G.R. No. 199595 - Philippine Woman's Christian Temperance Union, Inc. vs. Yangco

PWCTUI (Philippine Womanas Christian Temperance Union, Inc.) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, seeking to stop the implementation of prior court orders (from July 21, 2010 and September 15, 2010) that denied its petition for review.
The petition arose from an earlier land registration case (LRC Case No. Q-18126(04)) in which the RTC had ordered the cancellation of TCT No. 20970 T-22702 in favor of the respondent, TRY Foundation (Teodoro R. Yangco 2nd and 3rd Generation Heirs Foundation, Inc.), based on an alleged automatic reversion of the property.

On May 19, 1934, Teodoro R. Yangco donated a 14,073‑square meter parcel of land located at 21 Boni Serrano Avenue, Quezon City to PWCTUI.
The donation contained specific conditions: primarily, that the property be used as a site for the Abierrtas (or Abiertas) House of Friendship for needy and unfortunate women and children, and that any deviation from this purpose would trigger reversion to the donor or his heirs.
PWCTUI originally registered under SEC Registration No. PW‑959 and held title to the property under the mentioned TCT.
After its corporate term expired in September 1979, PWCTUI re‑registered under a new SEC number (No. 122088) and applied for a duplicate copy of the title via LRC Case No. 22702; however, the duplicate title bore only one of the original conditions of the donation.

TRY Foundation, composed of the 2nd and 3rd generation heirs and successors to the first generation testamentary heirs of Yangco, filed a petition before the RTC in 2004 seeking the issuance of a new title.
Their claim was based on the argument that PWCTUI’s original corporate term expiration in 1979 automatically triggered the rescission of the donation pursuant to an implied resolutory condition under Article 1315 of the Civil Code and related provisions of the Corporation Code (Section 122).
The RTC, treating the petition as effectively a revocation of the donation, ruled in favor of TRY Foundation.

The RTC’s decision (dated January 24, 2008) cancelled the title in PWCTUI’s name and ordered that a new title be issued in favor of TRY Foundation, holding that PWCTUI (registered as PW‑959) was distinct from the re‑registered PWCTUI (No. 122088).
PWCTUI appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC ruling (Decision dated November 6, 2009).
PWCTUI then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Court, in its Resolutions dated July 21, 2010 and September 15, 2010, denied the petition based on the finality of the CA decision.

On December 23, 2011, PWCTUI filed a petition for prohibition, certiorari, and to re‑open the case, seeking the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or a writ of preliminary injunction.
PWCTUI argued that the proceedings in LRC Case No. Q‑18126(04) were fatally flawed due to lack of jurisdiction, improper application of Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, and violation of due process requirements (e.g., absence of proper service of summons and docket fee requirements).
The petition essentially sought to nullify the assignment of title to TRY Foundation and reinstate the original title in the name of PWCTUI by challenging both the substance and the procedural basis of the re‑registration proceedings.

Was the donation made by Teodoro R. Yangco to PWCTUI validly conditioned upon the proper execution of its purpose, and did the expiration of PWCTUI’s corporate term in 1979 automatically revive the reversion clause?
Is TRY Foundation, as composed of the donor’s heirs, entitled to claim the property based on a supposed automatic revocation of the donation?

Did the RTC, functioning as a land registration court, have the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate issues basically constituting a revocation of donation, which is ordinarily a civil action?
Were the necessary procedural requirements—such as proper service of summons and payment of docket fees—fulfilled to confer jurisdiction upon the RTC?

Whether the finality and executory nature of the resolutions dated July 21, 2010 and September 15, 2010 bar any judicial re‑examination or reopening of the matter.
Whether exceptions to the doctrine, particularly those addressing void judgments due to lack of jurisdiction, may be applied in the present case.

Can PWCTUI properly invoke Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 to challenge the issuance of a new title, given that the petition encompasses substantial civil issues of ownership and revocation of the donation rather than mere clerical or non‑controversial matters?