Title
Heirs of the De Luzuriaga vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. 168848
Decision Date
Jun 30, 2009
Heirs of De Luzuriaga sought title registration for Lot No. 1524; Republic contested, alleging double titling. SC upheld CA, remanding for double titling resolution.

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-06-2196)

Facts of the Case

On May 16, 1997, the petitioners filed an application for the registration of the title to Lot No. 1524. This application was subsequently amended to claim the original Certificate of Title be issued to the late Jose R. De Luzuriaga, Sr., based on Decree No. 22752. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ultimately granted this application, confirming the title of the late De Luzuriaga to the lot, a decision which became final as the respondent opted not to file an appeal.

Subsequent Legal Actions

In September 1999, Dr. Antonio A. Lizares, Co. Inc. (also referred to as DAALCO), initiated a quieting of title action against the petitioners, asserting that they were the lawful owners of Lot No. 1524, based on a prior Transfer Certificate of Title. Following this, the Republic filed a petition for relief from judgment, seeking to vacate the previous decision based on several grounds including improper representation by the petitioners and potential double titling of the same lot.

RTC Rulings

The RTC denied the government's petition for relief due to insufficient procedural grounds, later determining that jurisdictional issues were not substantive enough to reverse the earlier decision. The Republic's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.

CA Ruling

The Court of Appeals granted the Republic's petition for certiorari, finding that the RTC had gravely abused its discretion in denying the relief from judgment. It remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings concerning the possibility of double titling, citing that this would need examination in light of DAALCO's claims.

Issues Presented

The petitioners raised several issues including alleged errors by the appellate court in granting the certiorari without finding grave abuse of discretion, violations of the principle of judicial stability, res judicata, and concerns about procedural propriety regarding the Republic’s failure to file a timely appeal.

Disposition of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, affirming the CA's decision, found that the CA acted within its jurisdiction in granting the petition, emphasizing the necessity for a thorough examination of potential double titling concerning Lot No. 1524. It justified the procedural relaxation for the Republic to present its case, arguing that substantial justice must prevail over rigid adherence to procedural rules.

Double Titling Concerns

The Court highlighted that a prima facie case of potential double titling existed given that another original title had already been issued for the same l

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.