G.R. No. 81564 - Acting Registrars of Land Titles and Deeds of Pasay City vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Makati

Case Summary (G.R. No. 81564)

Factual Background

The subject was a 2,574-hectare tract known as Hacienda de Maricaban, spread over parts of Makati, Pasig, Taguig, Pasay City, and Parañaque. On November 5, 1985, Domingo C. Palomares, as administrator of the heirs of Delfin Casal, commenced an action in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 132, Makati, seeking declaratory relief, quieting of title, cancellation of TCT No. 192, and cancellation of entries upon OCT No. 291. The complaint alleged an original confirmation of title in favor of Dolores Pascual Casal y Ochoa by the Court of Land Registration in 1906 and asserted that no valid conveyances had extinguished that ancestral right. The private respondent further alleged that various portions of the land had been taken by the State through Proclamations Nos. 192 and 423 and that subsequent titles, including TCT No. 192, were spurious or void.

Procedural History in the Trial Court

The petitioners filed an answer on December 19, 1985, and on June 2, 1986, the private respondent moved to admit an amended complaint impleading the Republic and the registers of deeds of Pasig, Makati, and Pasay City. The petitioners responded on June 26, 1986, asserting non-joinder of indispensable parties, finality of prior cancellations of OCT No. 291, res judicata, prescription, and the rights of innocent purchasers for value. The trial judge issued a temporary restraining order on August 29, 1986. On October 12, 1987, the court entered an order authorizing Domingo C. Palomares to make subdivisions and surveys within specified parcels and, subject to approval of the intestate estate court, to “sell, exchange, lease or otherwise dispose” of areas to cover administrative expenses. On October 23, 1987 the court issued a clarificatory order allowing implementation of the October 12 order without a writ of execution once the order became final under B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 39. The trial court denied a notice of appeal on the ground that the orders were interlocutory.

Issues Presented

The consolidated petitions raised principal questions: whether the respondent trial court could decide ownership and possession of the lands before trial; whether the court could authorize the private respondent to exercise acts of ownership and possession before trial; whether the court had acquired jurisdiction to grant the relief it ordered; and whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by refusing to dismiss the action or by denying the appeal.

Parties' Contentions

The petitioners contended that the trial judge committed grave abuse by authorizing acts of dominion over property that had been cancelled and reconveyed to the Government; that essential parties and current registered owners were not before the court; and that prior judicial determinations, including a Supreme Court denial in G.R. No. 69834 and an affirmed appellate ruling in AC-G.R. CV No. 00293, foreclosed the private respondent’s claim. The private respondent countered that the trial court did not decide the case before trial but merely preserved or restored prior possession; that OCT No. 291 had not been validly cancelled and that the cancellation bore marks of forgery; that non-joinder was not jurisdictional; that subsequent TCTs were null if OCT No. 291 remained valid; and that the estate’s rights were imprescriptible.

Lower Court Orders Challenged

The October 12, 1987 order authorized subdivision and surveys within specified parcels and empowered Domingo C. Palomares to “sell, exchange, lease or otherwise dispose” of portions of the property subject to intestate estate court approval and ostensibly to raise funds for taxes and administration. The October 23, 1987 order stated that the October 12 order was implementable without a writ of execution once final, citing B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 39, and allowed immediate steps for implementation when the order became final.

Supreme Court's Findings on Title and Jurisdiction

The Court took judicial notice that the hectarage encompassed by TCT No. 192 (OCT No. 291) consisted of Government property. The Court identified three persuasive facts: the issuance of Proclamations Nos. 192 and 423 reserving the parcels for public uses; the incontrovertible cancellation of OCT No. 291; and the decision of the Court of Appeals in AC-G.R. CV No. 00293, affirming the judgment of Judge Gregorio Pineda in LRC Rec. No. 2484, which denied reissuance of an owner’s duplicate and sustained cancellation. The Supreme Court’s prior Resolution in G.R. No. 69834 was cited as further support that reconstitution of the owner’s duplicate was impossible because the mother title had been duly cancelled. The Court held that these prior adjudications and proclamations operated at least as the law of the case and as a bar under res judicata to the present claims by the private respondent.

Supreme Court's Reasoning on the Orders and Injunction

The Court concluded that Judge Velez committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the trial court had no authority to reconvey or to permit disposition of land that inalienably belonged to the Government, particularly without notice to present registered owners and without a hearing or trial. The Court emphasized settled doctrines: owners of property asserted to be reconveyed are indispensable parties; reconveyance will not lie against innocent purchasers for value; and an injunction does not lie to take property out of the possession or control of one party and place it in that of another. The Court held that the October 12 order did more than maintain the status quo; it conferred rights of dominion enabling transactions on the property and thus was, in substance, a final disposition that the Government could properly appeal. The Court rejected the private respondent’s contention that previous appellate rulings were inapposite because they involved a petition for issuance of a duplicate owner’s copy, noting the inconsistency in invoking those rulings while denying their conclusive effect.

Treatment of Claims of Forgery and Burden of Proof

The Court applied the presumption that “official duty has been regularly performed” and placed the burden on the private respondent to prove any forgery of Judge Ostrand’s 1906 decree. The Court found the bare assertion of forgery unsupported by the record and noted that an Acting Registrar of Deeds of Pasig who had certified to irregularity had joined the opposing petitioners. Consequently, the Court refused to disturb the established record that the title had been cancelled and the land conveyed to the Government or its successors.

Disposition

The Court granted G.R. No. 81564 and permanently enjoined enforcement of the trial court’s orders of October 12, 1987 and October 23, 1987. The Court declared Original Certificate of Title No. 291

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 81564)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Acting Registrars of Land Titles and Deeds of Pasay City, Pasig and Makati, Metro Manila, Petitioners filed certiorari challenging interlocutory orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Makati.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Makati, Respondent is represented by Judge Francisco X. Velez, whose issuance of injunctive orders was assailed as grave abuse of discretion.
The Intestate Estate of the late Delfin Casal, represented by Domingo C. Palomares, Administrator, Respondent/Private Respondent prosecuted actions in several courts to assert ownership of Hacienda de Maricaban and to reconstitute Original Certificate of Title No. 291.
The Supreme Court consolidated G.R. No. 81564 (petition by petitioners) with G.R. No. 90176 (incidental certiorari by the private respondent) for joint resolution.

Key Factual Allegations

Domingo C. Palomares as administrator filed suit in RTC Branch 132 on November 5, 1985 for declaratory relief, quieting of title, and cancellation of TCT No. 192 and entries on OCT No. 291 covering an alleged 2,574-hectare Hacienda de Maricaban.
Palomares previously sought reconstitution of the owner’s duplicate of OCT No. 291 before the Supreme Court and was denied on September 9, 1985 in G.R. No. 69834.
The private respondent alleged that OCT No. 291 was originally issued on October 17, 1906 to Dolores Pascual Casal y Ochoa and that no valid conveyances out of the Casal heirs had been made.
The petitioners answered asserting non-joinder of real parties in interest, prior cancellation of OCT No. 291, res judicata, prescription, and protection of titles of innocent purchasers for value.
Judge Velez issued a temporary restraining order on August 29, 1986 and on October 12, 1987 authorized Palomares to subdivide and to "sell, exchange, lease or otherwise dispose" of portions of the property subject to intestate estate court approval.
Judge Velez issued a clarificatory order on October 23, 1987 permitting immediate implementation of the October 12 order without a writ of execution once it became final.
The petitioners filed a notice of appeal which the respondent court denied on the ground that the order was interlocutory.

Procedural History

Palomares had earlier petitions dismissed by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in proceedings concerning reconstitution of OCT No. 291 and the issuance of a duplicate owner’s copy.
The petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition in the Supreme Court challenging the injunctive orders of Judge Velez in G.R. No. 81564.
Palomares filed certiorari to challenge a separate order of Judge Conrado Vasquez, Jr. in Branch 118, Pasay City, which was docketed as G.R. No. 90176 and later consolidated.
The Supreme Court received extensive comments from the respondent judge and from counsel for the private respondent and petitioners before resolving the consolidated matters.

Issues Presented

Whether OCT No. 291 remained valid and subsisting or had been duly cancelled and converted into Government property.
Whether Judge Francisco X. Velez committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the orders dated October 12 and October 23, 1987.
Whether the respondent court acquired jurisdiction to grant the remedial reliefs it purported to authorize prior to trial and without joinder of indispensable parties.
Whether the petitioners were denied the right to appeal by the respondent court’s denial of their notice of appeal.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioners contended that OCT No. 291 had been cancelled, that the lands had been conveyed or reserved for Government use, that reconveyance was barred by res judicata and prior adjudications, and that the respondent judge lacked jurisdiction to authorize disposition of Government property.
Palomares cont