Case Digest (G.R. No. 136325)
Facts:
The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Manuel M. Serrano (petitioner) against Eugenio C. Delica (respondent), stemming from the Court of Appeals’ decision dated September 30, 1998, and resolution dated November 13, 1998, in CA-G.R. SP No. 46632. On June 30, 1997, respondent Delica initiated a complaint for the cancellation of several deeds including sales and titles, along with a petition for damages, before the Regional Trial Court in Muntinlupa City, which was presided over by Judge Alberto L. Lerma. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 97-120, also naming Manuel P. Blanco, MBJ Land, Inc., and MARILAQUE Land, Inc. as co-defendants. Respondent alleged that he was the registered owner of ten parcels of land totaling 2,062,475 square meters, documented under Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. S-12619 to S-12628. Allegedly, under coercion and undue influence clamped on him by Serrano and Blanco, respondent executed a special power of attorne
Case Digest (G.R. No. 136325)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- The case arose from a complaint filed on June 30, 1997, by respondent Eugenio C. Delica before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 256, Muntinlupa City, presided by Judge Alberto L. Lerma.
- The complaint sought the cancellation of various property documents, including Deeds of Sale, Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT), a Joint Venture Agreement, and the awarding of damages, as well as the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order.
- Petitioner Manuel M. Serrano, along with Manuel P. Blanco, MBJ Land, Inc., and MARILAQUE Land, Inc., was impleaded as a defendant in Civil Case No. 97-120.
- Allegations and Transaction Details
- Respondent alleged that he was the registered owner of ten parcels of land located in Bagbagan, Muntinlupa City, with a total area of approximately 2,062,475 square meters, covered by TCT Nos. S-12619 to S-12628.
- On August 10, 1995, following assurances of a “financial bonanza” by petitioner and Manuel Blanco, respondent executed a special power of attorney in favor of Blanco, who then sold three parcels of land to MBJ Land, Inc.
- The original TCT Nos. S-12625, S-12626, and S-12628 were cancelled and replaced by new titles (TCT Nos. 207282, 207283, and 207284) in the name of MBJ Land, Inc.
- Subsequently, on December 4, 1996, MBJ Land, Inc. entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with MARILAQUE Land, Inc. involving these parcels.
- Further Transactions and Respondent’s Claims
- On December 23, 1996, petitioner Serrano allegedly “unduly influenced, coerced and intimidated” respondent into executing an affidavit confirming the sale of his remaining seven parcels of land (covered by TCT Nos. S-12619 to S-12624 and S-12627) to the petitioners.
- Later, respondent discovered that these seven titles were cancelled and replaced by new titles (TCT Nos. 209636 to 209642) issued in petitioner’s name based on a spurious Deed of Absolute Sale.
- In his complaint, respondent prayed for:
- Cancellation of the special power of attorney, affidavit, spurious Deed of Absolute Sale, and the new titles.
- Payment of actual, moral, and exemplary damages amounting to P200,000.00, along with attorney’s fees and litigation costs.
- Issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction to immediately restore his possession of the parcels of land.
- Procedural History Prior to the Appeal
- The trial court initially issued a temporary restraining order on August 5, 1997, and, on September 8, 1997, a preliminary injunction directing the defendants to restore respondent’s possession of the land.
- Petitioner filed consolidated motions for reconsideration regarding the dismissal of the complaint (alleging non-payment of the docket fee) and for the inhibition of Judge Lerma from hearing the case; these motions were denied on January 7, 1998.
- Subsequently, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, challenging:
- The trial court’s action in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction.
- The denial of his motions, including the motion for Judge Lerma’s inhibition.
- The Court of Appeals, on September 30, 1998, partially granted the petition by:
- Affirming that the docket fee was correctly paid.
- Setting aside the trial court’s order for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.
- Leaving the issue of the judge’s inhibition to his discretion.
- Petitioner then filed a motion for partial reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on November 13, 1998.
- Core Issues Raised
- The primary issues revolved around:
- Whether respondent paid the correct docket fee for filing his complaint.
- Whether the trial court’s issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction was proper.
- Whether Judge Lerma should inhibit himself from hearing the case.
Issues:
- Docket Fee Computation
- Whether respondent paid the correct docket fee when filing his complaint in Civil Case No. 97-120.
- The problem of computing the fee when the complaint does not allege the “assessed value” or the proper “estimated value” of the subject real properties.
- Issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction
- Whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and in accordance with the rules by issuing the writ of preliminary injunction ordering the restoration of respondent’s possession of the properties.
- Inhibition of the Judge
- Whether Judge Lerma should have inhibited himself from hearing the case based on the allegations and procedural irregularities raised by the petitioner.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)