FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236052. April 4, 2018.]
LAVERNE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY BRYAN PATRICK A. CATOLOS, petitioner, vs. FILIPINO-CHINESE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. [FORMERLY FILIPINO-CHINESE WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC.], respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236052 — Laverne Realty Development Corporation, represented by Bryan Patrick A. Catolos v. Filipino-Chinese Women's Association Foundation of the Philippines, Inc. [formerly Filipino-Chinese Women's Association, Inc.]
Acting on petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time, the Court resolves to GRANT petitioner a period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
After a careful review of the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of petitioner to show that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 269, committed any reversible error in dismissing the Petition for Confirmation of Final Deed of Conveyance and Entry of New Certificate of Title and Issuance of Writ of Possession, docketed as LRC Case No. 32-V-16. HTcADC
Petitioner contends that the RTC erred in allowing the City of Valenzuela to participate without properly declaring it as an intervenor, and in giving weight and credence to Resolution No. 01, series of 2017, which revoked the auction sale on October 22, 2012 of the subject property pursuant to paragraphs 10 and 13 of the Rules, Regulations and Conditions of the 2012 Auction Sale.
The Court finds no reversible error on the part of the RTC.
In Neptune Metal Scrap Recycling, Inc. v. Manila Electric Company, 1 the Court explained that:
Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, who is not originally impleaded in a proceeding, becomes a litigant for purposes of protecting his or her right or interest that may be affected by the proceedings. Intervention is not an absolute right but may be granted by the court when the movant shows facts which satisfy the requirements of the statute authorizing intervention. The allowance or disallowance of a motion to intervene is within the sound discretion of the court.
Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules provides that a court may allow intervention (a) if the movant has legal interest or is otherwise qualified, and (b) if the intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of rights of the original parties and if the intervenor's rights may not be protected in a separate proceeding. Both requirements must concur.
Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules requires a movant to file the motion for intervention before the RTC's rendition of judgment and to attach a pleading-in-intervention. The court may allow intervention after rendition of judgment if the movant is an indispensable party.
xxx xxx xxx
A movant for intervention must have legal interest either (i) in the matter in litigation, (ii) in the success of either of the parties, or (iii) against both parties. The movant may also intervene if he or she is (iv) so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the court's custody. Legal interest is present when the intervenor will either gain or lose as a direct effect of the judgment. The legal interest must be actual and material, direct, and immediate. In a theft case, the subject matter in litigation is the item alleged to have been stolen. CAIHTE
xxx xxx xxx
We rule in Neptune's favor and hold that the entry with motion effectively constitutes a motion for intervention.
The rules on intervention are procedural rules, which are mere tools designed to expedite the resolution of cases pending in court. Courts can avoid a strict and rigid application of these rules if such application would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice.
In the present case, Neptune only filed a special appearance with a motion to inspect the container van before the RTC. At that time, Neptune was still uncertain whether it owned or it had legal interest over the container van's contents. After the inspection, however, it ascertained that it indeed owned the scrap copper wires and thus continued to participate in the case. Notably, the RTC allowed Neptune to appear, file pleadings, and represent itself in the court proceedings. All these amount to intervention as contemplated under the rules.
The lack of a pleading-in-intervention attached to the entry with motion is justified by Neptune's initial uncertainty as to the ownership of the container van's contents. After the ocular inspections, we note that Neptune filed manifestations, motions, and comment before the RTC to disprove Meralco's alleged ownership and to reclaim the scrap copper wires. These pleadings were accepted and considered by the RTC in rendering its decision.
Undeniably, the RTC allowed Neptune to intervene in the case via the entry with motion, albeit without filing a motion specifically denominated as a "motion for intervention." Thus, Neptune complied with the requirement of filing an intervention prior to the RTC's rendition of judgment. (Emphasis supplied). 2
In this case, the City of Valenzuela filed a Manifestation with leave of court, which petitioner sought to expunge on the ground that the City of Valenzuela was not a party to the case. However, during the hearing of petitioner's Motion to Expunge Manifestation, the City of Valenzuela manifested that it was willing to submit the necessary pleading for it to actively participate in the case. But instead of requiring the City of Valenzuela to file a motion for intervention, the RTC instead required the City of Valenzuela to submit a Verified Manifestation and certified true copies of its attachments. In doing so, the RTC, in effect, treated the Manifestation filed by the City of Valenzuela as a motion for intervention. Furthermore, based on what transpired during the hearing of the Motion to Expunge Manifestation, it is clear that, although the RTC did not explicitly declare the City of Valenzuela as an intervenor, the City of Valenzuela was, nevertheless, considered as such by the RTC. aScITE
It cannot be denied that the City of Valenzuela had an interest in the instant case because, in the event that the title over the subject property was transferred to petitioner, the City of Valenzuela would have been held liable to respondent since it was the City of Valenzuela which caused the auction sale and the issuance of the Final Deed of Conveyance. Moreover, the intervention of the City of Valenzuela would not have caused any delay or undue prejudice to the parties. In fact, it even avoided multiplicity of suits and clogging of the court's dockets. As this Court has often said, "the purpose of intervention is to enable a stranger to an action to become a party in order for him to protect his interest and for the court to settle all conflicting claims. Intervention is allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits more than on due process considerations." 3 Thus, the Court finds no error on the part of the RTC in allowing the City of Valenzuela to intervene in the instant case, and in giving weight and credence to the documents attached to its Verified Manifestation.
Consequently, the RTC likewise did not err in dismissing the Petition for Confirmation of Final Deed of Conveyance and Entry of New Certificate of Title and Issuance of Writ of Possession based on Resolution No. 01, series of 2017, issued by the Committee on Auction of Delinquent Real Properties on June 1, 2017. As aptly ruled by the RTC —
Because of the City's revocation of the auction of the subject property, there was effectively no sale of the property and, thus, no Final Deed of Conveyance for confirmation by this Court, as sought in the instant Petition. Since there was no effective sale of the subject property, neither can the issuance of the new certificate of title and a writ of possession in favor of petitioner be ordered by the Court. 4 DETACa
ACCORDINGLY, the October 5, 2017 and December 12, 2017 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 269, in LRC Case No. 32-V-16 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave; De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. G.R. No. 204222, July 04, 2016, 795 SCRA 418.
2.Id. at 425-429.
3.Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. International Exchange Bank, 671 Phil. 15, 30 (2011).
4.Rollo, p. 23.