G.R. No. L-58319 - Paciente vs. Dacuycuy

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-58319)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioner sought certiorari and prohibition to annul an order (April 24, 1981) of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (guardianship court) directing petitioner and Conchita Dumdum to deposit an additional P10,000 as consideration for Lot No. 3085-G, and a subsequent resolution (August 21, 1981) denying reconsideration and directing cancellation of petitioner’s TCT No. T-13238 and issuance of a new title vesting one-third shares to each of Patria Paciente, Shirley, and Leandro, subject to the bank mortgage.
The petition challenged the guardianship court’s power to order cancellation of a Torrens title and to alter title registration as a sanction for failure to comply with the deposit order.

Key Dates (transactions and proceedings)

Relevant Transactional and Court Dates

1972: Death of Leonardo Homeres; minors inherit part of Lot No. 3085-G (TCT No. 12138).
September 9, 1976: Lilia S. Homeres sold Lot No. 3085-G to Conchita Dumdum for P10,000.
November 11, 1976: Petition for guardianship over Shirley and Leandro filed; guardianship granted August 9, 1977; Lilia took oath September 13, 1977.
September 21, 1977: Conchita Dumdum sold the lot to Patria Paciente for P15,000; TCT No. T-13238 issued to petitioner.
December 27, 1978: Petitioner mortgaged the lot to Consolidated Bank for P30,000.
September 12, 1980: Acting Register of Deeds notified the guardianship court that the property was registered and mortgaged in petitioner’s name.
November 14, 1980 and January 21, 1981: Show-cause orders issued by the guardianship court.
April 24, 1981: Hearing at which the challenged order (deposit P10,000; threat of cancellation) was issued.
August 21, 1981: Motion for reconsideration denied; register-of-deeds cancellation directive issued subject to failure to deposit.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Context

Governing procedural law references in the decision: provisions corresponding to sections of the old Code of Civil Procedure as embodied in Rules of Court (Rule 97, section 6 and Rule 88, section 6 as discussed in cited precedents).
Precedents expressly relied upon by the court: Cui v. Piccio; Parco and Bautista v. Court of Appeals; Castillo v. Bustamante; Yuson de Pua v. San Agustin.
Constitutional basis: decision rendered in 1982 under the constitutional framework in force at that time (the 1973 Constitution).

Factual Background — Title, Sale, and Mortgage

Factual Background — Conveyances and Encumbrance

The lot (1,701 sq. m.) originally covered by TCT No. 12138 was co-owned by the minors by inheritance. Lilia S. Homeres purportedly sold the property to Dumdum (Sept. 9, 1976). Dumdum later sold to petitioner (Sept. 21, 1977). Petitioner obtained TCT No. T-13238 and mortgaged the property to the Consolidated Bank (Dec. 27, 1978).

Initiation of Guardianship Intervention

Guardianship Court Intervention and Show-Cause Orders

Upon notification by the Register of Deeds that the property, part of a guardianship estate, had been registered and mortgaged without judicial authorization, the guardianship court issued show-cause orders (Nov. 14, 1980; Jan. 21, 1981) directing the petitioner and the bank to explain why title should not be cancelled for alienation without court authority. Dumdum appeared and admitted lack of awareness of the guardianship requirement.

Primary Legal Issue Presented

Primary Legal Issue

Whether the guardianship court had jurisdiction in the guardianship proceeding to order cancellation of petitioner’s Torrens title and to have a new title issued vesting the minors as co-owners, as a consequence of petitioner’s alleged failure to comply with the court’s order to pay the reasonable price of the minors’ undivided interest.

Petitioner’s Argument Based on Precedent

Petitioner’s Contention Regarding Jurisdiction and Precedent

Petitioner contended that the guardianship court is not the proper forum to cancel a Torrens title and that, following earlier jurisprudence (Cui; Parco and Bautista), the guardianship court’s jurisdiction is limited: generally to cite persons suspected of embezzling, concealing, or conveying ward property and to obtain information, with actual delivery or return of property permissible only where the ward’s right or title is clear and indisputable.

Court’s Analysis of Precedents and Application to Facts

Court’s Analysis — When Guardianship Court May Order Return or Delivery

The court recognized the doctrine in Cui and Parco that a guardianship court ordinarily cannot determine disputed title issues and may order delivery or return only in “extreme cases” where the ward’s right or title is clear and indisputable.
Applying those principles, the court found that the minors’ ownership interest in the property was clear: they inherited a portion from their father and the mother’s sale of the co-owned property without judicial authority was illegal under controlling authority (Yuson de Pua v. San Agustin). Given the clarity of the minors’ right, the guardianship court did not exceed its jurisdiction in ordering measures intended to protect the wards’ interests.

Court’s Ruling on the Specific Orders Challenged

Court’s Ruling — Validity of Title-Cancellation and New-Title Directives; Defect in Deposit Order

The court sustained the guardianship court’s power to require corrective measures to protect the minors’ property rights, hence the orders aimed at effecting the return or reconstitution of the property interest were within jurisdiction insofar as the minors’ title was clear and indisputable.
However, the April 24, 1981 order requiring petitioner

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-58319)

Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 200 Phil. 403, First Division; G.R. No. 58319; decided June 29, 1982.
Nature of action: Petition for certiorari and prohibition challenging orders of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Leyte.
Orders challenged:
- Order dated April 24, 1981 requiring petitioner and Conchita Dumdum to "give and deposit with the clerk of this court the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) more as additional consideration of Lot No. 3085-G of the Tacloban Cadastre" and providing that failure to deposit by June 24, 1981 would result in cancellation of TCT No. T-13238.
- Resolution dated August 21, 1981 denying motion for reconsideration and directing the Register of Deeds, Tacloban City, "to cancel TCT No. 13238 of Patria Paciente and issue in lieu thereof a new transfer certificate of title to the following present owners of Lot 3085-G of the Tacloban Cadastre: Patria Paciente, ... 1/3; Shirley Homeres, 10 years old ... 1/3; and, Leandro Homeres, 10 years old ... 1/3, subject to the mortgage lien of the Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation."

Parties

Petitioner: Patria Paciente.
Respondents: Hon. Auxencio C. Dacuycuy (Presiding Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Leyte and Southern Leyte), Feliciana Calle (court-appointed guardian of minors Shirley and Leandro Homeres), the Solicitor General, the City Fiscal of Tacloban, and the Register of Deeds, Tacloban City.
Other persons of interest: Conchita Dumdum (seller/intervening transferor), Lilia Samson Homeres (mother of minors), George Go (petitioner's husband), Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (mortgagee).

Material Facts

In 1972, Leonardo Homeres died leaving his wife Lilia Samson Homeres and two minor children, Shirley and Leandro, who inherited a parcel designated Lot No. 3085-G in Sagkahan, Tacloban City, covered by TCT No. 12138; the lot’s area was 1,701 square meters and had been inherited by Leonardo from his deceased father, Felizardo Homeres.
On September 9, 1976, Lilia S. Homeres sold Lot No. 3085-G to Conchita Dumdum for P10,000.00.
On November 11, 1976, Lilia S. Homeres filed a petition for guardianship over the persons and estate of the minors; the petition was granted on August 9, 1977, and Lilia took her oath as guardian on September 13, 1977.
On September 21, 1977, Conchita Dumdum sold Lot No. 3085-G, titled in her name under TCT No. T-13121, to petitioner Patria Paciente for P15,000.00; the Register of Deeds of Tacloban City subsequently issued TCT No. T-13238 in Patria Paciente’s name.
On December 27, 1978, petitioner mortgaged the lot to Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation for P30,000.00.
On September 12, 1980, the Acting City Register of Deeds of Tacloban City filed a manifestation informing the respondent guardianship court that Lot No. 3085-G, subject of guardianship proceedings, had been registered in petitioner’s name under TCT No. T-13238 and was mortgaged to Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation.
On November 14, 1980, respondent court issued an order directing petitioner and the manager of Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation to appear on January 21, 1981 and show cause why TCT No. T-13238 should not be cancelled for having been alienated without authority of the court.
On January 21, 1981, petitioner and the bank manager did not appear; Conchita Dumdum appeared and stated she had sold the lot without obtaining court approval because she was unaware of the requirement concerning minors’ properties.
The respondent court reissued an order requiring petitioner and the bank manager to explain why TCT No. T-13238 should not be cancelled for failure to secure judicial authority prior to disposition.
At the hearing on April 24, 1981, George Go informed the court that petitioner was an innocent purchaser for value. The respondent court then issued the April 24, 1981 order requiring the additional deposit of P10,000.00 or else cancellation of TCT No. T-13238.
A motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner and Conchita Dumdum was denied by the respondent court by resolution dated August