Case Summary (G.R. No. 247490)
Key Dates
Complaint for cancellation filed by the Republic: April 5, 1991.
RTC Decision ordering cancellation and reversion: April 20, 1999.
CA decision affirming RTC: January 5, 2011; petitions for certiorari thereafter denied with Entry of Judgment on August 23, 2012.
Republic’s manifestation to cancel derivative titles: April 7, 2014.
RTC Order cancelling derivative titles: June 30, 2015.
CA resolutions dismissing Rule 47 petitions: July 27, 2018 and April 30, 2019.
Supreme Court resolution denying the petition for review on certiorari: March 2, 2022.
Procedural Background
The Republic sued for cancellation of free patents and original certificates of title (OCTs) issued to Spouses Gaspar on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. After trial, the RTC cancelled the patents and OCTs and ordered reversion of the lots to the government. The Court of Appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court denied review, rendering the RTC Decision final and executory. During execution, the Republic moved to cancel derivative titles that had been subsequently issued from the cancelled OCTs; the RTC granted this motion by its June 30, 2015 Order. Owners of several derivative Transfer Certificates of Title (including the petitioners) sought annulment under Rule 47 before the Court of Appeals; the CA dismissed the petitions. Petitioners then filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether the petition for review on certiorari should be dismissed for defective verification/certification against forum shopping (signed by counsel rather than by petitioners themselves).
- Whether the RTC’s June 30, 2015 Order cancelling derivative TCTs is a judgment, final order, or resolution within the meaning of Rule 47 and thus subject to annulment of judgment, or whether it was an execution-stage order issued pursuant to the RTC’s residual authority (Section 6, Rule 135) and therefore not covered by Rule 47.
- Whether the RTC had jurisdiction and whether cancelling derivative titles deprived petitioners of property without due process.
Court’s Ruling on Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping
The Court declined to dismiss the petition for failure of verification and certification against forum shopping because there was substantial compliance. Counsel signed the verification and certification but did so as attorney‑in‑fact on the strength of Special Powers of Attorney executed by the petitioners (all residing and working abroad). The Court relied on its jurisprudence distinguishing verification (which may be substantially complied with) from certification against forum shopping (which ordinarily must be executed by the party but may be relaxed under reasonable or justifiable circumstances). Given the circumstances and the existence of special powers authorizing counsel to sign, the Court found the requirements substantially satisfied.
Court’s Analysis on the Nature of the June 30, 2015 Order
The Court agreed with the CA that the June 30, 2015 Order was an execution-stage order issued to effectuate the final and executory RTC Decision of April 20, 1999, rather than a separate judgment, final order, or resolution amenable to annulment under Rule 47. The Court emphasized that the earlier RTC Decision ordered the reversion of the lots to the government and the cancellation of the original patents and OCTs; reversion to the public domain cannot be fully effected unless derivative titles originating from those OCTs are likewise cancelled. The Order therefore implemented the earlier final judgment through the RTC’s residual powers to carry its jurisdiction into effect under Section 6, Rule 135. As such, the Order falls outside the coverage of Rule 47, which governs annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions.
Court’s Ruling on Jurisdiction and Due Process Arguments
The petitioners argued they were not parties to the original case and that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over them, thereby depriving them of due process. The Court rejected these contentions. It noted that petitioners’ rights derived from titles that ultimately stemmed from patents and OCTs held by Spouses Gaspar; those patents and OCTs had been declared void for fraud and misrepresentation. Because the predecessors‑in‑interest (Spouses Gaspar) had no valid title to convey, petitioners could not be said to have an indefeasible right that the court was improperly taking away. The Court reiterated the established principle that indefeasibility does not attach to titles issued pursuant to patents obtained by fraud or misrepresentation and that cancellation of such derivative titles is within the court’s remedial powers to effectuate the prior decision. The petitioners did not allege extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction of the original proceedings in the manner required by Section 2, Rule 47; hence the grounds recognized for annulment of judgment were not present.
Reliance on Precedent and Stare Decisis
The Court applied the doctrine of stare decisis. It specifically relied on the Court’s prior resolution in Liu (G.R. No. 231100), which involved substantially identical facts and legal issues and in which the Supreme Court had already held that the cancellation of derivative titles in execution of the RTC Decision was proper and not subject to Rule 47 annulment. Because the present case presented the same points at issue and the fac
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 247490)
Case Caption, Docket and Decision Date
- FIRST DIVISION, G.R. No. 247490, March 02, 2022.
- Petitioners: Ma. Luisa Annabelle A. Torres, Rodolfo A. Torres, Jr., and Richard A. Torres.
- Respondents: Republic of the Philippines, and Register of Deeds of Davao City (Judge Carlos L. Espero II excluded as respondent per Resolution dated July 22, 2019).
- Nature of pleading before the Supreme Court: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing Court of Appeals Resolutions dated July 27, 2018 and April 30, 2019 in CA-G.R. SP No. 08294-MIN.
- Decision authored by Justice Inting; concurrence by Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, Gaerlan, and Dimaampao, JJ.
Facts and Subject Matter
- On April 5, 1991, the Republic, through the Solicitor General, filed a Complaint for Cancellation of Titles in Branch 8, Regional Trial Court (RTC Branch 8), Davao City, docketed as Civil Case No. 20,665-91.
- The Complaint sought cancellation of free patents and original certificates of title (OCTs) issued in the names of spouses Leonora R. Caspar (Leonora) and Florencio Gaspar (Florencio) on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, and sought reversion of the lots to the government.
- Specific instruments sought cancelled (as pleaded by the Republic): Free Patent Nos. (XI-I) 4093, (XI-I) 4362, (XI-I) 4094, (XI-I) 4361; OCT Nos. P-9923, P-10220 (Leonora), P-9924, P-10221 (Florencio).
- Petitioners in the present matter were registered owners of several Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) that are derivatives of the OCTs ordered cancelled: specifically TCT Nos. T-304045, T-304046, T-304047, T-304048, and T-304050 (derivative titles of OCT No. P-10221) among others referred to in the record.
RTC Proceedings, Decision and Later Execution Order
- The RTC (Branch 8) conducted trial on the merits and, in its Decision dated April 20, 1999, found the free patent applications of Spouses Gaspar tainted with fraud and misrepresentation and ordered cancellations and reversion to government.
- Dispositive directions in the April 20, 1999 RTC Decision included:
- Cancellation of Free Patents Nos. (XI-1) 4093, (XI-1) 4362, (XI-1) 4094, (XI-1) 4361; cancellation of OCT Nos. P-9923, P-10220, P-9924, P-10221.
- Reversion of the subject lots (Lot Nos. 7793-A, 7792-A, 7793-C, 7792-C with corresponding CSD references) to the government.
- Surrender and cancellation of owners’ duplicate copies of OCTs; defendants ordered to desist from exercising possession or ownership.
- Spouses Gaspar appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 64921); the CA affirmed the RTC Decision in a Decision dated January 5, 2011 and denied reconsideration on July 14, 2011.
- Leonora sought review in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 197918); the Supreme Court denied the petition (Resolution February 6, 2012) and denied reconsideration (Resolution June 27, 2012); Entry of Judgment August 23, 2012.
- During execution of the RTC Decision, the Republic filed a Manifestation and Motion (April 7, 2014) seeking cancellation of derivative titles emanating from the patents and OCTs already ordered cancelled by the RTC.
RTC Execution Order of June 30, 2015 (Pairing Judge Carlos L. Espero II)
- RTC Branch 8 issued an Order on June 30, 2015 granting the Republic’s motion during execution.
- Dispositive elements of the June 30, 2015 Order included:
- Cancellation of Free Patent Nos. (XI-I) 4093, (XI-I) 4362, (XI-I) 4094, (XI-I) 4361.
- Cancellation of specific TCTs deemed derivative of OCTs: TCT No. T-454799 (derivative of P-10220); TCT Nos. T-304045, T-304046, T-304047, T-304048, T-304049, T-304050, T-304051, T-304052, T-304053, T-304054 (derivative titles of P-10221); TCT Nos. T-146-2011006573 and T-146-2013003191 (derivative titles of P-9923); TCT No. T-454798 (derivative of P-9924).
- Ordered surrender and cancellation of the derivative titles by registered owners and directive to the Register of Deeds of Davao City to cancel the OCTs in its records.
- Ordered defendants and their successors-in-interest to desist from acts of possession or ownership; reversion of the said lots to the government.
Petition for Annulment of Judgment in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 08294-MIN)
- Petitioners (registered owners of certain TCTs) filed a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul the RTC June 30, 2015 Order insofar as it ordered cancellation of their titles.
- Petitioners’ core allegations:
- They were not parties to Civil Case No. 20,665-91; RTC therefore lacked jurisdiction over them.
- They were living and working abroad (Ontario, Canada; Florida, USA) and were denied due process.
- They argued the June 30, 2015 Order varied the judgment to be enforced and that ordinary remedies were not available to them through no fault of their own, thus entitling them to relief under Rule 47.
- The Republic filed its Comment and opposed the petition; CA considered a related petition (Hsi Pin Liu, et al. v. Republic of the Philippines, CA-G.R. SP No. 07590-MIN) challenging the same RTC Order.
Court of Appeals Resolution (July 27, 2018) and Denial of Reconsideration (April 30, 2019)
- The CA (assailed Resolution dated July 27, 2018) dismissed petitioners’ Rule 47 petition for annulment of judgment, finding:
- The June 30, 2015 RTC Order was issued during the execution stage to enforce a final and executory RTC Decision of April 20, 1999, pursuant to the RTC’s residual authority under Section 6, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court.
- The assailed June 30, 2015 Order was not a “judgment, final order, or resolution” within the context of Rule 47 such that Rule 47 relief would lie.
- The CA invoked stare decisis relying on its Twenty-Third Division’s Resolution of August 24, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 07590-MIN (Hsi Pin Liu), which found the same petition unavailing.
- The CA denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution dated April 30, 2019.
Petitioners’ Contentions in the Supreme Court
- Petitioners contend the CA erred in dismissing their Rule 47 petition as to cancellation of their titles (TCT Nos. 304045, 304046, 304047, 304048, and 304050).
- Primary arguments presented:
- The June 30, 2015 Order was issued without jurisdiction over petitioners’ persons because they were not parties to the original civil case.
- They were denied due process.
- The Or