Case Digest (G.R. No. 109645)
Facts:
This is Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership v. Judge Tirso Velasco and Dolores V. Molina, G.R. No. 109645, and Dolores V. Molina v. Hon. Presiding Judge of RTC, Quezon City, Br. 105 and Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 112564, promulgated July 25, 1994, decided by the Supreme Court Second Division, Narvasa, C.J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns the reconstitution and validity of a Torrens title originally numbered TCT No. 124088 (later reconstituted as TCT No. RT-58287) in the name of Dolores V. Molina, and whether that reconstitution improperly encroached on lands already covered by long-standing titles of Ortigas & Company, Ltd. Molina first filed a petition for reconstitution with the Quezon City RTC (LRC Case No. Q-5404) on November 14, 1991, alleging loss of the original title in the Register of Deeds fire and, at that time, possession of the owner’s duplicate. Fifteen days later she moved to withdraw the petition and the court dismissed it. About four months later Molina sought ex parte revival of the case and filed an amended petition, claiming the owner’s duplicate was missing and relying on microfilm records; the trial judge, Hon. Tirso Velasco, reinstated the petition, set it for hearing, and ordered publication and various notices.
The Solicitor General objected on several grounds, notably that the statutory notice to adjoining owners had not been given. The trial court ordered service of notices but the Clerk of Court issued notice only to three entities (a homeowners association president via barangay chair, the Director of the Bureau of Lands, and the City Engineer), and no actual notices to the owners of adjoining lots were proved. Ortigas intervened and formally opposed, pointing to prior litigation and to a Land Registration Authority report flagging survey irregularities. The Manila Mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the “Mormons”) likewise opposed, asserting ownership of a portion under its TCT No. 348048.
After hearing Molina’s testimony, Judge Velasco rendered judgment on September 23, 1992, directing reconstitution of TCT No. 124088. Molina’s title was reconstituted and assigned RT-58287; Molina subdivided the land and caused new TCTs (Nos. 83163–83167) to be issued, and later sold at least one lot to Gateway Enterprises. Ortigas and the Solicitor General filed notices of appeal; the Mormons sought reconsideration. In an Order dated October 14, 1992, Judge Velasco ruled that Ortigas lacked a justiciable interest and struck out its notice of appeal as a “mere scrap of paper,” authorized immediate execution of the judgment, and denied the Mormons’ motion. By Order dated February 10, 1993, Judge Velasco struck out the Solicitor General’s appeal and denied the Mormons’ motion as moot after Molina executed a quitclaim in favor of the Mormons over a small portion.
Ortigas filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 109645) on April 20, 1993; this Court issued a temporary restraining order on May 12, 1993 enjoining further dealings in the reconstituted title. Separately, Manila Banking Corporation filed an action for annulment of Molina’s title (RTC Case No. Q-93-15920) asserting ownership via foreclosure purchases; Molina’s motions to dismiss were denied by the RTC (orders dated September 17 and November 25, 1993), and she filed a certiorari petition in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 112564) challenging those denials. These matters were consolidated for decision because they involve the same Torrens title. The record also...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court acquire jurisdiction to entertain Molina’s petition for reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26, Sec. 13, given the notice actually served?
- Could the trial court lawfully “revive” or reinstate a petition voluntarily withdrawn by the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rules of Court without the filing of a new action and payment of filing fees?
- Was the trial judge authorized to dismiss Ortigas’ and the Solicitor General’s appeals and to order immediate execution of the reconstitution judgment?
- Are the reconstituted title (TCT No. 124088 / RT-58287) and the titles derived therefrom valid in view of prior final adjudications recognizing Ortigas & Company’s Torrens titles as indefeasible and res judicata? ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)