Case Summary (G.R. No. L-31083)
Key Dates
April 6, 1965 — Carmel sold a parcel (about 8,756 sq. meters) to the Tuasons and Torrens title No. 8314 issued in their name. September 14, 1973 — Presidential Decree No. 293 issued by President Marcos. January 29, 1988 — Decision of the Supreme Court (En Banc).
Applicable Law
Constitutional framework: 1973 Constitution (relevant provisions on due process, eminent domain, and the separation of powers as applied by the Court). Statutory framework: Act No. 1120 and Commonwealth Act No. 32 (regulating sale of public lands to bona fide settlers/occupants, reservation of title in the Government until full payment, remedies for default including foreclosure procedures), and the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) provisions on the indefeasibility of Torrens titles (Secs. 39 and 47 referenced).
Factual Background
The Tuasons purchased and took possession of a subdivided lot originally part of Tala Estate (so-called “Friar Lands”) from Carmel Farms, Inc., with Carmel’s Torrens title over the lot cancelled and a new title issued to the Tuasons. Several years later, by Presidential Decree No. 293, President Marcos invalidated Carmel’s title (and titles derived from it) on the asserted ground that Carmel and subsequent transferees had not completed payment to the Government under Act No. 1120 and related statutes. The decree declared the affected lots “open for disposition and sale to the members of the Malacanang Homeowners Association, Inc., the present bona fide occupants thereof,” and directed cancellation inscriptions to be placed on the affected Torrens titles (including the Tuasons’ TCT No. 8314).
Legal Problems Presented
(1) Whether the President, by issuing Presidential Decree No. 293, exercised judicial power in determining title validity and thereby acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; (2) whether the decree deprived private owners of property without due process or just compensation; (3) whether the inscription placed on petitioners’ Torrens titles pursuant to the decree violated the indefeasibility of Torrens titles; (4) whether certiorari/prohibition was the proper remedy to annul the inscription and decree.
Procedural Posture and Remedy Sought
The Tuasons filed an original petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking annulment of the presidential decree and a direction to the Register of Deeds to cancel the memorandum declaring their title null and void and to restore full effectivity of their Torrens title; alternatively, they sought compensation from the Assurance Fund. The Solicitor General defended the decree and challenged the remedy, contending the purchasers had never acquired title in legal contemplation because of nonpayment and that the decree was a permissible exercise of emergency powers responding to housing needs. Sixty-four intervenors joined, alleging similar divestment.
Jurisdictional Analysis — Nature of President’s Acts
The Court analyzed the decree and concluded that President Marcos performed functions that are essentially judicial: he determined facts (e.g., that purchasers and transferees had not made full payment) and applied law to adjudge titles null and void, thereby deciding legal rights among private parties. Such determinations are the essence of judicial power (the authority to hear, try, and decide causes). Because judicial power is vested in the courts and not in the Chief Executive under the 1973 Constitution, the President’s acts in adjudicating title were undertaken without jurisdiction and therefore subject to annulment by certiorari. The Court further observed that the adjudicatory acts were performed without any trial or opportunity for the affected parties to confront and contest the evidence relied upon (notably, unspecified “records of the Bureau of Lands”), making the exercise of power also violative of due process.
Due Process and Evidentiary Defects
The Court emphasized that the petitioners and intervenors were denied basic procedural safeguards: they were not given notice, were not afforded a hearing, and had no opportunity to contest the factual basis (the Bureau of Lands records) upon which the decree purported to adjudicate title. The executive-made adjudication therefore constituted a gross violation of constitutional due process. The Court noted the insufficiency of relying on unspecified administrative records as a substitute for an adversarial judicial process where private property rights and title are at stake.
Indefeasibility of Torrens Titles and Government Remedies
The Court recognized the strong presumption that issuance of Torrens title by the Government is regular and conclusive as to official action; in the absence of proof to the contrary, the titles issued to Carmel and the subsequent Torrens titles issued to the petitioners are entitled to protection. While the statutory regime under Act No. 1120 and related provisions gives the Government remedies (including suit to recover unpaid installments, foreclosure-sale procedures analogous to mortgage foreclosure, and enforcement of the Government’s lien), those remedies must be pursued in a judicial action. Prescription does not bar the Government from bringing such suits, but until the Government obtains judicial relief, the titles already issued and the intervening purchasers’ rights must be respected. Thus, the executive decree was not a lawful substitute for judicial proceedings authorized by statute.
Separation of Powers and Abuse of Emergency Authority
The Court held that Presidential Decree No. 293 was not a legitimate exercise of emergency powers, police power, or social justice measures. Instead, by declaring sales contracts cancelled and titles void ab initio and awarding the property to a selected group (members of the Malacanang Homeowners Association), the decree effectuated a taking of private property without due process and without compensation, and impermissibly transferred property rights by executive fiat. The Court characterized the decree as a disguised favoritism and an unconstitutional assumption of judicial (and effectively legislative-like) power by the Chief Executive.
Proper Remedy and Relief Granted
Treating the petition as properly invoking certiorari (and noting that prohibition could also be available), the Court granted relief. Presidential Decree No. 293 was declared unconstitutional and void ab initio in all its parts. The public respondents (Register of Deeds, Ministry of Justice, National Treasurer) were ordered to cancel the memorandum inscribed on the petitioners’ and intervenors’ titles declaring them null and void and to take all necessary steps to restore the titles to full effectivity and to cease implementation of any part of PD No. 293. The Court declined to pronounce costs.
Treatment of Intervenors and Class Suit Considerations
The Court found that the intervention by the members of the Consuelo Heights Homeowners Association met the requisites for a class suit (common interest, impracticability of joining all affected persons, and representative plaintiffs), and thus the judgment covered the intervenors.
Concurren
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-31083)
Background and Facts
- Petitioners Roman C. Tuason and Remedios V. Tuason were retired public school teachers who on April 6, 1965 purchased from Carmel Farms, Inc. a parcel of land measuring about 8,756 square meters in Carmel's subdivision in Barrio Makatipo, Caloocan City, using pooled retirement benefits and savings.
- As a consequence of that sale, Carmel’s Torrens title No. 64007 over the lot was cancelled and a new Torrens Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 8314 was issued in the name of the Tuasons. The Tuasons took possession of the property and occupied it.
- The land purchased by Carmel had originally been acquired from the Government and formed part of the Tala Estate (one of the so-called “Friar Lands”). Carmel had purchased the land under Act No. 1120 and Commonwealth Act No. 32, as amended.
- On September 14, 1973, President Ferdinand Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 293, invoking his emergency powers, and purported to annul and invalidate the title of Carmel Farms, Inc. and all titles derived therefrom, declaring the specified lots “open for disposition and sale to the members of the Malacanang Homeowners Association, Inc., the present bona fide occupants thereof.”
- The Tuasons discovered the revocation of their recognized title by presidential fiat and the subsequent inscription on their TCT No. 8314 by the Caloocan Register of Deeds, which recorded a memorandum stating that, “Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 293, this certificate of title is declared invalid and null and void ab initio and considered cancelled as against the Government and the property described herein is declared open for disposition and sale to the members of the Malacanang Homeowners Association, Inc.”
Statutory and Regulatory Framework (as described in the record)
- Act No. 1120 and Commonwealth Act No. 32, as amended, govern the purchase by bona fide settlers or occupants of land from the Government:
- A bona fide settler or occupant may purchase the portion occupied by him at a price fixed by the Government, in cash or in installments, and is given a certificate of sale considered an agreement to pay installments and interest; acceptance of the certificate makes the occupant a debtor of the Government.
- Until full payment of the purchase price, title remains reserved in the Government; any sale or encumbrance by the purchaser prior to full payment is declared invalid as against the Government and subordinate to its prior claim.
- On default of payment of installments and interest, the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands has the duty to protect the Government by bringing suit to enforce the Government’s lien and obtain judicial authority to sell the land in the manner provided for foreclosure of mortgages; the purchaser at such judicial sale acquires indefeasible title and sale proceeds apply to costs and installments due.
- On completion of payment, the Government transfers title to the purchaser by proper instrument of conveyance, and the certificate of title issues and becomes effective as provided by the Land Registration Act.
- The Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) contains provisions on the indefeasibility of Torrens titles (referenced in the petition as secs. 39 and 47 and elsewhere in the opinion).
Presidential Decree No. 293 — Findings and Decree Language
- The Decree purports to find, based on “the records of the Bureau of Lands,” that neither the original purchasers nor their subsequent transferees had made full payment of all installments and interest on the lots claimed by Carmel Farms, Inc., including those on which the dwellings of the members of the Association stood, and therefore adjudged that title remained with the Government and the land “never ceased to form part of the property of the Republic of the Philippines.”
- The Decree declared invalid and null and void ab initio as against the Government:
- all sales contracts between the Government and the original purchasers,
- transfers between original purchasers and subsequent transferees,
- any and all transfers thereafter covering specifically enumerated lots of Tala Estate, Caloocan City.
- The Decree further declared Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 62603, 62604, 62605 (covering lots 1, 2 and 3, PCS-4383, in the name of Carmel Farms, Inc.) invalid and cancelled as against the Government, and declared the enumerated lots open for disposition and sale to the members of the Malacanang Homeowners Association, Inc., “the present bona fide occupants thereof,” pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 32, as amended.
- The Decree enumerated specific lots: 979, 981, 982, 985, 988, 989, 990, 991-new, 1226, 1228, 1230, and 980-C-2 (LRC PSD-1730), all of Tala Estate, Caloocan City.
Contradictions and Factual Inconsistencies Noted by the Court
- The Decree simultaneously acknowledges that the lots in the Carmel subdivision were occupied by the buyers whose dwellings stood thereon, and also asserts that “the members of the Malacanang Homeowners Association, Inc. (are) the present bona fide occupants” of all said lots — a self-contradictory factual premise.
- The Court observed the physical and legal absurdity of asserting that persons not in possession (members of the Association, who likely had not set foot on the lots) could be deemed “occupants,” much less “bona fide” occupants.
- The Decree thus rested on inconsistent and legally implausible factual averments.
Administrative Action Taken and Immediate Consequences
- Acting on the Decree, the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City inscribed a memorandum on the Tuasons’ TCT No. 8314 declaring that, pursuant to PD No. 293, the certificate of title was invalid and null and void ab initio and that the property described was “declared open for disposition and sale to the members of the Malacanang Homeowners Association, Inc.”
- The inscription effectively purported to strip the petitioners of their notice-protected Torrens title and to subject the property to disposition in favor of a designated group.
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought by Petitioners
- The petitioners filed an original special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, challenging PD No. 293 as an arbitrary measure that deprived them of their property in f