THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239764. July 10, 2019.]
HAIDE SUN HU CHIN ALSO KNOWN AND REFERRED AS "HEIDE SUN", petitioner, vs.HON. RICKY JONES S. MACABAYA, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 7TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 5, CEBU CITY; HON. LAURO A.P. CASTILLO, JR., AS ACTING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 7TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 5, CEBU CITY; AND BRENDA JOROMAT GICOLE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 10, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239764 (Haide Sun Hu Chin also known and referred as "Heide Sun" vs. Hon. Ricky Jones S. Macabaya, as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 5, Cebu City; Hon. Lauro A.P. Castillo, Jr., as Acting Judge of Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 5, Cebu City; and Brenda Joromat Gicole). — In 1984, Heide Sun Hu Chin, also known as Heide Sun (Sun), loaned to one Guad Eng Lim (Lim) the amount of PhP500,000.00. For that purpose, Lim, together with a co-maker, Eddie Lim Chao, executed a promissory note and secured the loan with a Real Estate Mortgage over a parcel of land located in Cebu City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 81090. Allegedly, Lim failed to pay the whole amount loaned when it fell due on December 12, 1984 but Sun granted Lim's requests for extensions of time to pay.
On March 2, 2010, Brenda Joromat Gicole (Gicole) filed a petition for the cancellation of mortgage encumbrance annotated on TCT No. 81090, for the surrender/cancellation of the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 81090, and for the issuance of a new one in lieu thereof before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 5. It was docketed as a land registration case, L.R.C. Record No. 5988.
Gicole claimed in her petition that she is the registered owner of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 81090. Sometime in July 1984, Lim requested to borrow from Gicole her owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 81090 to accommodate Lim's loan contract with Sun, promising to return the same in November 1984. Gicole acceded to Lim's request. Lim also convinced Gicole to sign a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) appointing her as Gicole's attorney-in-fact, assuring the latter that signing the SPA will not affect her rights, interests, and ownership over the land covered by TCT No. 81090. TCT No. 81090 was delivered to Sun and remained thereafter in her custody and possession. Sometime in February 1993, Lim fully paid her obligation to Sun, but the latter refused to acknowledge the said full payment, to cancel the mortgage encumbrance on TCT No. 81090, or to return the owner's duplicate copy thereof saying that it was destroyed.
Sun filed a Motion to Dismiss L.R.C. Record No. 5988 arguing that the case is an ordinary civil action and not a land registration case; that the RTC acquired no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition and over the person of Sun since no summons was served upon her; and that Gicole failed to implead indispensable parties.
In her Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, Gicole countered that her petition seeks to avail of the remedy under Section 108 1 in relation to Section 107 2 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree, rendering the same as a land registration case. Resultantly, service of summons on Sun was not required. Gicole further contended that non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground to dismiss a case under Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
The RTC denied Sun's Motion to Dismiss in a Resolution 3 dated June 16, 2011. It held that the RTC, sitting as a land registration court, is vested with full powers of a court of general jurisdiction to resolve the issues presented in the petition pursuant to the statutory grants under Sections 107 and 108 of P.D. No. 1529 and that the absence of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of the petition. The RTC likewise denied Sun's Motion for Reconsideration in an Order 4 dated May 25, 2012.
Sun did not seek any remedy from the aforementioned RTC Resolution and Order. Instead, she already filed an Opposition/Answer with Counterclaims before the RTC.
The RTC called a hearing on October 8, 2014 to clarify the issues on Gicole's petition. During the said hearing, Sun invoked Section 5 (g), 5 Rule 135 of the Rules of Court for the RTC to revisit its Resolution dated June 16, 2011 and Order dated May 25, 2012. The RTC directed the parties to file their respective Memoranda.
In its Order 6 dated January 23, 2015, the RTC affirmed its jurisdiction over L.R.C. Record No. 5988, thus:
From the foregoing allegations, it is clear that the petition was properly brought under the provisions of PD 1529, more specifically Section 108 thereof x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
As can be gleaned from the petition, what [Gicole] is after is for the cancellation of the lien as annotated in the certificate of title registered in her name. As she correctly pointed out, a proceeding under the Property Registration Decree is considered as summary and falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, sitting as a Land Registration Court. It is a proceeding in rem and therefore does not require the issuance of summonses as compared to ordinary civil actions which requires the same. 7
The RTC adjudged that Section 5 (g), Rule 135 of the Rules of Court did not apply to L.R.C. Record No. 5988. Said provision is limited only to errors which should be rectified so as to make the same conformable to law and justice. Sun wanted the RTC to revisit its previous Resolution and Order, amend said issuances, and enter a new ruling granting her Motion to Dismiss. She was again attacking the jurisdiction of the RTC, which was already adversely ruled against her by the trial court. According to the RTC, "[s]crupulously going over the motion to dismiss and the subsequent pleadings filed by the parties, including their respective memoranda on this issue, all the more convinces this Court that it did not err in denying the motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for reconsideration." 8
The dispositive portion of the RTC Order dated January 23, 2015 reads:
Accordingly, the Court RESOLVES, as it does resolve, to RULE, that Section 5(g), Rule 135, Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to the situation at hand. With the petition being summary in nature, and with the need to let the parties ventilate their claims, let the same be heard on April 28, 2015 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning. 9
Sun's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC in a Resolution 10 dated July 10, 2015.
Sun filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. She maintained that Gicole's petition is an ordinary civil action and not a land registration proceeding and, as such, there was a need to serve summons on her and other indispensable parties. Thus, the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying her Motion to Dismiss and continuing to exercise jurisdiction over L.R.C. Record No. 5988. Sun further pointed out that Gicole failed to allege the fair market value of the land in order to determine the correct docket fees to be paid pursuant to Section 7 (a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, in gross violation of jurisprudence.
In its Decision 11 dated October 26, 2016, the Court of Appeals dismissed Sun's Petition for Certiorari and denied her prayer for writ of preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order. The appellate court categorically stated that:
This Court is not oblivious to the procedural tactic that Sun, through her counsel, attempts to accomplish in order to circumvent the rules. The incident that was addressed by the two assailed Orders dated January 23, 2015, and July 10, 2015, were premised apparently, on Sun's invocation of the court's inherent power under Section 5(g), Rule 135 of the Rules of Court, to amend its orders to make these conformable to law and jurisprudence. In fact, the RTC's opening statement in the first assailed issuance specifically declared that the Order resolves the issue of whether the said provision of the Rules of Court still finds application to the present case. When Sun failed to obtain a favorable ruling on the incident that she raised, she lodged this petition for certiorari bringing up, once again, issues on jurisdiction. 12
The Court of Appeals declared Sun's Petition for Certiorari time-barred. The questions on jurisdiction and failure to implead indispensable parties were the very same issues that she had raised in her Motion to Dismiss and which the RTC had thoroughly threshed out in its Resolution dated June 16, 2011 and Order dated May 25, 2012. She did not avail of the remedy of certiorari from then but filed her Opposition/Answer with Counterclaims to Gicole's petition without any reservation, which could be reasonably construed as her acceptance of the RTC's dispositions on jurisdiction and a submission to the trial court's jurisdiction. Sun cannot raise the same jurisdictional issues after these had been laid to rest nor be allowed to circumvent procedural rules.
The Court of Appeals also denied Sun's Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution dated April 12, 2018.
Undeterred, Sun comes before this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari in which she argues that the Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated October 26, 2016 and Resolution dated April 12, 2018, avoided discussing the grounds she had raised in her Petition for Certiorari even when she had no intent to circumvent the rules. She asserts that it was at the RTC's behest that a hearing was called and memoranda were filed to address matters of lack of jurisdiction. Sun imputes grave error upon the Court of Appeals when it considered her Petition for Certiorari as time-barred when she filed the same nine days after her receipt of the RTC Resolution dated July 10, 2015 denying her Motion for Reconsideration and, regardless, she can raise matters of jurisdiction at any time. Sun insists that the Court of Appeals should have gone over the merits of her Petition for Certiorari.
Gicole countered in her Comment that the Court of Appeals correctly denied Sun's Petition for Certiorari for the following reasons: it was filed out of time, it intended to delay the proceedings before the RTC, it could not be a substitute for the lost remedy of a timely-filed petition for certiorari, and it circumvented legal remedies and mocked judicial processes.
The instant Petition is denied as there is no showing that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision and Resolution.
As the Court of Appeals had observed, Sun, through counsel, employed procedural tactics in circumvention of the rules. By invoking Section 5 (g), Rule 135 of the Rules of Court, she attempted to once again raise before the RTC the issues of lack of jurisdiction of the land registration court over the subject matter of the petition and her person and non-joinder of indispensable parties, which the said trial court had already resolved in its previous Resolution dated June 16, 2011 denying her Motion to Dismiss and Order dated May 25, 2011 denying her Motion for Reconsideration. Such a move on Sun's part was effectively a second motion for reconsideration of the denial of her Motion to Dismiss. Indeed, the RTC required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda on the matter, but it ultimately ruled in its Order dated January 23, 2015 that such provision, limited only to errors which should be rectified so as to make the same conformable to law and justice, was inapplicable to the pending case because the trial court did not err in exercising jurisdiction over L.R.C. Record No. 5988 and denying Sun's Motion to Dismiss.
It bears to stress that Sun did not seek any remedy from the RTC Resolution dated June 16, 2011 and Order dated May 25, 2012 and even, thereafter, filed her Opposition/Answer with Counterclaims to Gicole's petition in L.R.C. Record No. 5988. By seeking affirmative relief from the trial court, she had already impliedly accepted and voluntarily submitted herself to its jurisdiction.
Sun had allowed the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari to challenge the RTC Resolution dated June 16, 2011 and Order dated May 25, 2012 to lapse without availing herself of such remedy. In place of such lost remedy, Sun, in another attempt to manipulate the rules, filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing instead the RTC Orders dated January 23, 2015 and July 10, 2015 in which the trial court respectively refused to apply Section 5 (g), Rule 135 of the Rules of Court and denied her Motion for Reconsideration. However, upon closer study of said Petition, Sun would have the Court of Appeals look into the very same issues in her Motion to Dismiss which was denied by the RTC more than four years before. Astutely, the appellate court had seen through her "crafty attempt to resurrect a settled matter" 13 and properly dismissed her Petition for Certiorari.
Sun insists that the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the court may be raised any time, but she and her counsel are reminded that this may only be done through the proper remedies and before the proper tribunals. She may not keep on repeatedly raising the issues before the RTC which had already resolved the same, otherwise, the RTC will be unable to proceed with the case and there will be no end to the litigation.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Haide Sun Hu Chin is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Sec. 108. Amendment and Alteration of Certificates. — No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same by the Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance. A registered owner or other person having an interest in registered property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the ground that the registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been created; or that an omission or error was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or, on any duplicate certificate; or that the same or any person on the certificate has been changed; or that the registered owner has married, or, if registered as married, that the marriage has been terminated and no right or interests of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; or that a corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved has not conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court may hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may consider proper; Provided, however, That this section shall not be construed to give the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court which shall impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs and assigns, without his or their written consent. Where the owner's duplicate certificate is not presented, a similar petition may be filed as provided in the preceding section.
All petitions or motions filed under this Section as well as under any other provision of this Decree after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree or registration was entered.
2. Sec. 107. Surrender of Withheld Duplicate Certificates. — Where it is necessary to issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary instrument which divests the title of the registered owner against his consent or where a voluntary instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to surrender the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the party in interest may file a petition in court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds. The court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or any person withholding the duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and direct the entry of a new certificate or memorandum upon such surrender. If the person withholding the duplicate certificate is not amenable to the process of the court, or if not any reason the outstanding owner's duplicate certificate cannot be delivered, the court may order the annulment of the same as well as the issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu thereof. Such new certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate.
3.Rollo, pp. 144-151, penned by Judge Douglas A.C. Marigomen.
4.Id. at 169.
5. Sec. 5. Inherent powers of courts. — Every court shall have power:
xxx xxx xxx
(g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice[.]
6.Rollo, pp. 93-98, penned by Acting Presiding Judge Lauro A.P. Castillo, Jr.
7.Id. at 96-97.
8.Id. at 98.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 99-102, penned by Presiding Judge Ricky Jones S. Macabaya.
11.Id. at 51-59, penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig concurring.
12.Id. at 56.
13.Id. at 57.