.
The motion was filed after the rendition of judgment on 15 October 2008, thus warranting denial.
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied on 11 November 2009.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, challenging the CA’s denial of intervention.
Respondent argued the issues were factual and not subject to review under Rule 45, and that the CA correctly applied the technical procedural rules.
Petitioner maintained that the issues were questions of law centered on the requisites for intervention and exceptions to the rule on timeliness.

Whether the petitioner had the legal right to intervene in the land registration case after the trial court’s judgment.
Whether intervention filed on appeal after rendition of judgment by the trial court constitutes an exception to the procedural rule limiting intervention to before rendition of judgment.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in denying petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Intervene.