Case Digest (G.R. No. 220340-41)
Facts:
RMFPU Holdings, Inc., Raymond M. Moreno, and RMFPU Properties, Inc. (collectively, RMFPU) and Quick Silver Development Corporation filed ex parte petitions in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati, to cancel Deeds of Restrictions annotated on their Transfer Certificates of Title; the RTCs granted those petitions by Orders dated July 29, 2004, March 26, 2010, and February 23, 2001. Forbes Park Association, Inc. (FPA) later filed consolidated petitions for annulment of those RTC Orders under Rule 47, which the Court of Appeals granted in its Decision dated March 6, 2015 and whose denial of motions for reconsideration was affirmed in its Resolution dated September 2, 2015; RMFPU and Quick Silver brought consolidated Rule 45 petitions to the Court.Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in annulling and setting aside the RTC Orders cancelling the Deeds of Restrictions on the ground that FPA is an indispensable party?
- Was the Court of Appeals correct to apply the reasoning in PAGR
Case Digest (G.R. No. 220340-41)
Facts:
- Parties and subject properties
- Petitioners: RMFPU Holdings, Inc., Raymond M. Moreno, and RMFPU Properties, Inc. (collectively, RMFPU) and Quick Silver Development Corporation (Quick Silver).
- Respondent: Forbes Park Association, Inc. (FPA).
- Subject lots: No. 31 McKinley Road (TCT Nos. S-93867, S-93868 / TCT Nos. 006-2011000937, 006-2011000938) owned by Moreno/RMFPU; No. 7 Palm Avenue (TCT No. 226850) owned by RPI; No. 50 McKinley Road (TCT No. 156723) owned by Quick Silver.
- Deed of Restrictions annotated on the titles
- Common provisions: easement of two meters for drainage and utilities; term of fifty years from January 1, 1949 with possible extension by resolution of the Forbes Park Association; automatic membership in FPA for lot owners; requirement that building and landscaping plans be approved by FPA.
- Specific entries: Entry Nos. and documentary references as annotated on each TCT (S-93867 entry no. 46370 File T-28534; S-93868 entry no. 32499 File T-22445; 226850 entry no. 31140/49041; 156723 entry no. 3577/T-No. 37873).
- Ex parte petitions in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and RTC orders
- RMFPU / Moreno: On July 21, 2004 Moreno filed an ex parte petition to cancel the Deed of Restrictions on TCT Nos. S-93867 and S-93868 (LRC Case No. M-4570, RTC Branch 59). RTC Branch 59 issued an Order dated July 29, 2004 granting the petition and directing the Register of Deeds (RD) of Makati City to cancel the annotations upon payment of fees. A certification showed the RD received a copy on July 29, 2004.
- RMFPU Properties, Inc. (RPI): On March 18, 2010 RPI filed an ex parte petition to cancel the Deed of Restrictions on TCT No. 226850 (LRC Case No. M-5359, RTC Branch 59). RTC Branch 59 issued an Order dated March 26, 2010 granting the petition; a Certificate of Finality issued April 26, 2010.
- Quick Silver: On February 15, 2001 Quick Silver filed an ex parte petition to cancel the Deed of Restrictions on TCT No. 156723 (LRC Case No. M-4133, RTC Branch 58). RTC Branch 58 issued an Order dated February 23, 2001 granting the petition; a Certificate of Finality issued March 12, 2001.
- Annulment petitions before the Court of Appeals (CA)
- FPA filed petitions for annulment of the RTC Orders: CA-G.R. SP Nos. 123877 (challenging July 29, 2004 order), 123878 (challenging March 26, 2010 order), and 123879 (challenging February 23, 2001 order).
- FPA's grounds: lack of jurisdiction due to failure to implead or notify FPA as an indispensable party and extrinsic fraud by petitioners who kept FPA unaware and thus deprived it of opportunity to prove extension of the Deed of Restrictions.
- Respond...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Main legal and factual issues raised by petitioners
- Whether the CA erred in annulling and setting aside the RTC Orders and ordering restoration of the Deed of Restrictions annotations.
- Whether FPA is an indispensable party or party in interest who must be notified in petitions for cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions.
- Whether the CA correctly applied PAGREL, Inc. v. Forbes Park Association, Inc. in concluding FPA is an indispensable party.
- Whether the CA violated procedural rules by deciding on the merits without pre-trial, trial, or submission of memoranda.
- Whether petitioners' due process and equal protection rights were violated by the CA's rulings.
- Whether FPA's petitions for annulment we...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)