paz vs rp - pd 1529

7/23/2019 Paz vs RP - PD 1529

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/paz-vs-rp-pd-1529 1/9

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme CourtManila

FIRST DIVISION

LUCIANO P. PAZ,

Petitioner,

-versus-

REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, ACTING

THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT

OF ENVIRONMENT AND

NATURAL RESOURCES,

PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY,

FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION, and

FILINVEST ALABANG, INC.,

Respondents.

G.R. No. 157!7

Present:

CORONA , C.J., Chairperson,

LONAR!O-! CAS"RO,

#RSAM$N,

!L CAS"$LLO, and %$LLARAMA, &R., JJ.

Promul'ated:

No(ember )*, )+

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

D E C I S I O N

BERSAMIN, J."

"he petitioner assails the decision promul'ated on Au'ust , )++), /hereb0 the Court of Appeals 1CA2 affirmed the dismissal b0 the Re'ional "rial

Court 1R"C2, #ranch )34, in Muntinlupa Cit0 of his petition for the cancellation of a certificate of title brou'ht under Section +5 of Presidential !ecree 1P.!.2 No.

6)7 1 Property Registration Decree2.

An#$%$d$n#&

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/157367.htm#_ftn1


7/23/2019 Paz vs RP - PD 1529


On No(ember )7, )+++, the petitioner brou'ht a petition for the cancellation

of Ori'inal Certificate of "itle 1OC"2 No. 458 doc9eted as LRC Case No. ++-+67.

"he petition, ostensibl0 made under Section +5 of P.!. No. 6)7, impleaded the

Republic of the Philippines 1Republic2, ilin(est !e(elopment Corporation 1!C2,

and ilin(est Alaban', $nc. 1A$2 as respondents.

"he petition a(erred that the petitioner /as the o/ner of Parcel , Plan -

47, /ith an area of 3,47),368 s;uare meters, situated in Para<a;ue Cit0, Pasa0

Cit0, "a'ui' Cit0 and San Pedro, La'una, and Parcel ) Plan -47, /ith a total area

of 3,8+7,8* s;uare meters, situated in Alaban', Muntinlupa, Para<a;ue Cit0 and

Las Pi<as Cit0= that the total landholdin' of the petitioner consisted of 8*,+),43

s;uare meters, or appro>imatel0 8,*+ hectares= that OC" No. 458 /as re'istered

in the name of the Republic, and included Lot *7) of the Muntinlupa state /ithan area of appro>imatel0 )88 hectares= that Lot *7) /as se're'ated from OC" No.

458, resultin' in the issuance of "ransfer Certificate of "itle 1"C"2 No. 5666),) also in the name of the Republic= that !C and A$ de(eloped Lot *7) into a

subdi(ision based on their ?oint (enture a'reement /ith the @o(ernment= that

pursuant to the ?oint (enture a'reement, Lot *7) /as further subdi(ided, causin'

the cancellation of "C" No. 5666), and the issuance of "C"s for the resultin'

indi(idual subdi(ision lots in the names of the Republic and A$= and that the

subdi(ision lots /ere then sold to third parties.

"he petition for cancellation pra0ed as follo/s:*

>>>>

BROR, it is most respectfull0 pra0ed that OC" No. 458 in the name

of the Republic of the Philippine $slands and "C" No. 5666) in the name of the

Republic of the Philippines, #oo9 )4, Pa'e 6), Re'ister of !eeds, MuntinlupaCit0, and all subse;uent titles deri(ed from said "C" No. 5666) as stated in

para'raphs )*, )8, )6 and )5 abo(e-;uoted, Proclamation No. )8+ dated &une

)*, 775, Resolution No. +-* of the Cit0 of Muntinlupa dated ebruar0 3,

)++ be cancelled and in lieu thereof, and said Re'ister of !eeds be ordered toissue a ne/ certificate of title in the name of Luciano P. Pa, married to l(ira

&oson, both of le'al a'es, ilipinos and residents of Lot 6, #loc9 *, Modesta

%illa'e, San Mateo, Rial, free from all liens and encumbrances, and defendants be ordered to (acate the propert0 co(ered b0 said title= orderin' respondents

?ointl0 and se(erall0 to pa0 petitioner compensator0 dama'es in the amount of not

less than P+ Million, moral dama'es in the amount of P Million, e>emplar0dama'es in the amount of P Million and P) Million for attorne0Ds fees.





7/23/2019 Paz vs RP - PD 1529


Petitioner pra0s for other reliefs ?ust and e;uitable to the premises.

>>>>

On &anuar0 7, )++, !C and A$ mo(ed to dismiss the petition for

cancellation on the follo/in' 'rounds,8 to /it:

12 "he serious and contro(ersial dispute spa/ned b0 the Petition for cancellation

of title is liti'able in an ordinar0 action outside the special and limited ?urisdiction of land re'istration courts. "he Petition is thus remo(ed from the

ambit of Sec. +5 of the Propert0 Re'istration !ecree /hich re;uires, as an

indispensable element for a(ailment of the relief thereunder, either unanimit0of the parties or absence of serious contro(ers0 or ad(erse claim. $t authories

onl0 amendment and alteration of certificates of title, not cancellation thereof=

1)2 Lac9 of ?urisdiction of the Court o(er the persons of the respondents /ho/ere not (alidl0 ser(ed /ith summons but onl0 a cop0 of the Petition=

1*2 !oc9et fees for the Petition ha(e not been paid.

182 "he Petition does not contain the re;uisite certificate of non-forum shoppin'.

"he petitioner countered that his petition for cancellation /as not an

initiator0 pleadin' that must compl0 /ith the re'ular rules of ci(il procedure but a

mere incident of a past re'istration proceedin'= that unli9e in an ordinar0 action,

land re'istration /as not commenced b0 complaint or petition, and did not re;uire

summons to brin' the persons of the respondents /ithin the ?urisdiction of the trial

court= and that a ser(ice of the petition sufficed to brin' the respondents /ithin the

?urisdiction of the trial court.

On Ma0 ), )++, the R"C 'ranted !C and A$Ds motion to dismiss,6 viz :

>>>>

"he petition at bench therefore bears all the elements of an action for reco(er0: 1A2 it /as commenced lon' after the decree of re'istration in fa(or of

the Respondent Republic of the Philippines had become final andincontro(ertible, follo/in' the e>piration of the re'lementar0 period= for a re(ie/

of the decree of re'istration issued to the E'o(ernment of the Philippine $slands.F=1#2 there is an imputation of a /ron'ful or fraudulent titlin' in the issuance of

Ori'inal Certificate of "itle No. 458 alle'edl0 irre'ular due to the absence of

sur(e0 plan, decree of re'istration and court records= 1C2 the Petition finall0 see9sas its main relief the issuance of a ne/ title to him, Luciano Pa, after Ori'inal

Certificate of "itle No. 458 is in(alidated, or the recon(e0ance of the propert0 to





7/23/2019 Paz vs RP - PD 1529


him. "his action althou'h entitled a Petition for cancellation of a title, /hich is a

complaint b0 itself, is complete /ith the name of the parties, the sub?ect matter,

the cause of action, and the reliefs pra0ed for, /hich are all components of are'ular complaint. $t is in fact an initiator0 pleadin', and is not a mere motion.

$t is futile to den0 that the petition is a fresh la/suit, in(ol(in' title to a landor an interest thereon Earisin' after the ori'inalF proceedin', /hich should be

filed and entitled under the ori'inal land re'istration case under the instructions

of Sec. ) of P! 6)7. $ndeed, this Section states further post re'istration cause of an a''rie(ed part0 /ho complains of bein' depri(ed of a land /ron'full0 or

fraudulentl0 titled in the name of another. As such it is fair and lo'ical to assume

that this is co(ered b0 the current rules on an initiator0 pleadin' and becomes

(ulnerable to dismissal under an0 'rounds in(o9ed b0 the respondent /hich aremandator0 and ?urisdictional re;uirements under the present rules, includin' the

pa0ment of doc9et fees and the certification of non forum shoppin'.

>>>>

"hence, the petitioner assailed the dismissal in the CA via petition

for certiorari, ascribin' 'ra(e abuse of discretion on the part of the R"C in

'rantin' !C and A$Ds motion to dismiss.

On Au'ust , )++), the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari,4 statin':

>>>> Petition denied.

$n a special ci(il action for certiorari, the burden is on Petitioner to pro(e not

merel0 re(ersible error, but 'ra(e abuse of discretion amountin' to lac9 or e>cess

of ?urisdiction for the part of Public Respondent. Mere abuse of discretion is notenou'h 1!on Orestes Romualde lectric Corporation, $nc. (s. NLRC, *7 SCRA

)662. "he mere fact that Public Respondent does not subscribe to nor accepts

PetitionerDs ar'uments or (ie/point does not ma9e the former 'uilt0 of committin' 'ra(e abuse of discretion.

Not onl0 that. As lon' as a court acts /ithin its ?urisdiction, an0 alle'ederrors committed in the e>ercise thereof /ill amount to nothin' more than errors

of ?ud'ment /hich are re(ersible b0 timel0 appeal and not b0 a special ci(il

action of certiorari 1"omas Claudio Memorial Colle'e, $nc. (s. CA, *4 SCRA

6+)2. A Petition for Certiorari must be based on ?urisdictional 'rounds because, aslon' as the respondent acted /ith ?urisdiction, an0 error committed b0 him or it in

the e>ercise thereof /ill amount to nothin' more than an error of ?ud'ment /hich



7/23/2019 Paz vs RP - PD 1529


ma0 be re(ie/ed or corrected onl0 b0 appeal 1&alandoni (s. !rilon, *)3 SCRA

+32.

Appl0in' the aforecited ?urisprudence to the case at bench, the Petition must

fail. $t is all too ob(ious that Petitioner /ould ha(e Gs determine /hether or not

Public Respondent correctl0 rendered ?ud'ment in orderin' the dismissal of hisPetition. Sadl0, as the aforecited rulin's ha(e sho/n, a special ci(il action for

certiorari is a remed0 desi'ned for correction of errors of ?urisdiction and not

errors of ?ud'ment 1!ia (s. !ia, ** SCRA *+)2. Certiorari /ill not be issuedto >>> correct erroneous conclusion of la/ or fact 1"ensore> $ndustrial Corp. (s.

CA, *4 SCRA 832.

"o reiterate, Petitioner has failed to o(ercome the burden of pro(in' ho/Public Respondent ma0 be faulted /ith ha(in' acted /ith 'ra(e abuse of

discretion in renderin' ?ud'ment orderin' the dismissal of his Petition. "hat the

court a ;uo cannot share PetitionerDs interpretation of certain alle'ed la/s and

?urisprudence hardl0 constitute the abuse of discretion contemplated under Rule46 of the 773 Rules of Ci(il Procedure and as applied b0 the Bi'hest "ribunal in

numerous cases. Ours is not, throu'h this Petition, to determine /hether or notPublic Respondent erred in its ?ud'ment but to determine /hether or not Public

Respondent court acted /ith 'ra(e abuse of discretion amountin' to lac9 or

e>cess of ?urisdiction.

BROR, fore'oin' premises considered, the Petition is hereb0

!N$! !G COGRS and ordered !$SM$SS!. Resultantl0, the assailed

ResolutionHs are hereb0 A$RM!, /ith costs to Petitioner.

SO OR!R!.

On ebruar0 )8, )++*, the CA denied the petitionerDs motion for partial

reconsideration.3

Bence, the petitioner has come to the Court for re(ie/, assertin' the

applicabilit0 of Section +5 of P.!. 6)7, and insistin' that his petition filed under

Section +5 of P.!. 6)7 should not be dismissed because it /as e>empt from the

re;uirements of pa0in' doc9et fees, of ser(ice of summons, and of the certification

a'ainst forum shoppin' due to its not bein' an initiator0 pleadin'.

R'()n*



7/23/2019 Paz vs RP - PD 1529


"he petition for re(ie/ is de(oid of merit. "he dismissal of the petition

for certiorari b0 the CA /as proper and correct because the R"C did not abuse its

discretion, least of all 'ra(el0.

Section +5 of P.!. No. 6)7 reads as follo/s:

Section +5. Amendment and alteration of certificates. I No erasure,

alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the re'istration boo9 after the entr0of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same

b0 the Re'ister of !eeds, e>cept b0 order of the proper Court of irst $nstance. A

re'istered o/ner or other person ha(in' interest in the re'istered propert0, or, in

proper cases, the Re'ister of !eeds /ith the appro(al of the Commissioner of Land Re'istration, ma0 appl0 b0 petition to the court upon the 'round that the

re'istered interest of an0 description, /hether (ested, contin'ent, e>pectant or

inchoate appearin' on the certificate, ha(e terminated and ceased= or that ne/interest not appearin' upon the certificate ha(e arisen or been created= or that an

omission or an error /as made in enterin' a certificate or an0 memorandum

thereon, or on an0 duplicate certificate: or that the same or an0 person in thecertificate has been chan'ed or that the re'istered o/ner has married, or, if

re'istered as married, that the marria'e has been terminated and no ri'ht or

interest of heirs or creditors /ill thereb0 be affected= or that a corporation /hich

o/ned re'istered land and has been dissol(ed has not 0et con(ened the same/ithin three 0ears after its dissolution= or upon an0 other reasonable 'round= and

the court ma0 hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest,

and ma0 order the entr0 or cancellation of a ne/ certificate, the entr0 or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or 'rant an0 other relief upon

such terms and conditions, re;uirin' securit0 and bond if necessar0, as it ma0

consider proper= Provided , hoever , "hat this section shall not be construed to'i(e the court authorit0 to reopen the ?ud'ment or decree of re'istration, and that

nothin' shall be done or ordered b0 the court /hich shall impair the title or other

interest of a purchaser holdin' a certificate for (alue and in 'ood faith, or his heirsand assi'ns /ithout his or their /ritten consent. here the o/nerDs duplicate

certificate is not presented, a similar petition ma0 be filed as pro(ided in the

precedin' section.

All petitions or motions filed under this section as /ell as an0 other

pro(ision of this decree after ori'inal re'istration shall be filed and entitled in the

ori'inal case in /hich the decree of re'istration /as entered.

#ased on the pro(ision, the proceedin' for the amendment and alteration of a

certificate of title under Section +5 of P.!. No. 6)7 is applicable in se(en

instances or situations, namel0: 1a2 /hen re'istered interests of an0 description,

/hether (ested, contin'ent, e>pectant, or inchoate, ha(e terminated and ceased= 1!2

7/23/2019 Paz vs RP - PD 1529


/hen ne/ interests ha(e arisen or been created /hich do not appear upon the

certificate= 1c2 /hen an0 error, omission or mista9e /as made in enterin' a

certificate or an0 memorandum thereon or on an0 duplicate certificate= 1d 2 /hen

the name of an0 person on the certificate has been chan'ed= 1e2 /hen the re'istered

o/ner has been married, or, re'istered as married, the marria'e has beenterminated and no ri'ht or interest of heirs or creditors /ill thereb0 be affected= 1 f 2

/hen a corporation, /hich o/ned re'istered land and has been dissol(ed, has not

con(e0ed the same /ithin three 0ears after its dissolution= and 1 g 2 /hen there is

reasonable 'round for the amendment or alteration of title.5

e a'ree /ith both the CA and the R"C that the petitioner /as in realit0

see9in' the recon(e0ance of the propert0 co(ered b0 OC" No. 458, not the

cancellation of a certificate of title as contemplated b0 Section +5 of P.!. No.6)7. "hus, his petition did not fall under an0 of the situations co(ered b0 Section

+5, and /as for that reason ri'htl0 dismissed.

Moreo(er, the filin' of the petition /ould ha(e the effect of reopenin' the

decree of re'istration, and could thereb0 impair the ri'hts of innocent purchasers in

'ood faith and for (alue. "o reopen the decree of re'istration /as no lon'er

permissible, considerin' that the one-0ear period to do so had lon' a'o lapsed, and

the properties co(ered b0 OC" No. 458 had alread0 been subdi(ided into smaller

lots /hose o/nership had passed to third persons. "husl0, the petition tended to

(iolate the proviso in Section +5 of P.!. No. 6)7, to /it:

>>> Provided , hoever , "hat this section shall not be construed to 'i(e the court

authorit0 to reopen the ?ud'ment or decree of re'istration, and that nothin' shall be done or ordered b0 the court /hich shall impair the title or other interest of a

purchaser holdin' a certificate for (alue in 'ood faith, or his heirs and assi'ns

/ithout his or their /ritten consent. here the o/nerDs duplicate certificate is not

presented, a similar petition ma0 be filed as pro(ided in the precedin' section.

Nor is it sub?ect to dispute that the petition /as not a mere continuation of a

pre(ious re'istration proceedin'. Shorn of the thin dis'uise the petitioner 'a(e to

it, the petition /as e>posed as a distinct and independent action to see9 the

recon(e0ance of realt0 and to reco(er dama'es. Accordin'l0, he should perform

?urisdictional acts, li9e pa0in' the correct amount of doc9et fees for the filin' of an

initiator0 pleadin', causin' the ser(ice of summons on the ad(erse parties in order

to (est personal ?urisdiction o(er them in the trial court, and attachin' a



7/23/2019 Paz vs RP - PD 1529


certification a'ainst forum shoppin' 1as re;uired for all initiator0 pleadin's2. Be

ou'ht to 9no/ that his ta9in' such re;uired acts for 'ranted /as immediatel0 fatal

to his petition, /arrantin' the 'rantin' of the respondentsD motion to dismiss.

+HEREFORE, the PETITION FOR REVIE+ON CERTIORARI is DENIED, and the decision of the Court of Appeals

is AFFIRMED.

"he petitioner shall pa0 the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate &ustice

+E CONCUR"

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief &ustice

Chairperson

TERESITA . LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARIANO

C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate &ustice Associate &ustice

7/23/2019 Paz vs RP - PD 1529


MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, R.

Associate &ustice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section *, Article %$$$ of the Constitution, $ certif0 that the

conclusions in the abo(e !ecision had been reached in consultation before the case

/as assi'ned to the /riter of the opinion of the CourtDs !i(ision.

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief &ustice

Rollo, pp. 38-37= penned b0 Associate &ustice &ose L. Sabio, &r. 1retired2, /ith Associate &ustice Romeo A.

#ra/ner 1later Presidin' &ustice, since deceased2 and Associate &ustice Mario L. @uari<a $$$ 1retired2 concurrin'.) "d., pp. +*-+5.* CA rollo, p. .8 Rollo, pp. 36-34.6 CA rollo, pp. )-)).4 Rollo, pp. 33-37.3 "d ., p. 7).5 A;uino, #and Registration and Related Proceedings, )++3 dition, pp. 37-5+= citin' #uzon $urety

Company, "nc. v. %irasol, Jr., No. L-)7**, &anuar0 ), 733, 36 SCRA 6), 63.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/november2011/157367.htm#_ftnref1
















paz vs rp - pd 1529

Documents