SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 206868. August 7, 2013.]
PATROCINIO E. MARGOLLES, petitioner, vs. TORIBIA E. LOPEZ DE LEON, THE HEIRS OF LAURO P. LOPEZ DE LEON, REBECCA LOPEZ DE LEON-CARRASCO, THE HEIRS OF MAXIMO LOPEZ DE LEON, APOLINARIO LOPEZ DE LEON, CONRADO LOPEZ DE LEON, PEDRO E. LOPEZ DE LEON, MARIANO E. LOPEZ DE LEON, SILVERIA LOPEZ DE LEON, AND GEN. PACIFICO MARIANO LOPEZ DE LEON, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 August 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 206868 (Patrocinio E. Margolles v. Toribia E. Lopez de Leon, the Heirs of Lauro P. Lopez de Leon, Rebecca Lopez de Leon-Carrasco, the Heirs of Maximo Lopez de Leon, Apolinario Lopez de Leon, Conrado Lopez de Leon, Pedro E. Lopez de Leon, Mariano E. Lopez de Leon, Silveria Lopez de Leon, and Gen. Pacifico Mariano Lopez de Leon). — Before us is a petition for review on certiorari 1 filed by petitioner Patrocinio Margolles assailing the July 20, 2012 decision 2 and April 19, 2013 resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 123629.
On September 21, 2006, the heirs of Mariano Lopez de Leon, et al. (respondents) filed a petition for quieting of title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 201, Las Piñas City, docketed as SCA Case No. 06-0191. The respondents alleged, among others, that they are the compulsory heirs of the late Mariano Lopez de Leon who was the registered owner of a 363.6059-hectare parcel of land in Las Piñas City, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 3053 issued in 1924 by the Register of Deeds of Pasig City. According to the respondents, there is a cloud on OCT No. 3053, consisting of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. S-16372 and S-16373 issued by the Register of Deeds of Las Piñas City in favor of the petitioner. The respondents thus prayed that OCT No. 3053 be declared valid and binding, and that the petitioner's titles be declared void. IDaEHC
In her answer with compulsory counterclaim, the petitioner essentially claimed that she was the owner of the parcels of lands covered by TCT Nos. S-16372 and S-16373. By way of affirmative defenses, the petitioner alleged, among others, that the petition for quieting of title was barred by prescription, litis pendencia and res judicata. She also maintained that the correct amount of docket fees had not been paid.
The petitioner thereafter filed a motion for preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses. In the meantime, the RTC, Branch 255, Las Piñas City, declared OCT No. 3053 null and void in Civil Case No. LP-04-0177 — a case for nullification of OCT No. 3053 previously filed by the Republic of the Philippines against the respondents. The petitioner filed a manifestation, attaching a copy of the RTC's decision in Civil Case No. LP-04-0177. The respondents, for their part, filed a counter-manifestation stating that they appealed the RTC's decision in Civil Case No. LP-04-0177.
In its order 4 of October 1, 2010, the RTC: (1) dismissed SCA Case No. 06-0191 on the ground of litis pendencia; and (2) rendered as moot and academic the petitioner's motion for preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses.
The respondents moved to reconsider this decision, which the RTC granted in its order 5 of January 6, 2011. The RTC ruled that "litis penden[t]ia cannot be invoked" since there was no identity of parties.
In another order 6 of the same date, the RTC denied the petitioner's motion for preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses. Accordingly, it set the case for preliminary conference and for pre-trial conference on February 1, 2011.
Petitioner sought reconsideration of the RTC's twin orders of January 6, 2011. In its order 7 dated December 6, 2011, the RTC granted the motion, and allowed the petitioner to present evidence "taking into consideration [her] affirmative defenses." The RTC also allowed the continuation of the presentation of the respondents' evidence, but directed them to pay the prescribed docket fees with the Office of the Clerk of Court of Las Piñas City.
The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, assailing the RTC's twin orders dated January 6, 2011 and its order of December 6, 2011. TCaADS
In its decision 8 dated July 20, 2012, the CA partially granted the petition, and set aside the RTC's December 6, 2011 order insofar as it "directs the private respondents to continue presenting evidence." 9 Accordingly, the CA directed the RTC judge to discontinue the presentation of the respondents' evidence and to conduct a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses pleaded in the petitioner's answer with compulsory counterclaim.
The CA held that the RTC judge should have conducted a preliminary hearing on the issue of prescription, along with the other affirmative defenses raised by the petitioner. The CA maintained that it was not in a position to determine whether the respondents' petition was barred by prescription since no witnesses had been presented and no documents were offered as evidence to support this affirmative defense. It added that the issue of prescription is a question of fact which should be resolved by the RTC. The CA further explained that a prior determination of whether prescription has set in was necessary since it would determine whether the RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion in directing the respondents to pay additional docket fees.
The CA also ruled that the RTC judge correctly dismissed the respondents' petition on the ground of litis pendencia, but not due to the absence of the element of identity of parties, but on the absence of the third element of litis pendencia, i.e., the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgement that may be rendered in the pending case would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other.
Finally, the CA held that the RTC order granting the petitioner's motion for preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses, but at the same time directing the respondents to continue presenting evidence on the merits, was tantamount to a denial of the petitioner's motion for preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses. DCcSHE
Both the petitioner and the respondents moved to reconsider this decision, but the CA denied their motion in its resolution 10 dated April 19, 2013.
In the present petition, the petitioner alleged that the CA should have dismissed the respondents' petition on the grounds of prescription and non-payment of the correct docket fees. The petitioner reasoned out that there was no more need for the RTC to conduct a preliminary hearing on her affirmative defenses since prescription was evident from the pleadings or evidence on record. She also argued that the belated payment of docket fees could only be allowed if the action has not yet prescribed.
The petitioner further argued that the CA erred in not dismissing the case on the ground of litis pendencia.
We deny the petition for lack of any reversible error in the CA's assailed decision.
We point out at the outset that a grant of preliminary hearing rests on the sound discretion of the court, under Section 6, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, thus:
Sec. 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses. — If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided for in this Rule may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed.
Thus, a preliminary hearing is subject to the discretion of the trial court. Absent any showing that the trial court had acted without jurisdiction or in excess thereof or with such grave abuse of discretion as would amount to lack of jurisdiction, the trial court's order granting or dispensing with the need for a preliminary hearing may not be corrected by certiorari. AIHECa
In the present case, however an irregular situation occurred in the sense that the RTC allowed the respondents to present evidence on the merits first, and then later on granted the petitioner's motion for preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses. We further point out that while the RTC granted the petitioner's motion for preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses, it still allowed the continuation of the presentation of the respondents' evidence.
The procedure adopted by the RTC was erroneous; the RTC should have first conducted a preliminary hearing on the petitioner's affirmative defenses (before proceeding with trial), more so since some of the affirmative defenses invoked by the petitioner as grounds for the dismissal of the action, such as prescription and res judicata, appear indubitable. These grounds could have warranted the outright dismissal of the respondents' petition, and would have spared the parties the time, trouble and expense of undergoing the rigors of a protracted litigation. Indeed, the abuse of discretion the RTC committed amounted to an evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law.
We thus agree with the CA's directives to the RTC to conduct a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses (litis pendencia, res judicata, prescription, and lack of jurisdiction) pleaded in the petitioner's answer with compulsory counterclaim, and to discontinue the presentation of the respondents' evidence.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY outright the petition for review on certiorari for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED. CaAIES
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-49.
2.Id. at 54-70; penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, and concurred in by Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Manuel M Barrios.
3.Id. at 71-72.
4.Id. at 386-387; penned by Presiding Judge Lorna Navarro-Domingo.
5.Id. at 153.
6.Id. at 154.
7.Id. at 155-156.
8.Supra note 2.
9.Id. at 69.
10.Supra note 3.