SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198249. November 25, 2015.]
JULITA M. FUENTES, ADELAIDA M. BOAQUIN AND ANICETA ANUDLING, petitioners, vs. MSY HOLDINGS CORPORATION, ALBERTO A. ENCOMIENDA AND CARMEN ENCOMIENDA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated25 November 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 198249 (Julita M. Fuentes, Adelaida M. Boaquin and Aniceta Anudling v. MSY Holdings Corporation, Alberto A. Encomienda and Carmen Encomienda).
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the April 19, 2011 1 and July 14, 2011 2 Orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Lapu-Lapu City (RTC), in Civil Case No. R-LLP-11-05930-CV, which dismissed the complaint for want of personality to sue.
Julita M. Fuentes, Adelaida M. Boaquin and Aniceta Anudling (petitioners) filed a Complaint, 3 dated November 9, 2010, for quieting of title, nullification of deeds and agreements, cancellation of certificate of title, recovery of possession, and damages, with prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, against MSY Holdings Corporation, Alberto A. Encomienda and Carmen Encomienda (respondents). Petitioners alleged, among others, that they were the heirs of the late Marcelo Malubay 4 (Malubay); that the property subject of the complaint was Lot No. 4117-A, with an estimated area of 10,094 square meters, more or less, which was part of Lot No. 4117, originally owned by Malubay, situated in Barangay Agus, Lapu-Lapu City, Mactan, Cebu; that Lot 4117-A was previously covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 36997 in the name of the Heirs of Marcelo Malubay, Jr., namely: Eleuterio Bonghanoy (Eleuterio), married to Corazon Bonghanoy, Nemesio Bonghanoy (Nemesio), married to Julieta Bonghanoy and Eugenio Bonghanoy (Eugenio), married to Eva Bonghanoy; that on July 7, 2010, respondents, employing spurious and questionable documents, were able to cancel TCT No. 36997, with TCT No. 110-2010002651, issued in its place in favor of MSY Holdings Corporation; that they "vaguely" remember that sometime in 1990, and without the full understanding, knowledge and consent of the heirs of the late Marcelo Malubay, certain individuals sought and facilitated the partition and division of the entire Lot 4117 into several parcels but did not deliver the owner's copies of the certificates of title to Malubay's lawful heirs; that Malubay had seven (7) children, namely Juana, Teofila, Modesta, Gaudencio, Francisco, Maximo, and Segundo, who were then all deceased; that petitioners are entitled to the ownership of Lot 4117 as they are some of the remaining heirs of Malubay; that petitioners, who were in their 70s and could not recall or were not aware that their predecessors in interest had sold Lot No. 4117-A in favor of Fructuosa Vda. De Alducente (Fructuosa) who, in turn, sold the same to respondent Alberto Encomienda (Alberto) in 1979; that in order to support his claim of ownership over Lot 4117-A, Alberto presented a purported Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate and Sale, dated June 26, 1968, executed by Eleuterio, Nemesio, Eugenio, and Senorina Bonghanoy in Fructuosa's favor; that an examination of the said document revealed that the sellers disposed a portion of Lot No. 4117 in their capacity as heirs of a certain Fernando Bonghanoy, who was not the registered owner of the said lot; that on July 17, 2008, the heirs of Malubay executed an Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs with Special Power of Attorney whereby they recognized and acknowledged among themselves that they were descendants and successors in interest of Malubay; and that on December 14, 2009, the heirs of Malubay filed a petition for judicial declaration of heirs where they sought to ratify and confirm the extrajudicial declaration of heirs they had previously executed. CAacTH
Respondents moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the petitioners lacked personality to file the complaint. They averred that an action, docketed as SP Case No. R-LLP-10-05599, for declaration of heirship of the late Marcelo Malubay filed by petitioners and several others was still pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City (RTC-Br 54). Thus, it was improper for petitioners to declare themselves to be among the heirs of Malubay.
The RTC in an Order, dated April 19, 2011, dismissed the complaint. The RTC stated that petitioners could not be considered a real-party-in-interest because their rights as heirs of Malubay had not yet been established as the petition for the declaration of the heirs of the late Marcelo Malubay was still pending in court.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in an Order, dated July 14, 2011.
Hence, this petition.
Statement of the Legal Issues
Petitioner posits that the legal issues to be resolved in the subject petition are as follows:
1. Whether a duly executed and notarized Extra Judicial Declaration of Heirs is sufficient to confer legal personality upon the individuals named herein in order to institute and prosecute an action in court to protect their interests as such heirs;
2. Whether the parties in a pending action for judicial declaration of heirs are clothed with legal personality to preserve and protect the estate and properties of their ascendant and the collective rights of the heirs before they are judicially declared as such;
3. Whether the heirs of a decedent must wait for the termination of the action for judicial declaration of heirship (while in the meantime the properties of their ascendant are being dissipated by others) before they can file an action to protect the collective rights of the heirs over the affected properties;
4. Whether an individual who is named as a representative heir in the certificate of title issued over a parcel of land is clothed with legal personality to intervene and litigate his claims over the same property. 5
Petitioners admitted that the judicial declaration of heirs is still pending in court. They insisted, however, that the extrajudicial declaration of heirs they executed in 2008 sufficiently clothed them with the authority to institute the complaint, which sought the nullification of the title issued in favor of respondents.
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds no merit in the petition.
Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest, who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Rule 3, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provides:
Section 2. Parties in interest. — A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be presented or defended in the name of the real party in interest. IAETDc
As stated, a real party in interest is the one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the one entitled to the avails thereof. This provision has two requirements: 1) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. 6 Interest means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case. 7 Such interest must be one which is present and substantial, as distinguished from a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest. The purpose of the rule is to protect persons against undue and unnecessary litigation, and to ensure that the court will have the benefit of having before it the real adverse parties in the consideration of a case. Thus, a plaintiff's right to institute an ordinary civil action should be based on his own right to the relief sought. 8
Claiming to be the remaining heirs of Malubay, petitioners filed the subject case for quieting of title, nullification of deeds and agreements, cancellation of certificate of title, recovery of possession, and damages. It principally delves on the issue of ownership of the subject land, allegedly partitioned and sold without the full knowledge and consent of Malubay's heirs. It must be stressed that TCT No. 36997, where the subject land originated, was in the name of the Heirs of Malubay, namely, Eleuterio, Nemesio, and Eugenio. 9 It was established on record and admitted by petitioners.
In the present case, petitioners anchored their right over the subject property as Malubay's heirs. Nonetheless, other than their bare allegation that they were among the remaining heirs of Malubay and the Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs of the Late Marcelo Malubay they had executed declaring themselves as Malubay's surviving heirs and successors-in-interest, no other evidence was submitted to prove that they were, indeed, Malubay's legal heirs. In fact, a special proceeding for the judicial determination of the legal heirs of Malubay is still pending before the RTC, Branch 54. In the case of Gabatan v. Court of Appeals, 10 the Court held that:
Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and possession of property. This must take precedence over the action for recovery of possession and ownership. The Court has consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. Under Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is defined as one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. It is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right. 11 CTIEac
Thus, petitioners' action is premature in as much as their status and rights as the alleged heirs of Malubay have not been fully established. Petitioners have no clear enforceable right because their claim over the land in question is merely inchoate and uncertain. 12 If indeed the petitioners have an interest in the property, there are certain legal administrative measures that they can resort to so that the property would not be dissipated or placed in the name of third persons. Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed, without prejudice.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The April 19, 2011 and July 14, 2011 Orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Lapu-Lapu City, are AFFIRMED, without prejudice. (Carpio, J., on official leave; Brion, J., designated Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 2281, and Velasco, Jr., J., designated Acting Member, per Special Order No. 2282, both dated November 13, 2015)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 31-32. Penned by Judge Toribio S. Quiwag.
2. Id. at 34-35.
3. Id. at 45-51.
4. As alleged in the complaint, id. at 46.
5. Id. at 19.
6. Spouses Oco v. Limbaring, 516 Phil. 691, 699 (2006).
7. Goco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157449, April 6, 2010, 617 SCRA 397-398, 405.
8. Reyes v. Enriquez, 574 Phil. 245, 251 (2008).
9. Rollo, pp. 52-54.
10. 600 Phil. 112 (2009).
11. Id. at 114.
12. Tankiko v. Cezar, 362 Phil. 184, 193 (1999).