G.R. No. 156380 - Canero vs. University of the Philippines

Case Summary (G.R. No. 156380)

Factual Background

On December 26, 1991, petitioner and his spouse, Juanita L. Canero, filed a petition for reconstitution of title of a lot in Barangay Culiat, Tandang Sora, Quezon City. The petition alleged that the lot had been registered by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City in the spouses’ names, evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 240042. The spouses asserted that the original copy of TCT No. 240042, supposedly kept by the Register of Deeds, was burned when the Quezon City Hall was razed by a fire on June 11, 1998. They declared the lot for taxation in 1992 and prayed that the reconstitution be based on the owners’ duplicate copy and other documents in their possession. The petition was assigned to Branch 82 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, presided by Judge Salvador C. Ceguera.

On January 9, 1992, the trial court issued an Order/Notice requiring interested parties to file claims or objections. The order directed publication once a week for two consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette and posting at specified conspicuous places, including the main entrance of Quezon City Hall, the bulletin boards of the RTC, the Sheriffs Office, and the barangay hall at petitioner’s expense. Copies of the order were also to be furnished to government agencies and other concerned parties.

Acting on the order, the trial court served copies on various government agencies, including the Land Registration Authority, Land Management Bureau, Register of Deeds of Quezon City, the Solicitor General, and the Office of the City Prosecutor. It caused publication of the notice in the Official Gazette on February 10, 1992 and February 17, 1992, and it posted copies of the order at the specified public locations. Despite these notices, no opposition was filed against the reconstitution petition. On April 1, 1992, the trial court granted the reconstitution petition, and the Register of Deeds issued TCT No. RT-57204 (240042) in favor of the Canero spouses.

Subsequently, petitioner learned that UP had claimed title over the same lot and had secured a tax declaration in its name. Petitioner also noticed an annotation on his tax declaration indicating that his lot appeared to duplicate UP’s property. Petitioner then filed an action on September 6, 1994 with the RTC of Quezon City for quieting of title, impleading UP and the City Assessor of Quezon City, and relying on his reconstituted title. Petitioner alleged that even before his reconstituted title was issued, his father had been in open, continuous, and uninterrupted possession of the lot, and that his designated caretakers occupied the property. He argued that UP had no legal title or claim because it allegedly failed to object during the reconstitution proceedings.

Proceedings in the Quieting of Title Case and UP’s Defenses

On September 28, 1994, the City Assessor filed its answer explaining the annotation on petitioner’s tax declaration. The City Assessor stated that on March 19, 1994, Canero presented his owner’s duplicate of TCT No. 240042 for tax declaration purposes. When plotted on the tax map, petitioner’s property allegedly overlapped and duplicated a portion of UP’s property previously declared for taxation in 1985 under Tax Declaration No. B-128-00238, with a property index number and coverage under TCT No. 192689 dated August 15, 1973. The City Assessor stated it had no knowledge of TCT No. 240042 prior to the March 19, 1994 presentation. It also noted that it had received a letter from UP indicating that UP owns the entirety of its campus, including the lot being claimed by petitioner.

UP moved to dismiss, asserting that it had been in open, continuous, and uninterrupted possession since 1914. UP traced its claim to government lots in Diliman, Quezon City, under TCT No. 36048, derived from Original Certificate of Title No. 730 issued in 1914. UP alleged that on March 1, 1949, the Republic of the Philippines, through then President Elpidio Quirino, sold these lots to UP, and that TCT No. 36048 was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 9462 in UP’s name. UP further alleged that TCT No. 9462 was subdivided into five titles, including TCT No. 192689, which allegedly covered the lot claimed by petitioner. UP described its campus holdings in the area and averred that petitioner was never in possession. It also argued that petitioner’s cause of action, whether framed as quieting of title or annulment of title, had already prescribed.

Petitioner opposed the motion to dismiss. UP, in addition, challenged the validity of the reconstitution proceedings, contending that a jurisdictional requirement under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26 was not complied with because the trial court allegedly failed to notify UP and other owners of adjoining properties.

Attempted Consolidation and Evidence

During the pendency of the quieting of title action, petitioner filed an urgent motion to amend or to consolidate, seeking to include parties from other cases in which the ownership of the same property was allegedly at issue. Petitioner referred to (1) a case before Branch 84, RTC Quezon City (Civil Case Q-92-11187, Felix Rodeo, et al. vs. Jorge Chin and Renato B. Mallari) and (2) LRC Case No. Q-5910 (92) (In Re: Petition for Reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title No. 192689; University of the Philippines, petitioner). UP opposed, arguing it had not received the amended complaint in accordance with the procedural rules, and that in any event it had not been impleaded in the earlier action involving Chin and Mallari. UP also maintained that the ownership issue was not involved in reconstitution proceedings and pointed to an earlier grant of UP’s petition for reconstitution after denial of petitioner’s motion to intervene, in a case where UP was the reconstitution applicant.

The records showed that the quieting of title case was eventually handled by Branch 222 of the RTC of Quezon City. The presentation of evidence on the motion to dismiss began on October 6, 1995. UP presented testimonies of the City Assessor and tax and surveying officials from local and national agencies. Petitioner began presenting evidence on August 15, 1997 and called as witness the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 82, the court that handled the reconstitution petition. Both sides presented voluminous documentary evidence.

Trial Court Ruling Denying the Motion to Dismiss

After considering the motion to dismiss and the evidence, the trial court denied UP’s motion. It reasoned that: first, UP’s claim that the quieting of title action was effectively a petition to annul UP’s title was unsupported; second, prescription could not bar petitioner’s action because petitioner allegedly was in possession through his caretakers; third, because both UP and petitioner submitted that they were in possession, the case required a full trial on the merits; fourth, the trial court believed it could grant the relief prayed for because petitioner could not be deemed to have filed without sufficient cause of action; and fifth, the presumption of regularity remained as UP did not adduce sufficient evidence in a proceeding to annul the reconstitution judgment or assert special or affirmative defenses.

UP sought reconsideration, which the trial court denied. UP then proceeded to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, contending that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and dismissed petitioner’s complaint. It ruled in favor of UP, setting aside the RTC orders and dismissing the complaint for quieting of title and cancellation of entries in the tax declaration.

Supreme Court’s Discussion of UP’s Ownership and Res Judicata

Before the Supreme Court, the Court framed the controlling premise that the lot subject of the case belonged to UP. The Court relied on prior jurisprudence involving UP’s Diliman campus, emphasizing that the most recent controlling case, Heirs of Pael vs. Court of Appeals, had already established that the disputed property was part of the UP Diliman campus covered by TCT No. 9462. The Court also invoked earlier cases such as Tiburcio, et al. vs. People’s Homesite & Housing Corp. (PHHC), et al., Galvez vs. Tuason, PHHC vs. Mencias, and Varsity Hills vs. Mariano, which it described as affirming the validity and indefeasibility of UP’s title and precluding courts from reexamining the origin of UP’s certificate of title.

The Supreme Court held that petitioner’s cause of action was negated by res judicata, and it invoked the principle that material facts or questions already judicially determined in a former action are conclusively settled in a subsequent action between the same parties or their privies, regardless of the form of the subsequent case. The Court also referred to the doctrine that once a controlling legal principle is established between the same parties in the same case, it continues as the law of the case so long as the predicating facts remain. The Court described petitioner’s admission that his lot was the same property as in Heirs of Pael as dispositive against his claim.

The Supreme Court further rejected petitioner’s theory that UP’s filing of a motion to dismiss constituted an admission of petitioner’s allegations so as to negate dismissal for lack of cause of action. The Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the trial court should have dismissed petitioner’s complaint.

Validity of the Reconstitution Proceedings: Lack of Jurisdiction for Failure to Notify Adjoining Owners

In addition to the ownership and res judicata considerations, the Court addressed the premise underlying petitioner’s quieting of title: the reconstituted title. The Court held that petitioner’s reconstituted title and the reconstitution proceedings from which it stemmed were void. It reasoned that R.A. No. 26 provides a special procedur

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 156380)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Domingo A. Canero petitioned for certiorari against the University of the Philippines (UP) after the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC orders and dismissed his Complaint for Quieting of Title and Cancellation of Entry in the Tax Declaration.
The Court of Appeals acted on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by UP, challenging the RTC’s denial of UP’s Motion to Dismiss.
The RTC had denied UP’s motion to dismiss after trial proceedings commenced and evidence was presented.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the RTC should have dismissed the quieting-of-title complaint.

Key Factual Allegations

On December 26, 1991, Canero and his spouse Juanita L. Canero filed a petition for reconstitution of title for a lot in Barangay Culiat, Tandang Sora, Quezon City.
The reconstitution petition alleged that the lot was registered in their names via TCT No. 240042 and that the original copy of the title burned when Quezon City Hall was razed by fire on June 11, 1998.
Canero and his spouse declared the lot for taxation in 1992 and prayed that reconstitution be based on their owners duplicate copy and other documents.
On April 1, 1992, the RTC granted reconstitution and ordered issuance of TCT No. RT-57204(240042).
Later, Canero learned that UP claimed title over the same lot and secured a tax declaration with an annotation indicating apparent duplication.
On September 6, 1994, Canero filed an action to quiet title and cancel the annotation in his tax declaration, relying on his reconstituted title.
Canero asserted that his father had been in open, continuous, and uninterrupted possession and that caretakers currently occupied the lot.
Canero contended that UP failed to object during reconstitution, and thus had no legal title or claim.
The City Assessor of Quezon City explained that UP had earlier tax declarations, while Canero’s tax declaration was the first for his asserted title, and that plotting revealed overlap.
UP moved to dismiss on the grounds of possession, lack of cause of action, and prescription, and also challenged the validity of the reconstitution for failure to notify adjoining property owners.
In support of reconstitution invalidity, UP alleged its chain of title from a mass of government lands sold by the Republic in 1949 through President Elpidio Quirino to UP, with the lot covered under TCT No. 192689 derived from earlier UP titles.
During the quieting-of-title case, Canero later indicated that the lot was the same property involved in earlier litigation, including Civil Case No. Q-93-18569 and the Supreme Court case Heirs of Pael vs. Court of Appeals.

Reconstitution and Notice Proceedings

The RTC issued an order on January 9, 1992 directing notice by publication in the Official Gazette, and posting at multiple conspicuous public places.
The RTC also served copies of the order to several government agencies, including the Land Registration Authority, Land Management Bureau, Register of Deeds of Quezon City, Solicitor General, and Office of the City Prosecutor.
Despite those steps, UP was not shown to have received notice as an adjoining property owner.
The RTC’s reconstitution proceeded without any opposition being filed by interested parties despite notice efforts.
The Supreme Court emphasized that notice of reconstitution proceedings must comply strictly with R.A. No. 26, Sections 12 and 13, because judicial reconstitution is treated as a land registration proceeding.

Issues Raised in Certiorari

The Court considered whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in holding that the quieting-of-title suit was not a collateral attack on UP’s title.
The Court also considered whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in holding the reconstitution proceedings were valid despite lack of notice to an indispensable class of parties, specifically adjoining property owners.
The case required determination of the legal effect of defects in statutory notice during reconstitution, and the consequences for the subsequent quieting-of-title action based on the reconstituted title.

Contentions of Petitioner

Canero argued that the RTC trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss, and that the reconstituted title supplied sufficient basis for quieting of title.
Canero contended that UP had no legal claim because it failed to timely object during reconstitution.
Canero argued that prescription could not bar his quieting-of-title action because he was allegedly in possession through caretakers.
Canero asserted that he had a constitutional and statutory right to due process and that the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC on grounds not raised in UP’s certiorari petition.
Canero maintained that he should not be deprived of a full trial on the merits.

Contentions of Respondent UP

UP argued that the quieting-of-title complaint effectively sought annulment or nullification of UP’s title, and thus should be dismissed.
UP asserted that it had been in open, continuous, and uninterrupted possession from 1914, with buildings and structures evidencing possession and control.
UP maintained that the action was barred by prescription.
UP directly attacked the validity of the reconstitution proceedings, alleging noncompliance with R.A. No. 26 because the trial court failed to notify UP and other adjoining property owners.
UP argued that, due to defective notice, the RTC never acquired jurisdiction ove