Title
Ongco vs. Dalisay
Case
G.R. No. 190810
Decision Date
Jul 18, 2012
Dalisay sought land registration; Ongco attempted late intervention post-judgment. SC denied, citing procedural rules, lack of direct interest, and in rem nature of land cases.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 190810)

Factual Background

Respondent Dalisay applied for land registration over a parcel of land (Lot 1792, Cad-609-D) before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Binangonan. Apart from the Republic of the Philippines, no one opposed her application at the trial level, prompting an Order of General Default against the whole world except the Republic. The MTC found in favor of Dalisay, declaring her registrable right to the property and ordering the Land Registration Authority to issue a certificate of title upon finality of the decision. Petitioner Ongco did not intervene during trial but later, while the case was pending appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA), filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene asserting a prior claim based on possession and an earlier application for a free patent from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

Procedural Posture

The Republic of the Philippines filed an appeal from the MTC decision. While the appeal was pending, Ongco moved to intervene before the CA and attached an Answer-in-Intervention asserting her claim against Dalisay’s application. Dalisay opposed the intervention, arguing that Ongco had no legal interest and that intervention was barred because the motion was filed after final judgment at trial court level. The Republic did not object to Ongco’s motion. The CA denied the motion to intervene on the ground of untimeliness under Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, which provides that intervention must be filed before rendition of judgment by the trial court. Ongco’s motion was filed months after the MTC rendered its decision. The CA also denied her Motion for Reconsideration.

Issue for Resolution

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Intervene in the land registration case.

Legal Framework on Intervention

Rule 19, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court govern intervention:

  • Who may intervene: Any person with a legal interest in the matter in litigation, with the success of either party, or adversely affected by property disposition in the case may intervene with leave of court. The court must consider whether intervention would unduly delay or prejudice the original parties and whether the intervenor’s rights can be protected in a separate proceeding.
  • When to intervene: The motion to intervene must be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court.

Intervention is not a matter of right but a discretionary remedy dependent on showing legal interest and that the intervention would not cause undue delay or prejudice.

Analysis of Petitioner’s Interest and Timeliness

The Supreme Court emphasized that:

  • Petitioner Ongco’s claimed legal interest is indirect, contingent, and inchoate as evidenced by her status as an applicant still seeking a free patent on the subject land, without any confirmed title or registrable right. Such interest does not meet the strict requirement of being direct and immediate, which means the intervenor should either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the judgment.
  • The motion to intervene was filed after the MTC had already rendered judgment, well beyond the time limit prescribed by Rule 19 to prevent delay and prejudice. Intervention filed after judgment is fundamentally improper because intervention is ancillary and supplemental, not an independent action.
  • The rationale behind the rule restricting intervention to pre-judgment periods is to avoid undue delay and repeated reassessment of claims after judgment has been rendered. This rule is particularly strict in land registration proceedings since they are actions in rem involving the public at large through general notice and publication.

On Applicability of Exceptional Intervention Cases

The Court distinguished petitioner’s case from precedents allowing intervention after judgment:

  • Those cases involved indispensable parties whose absence deprived the court of jurisdiction to render a final decision. Indispensable parties are those without whom the case cannot be fully adjudicated.
  • Ongco was not an indispensable party because the registration case could proceed and be resolved without her participation. The crucial questions concerning land registration—such as possession and alienability—could be adjudicated without joining her.
  • Her evidence, while relevant, did not confer indispensability. The only indispensable party in a land registration proceeding is the Republic of the

    ...continue reading

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

    About Privacy Terms