Omega Gold Property Ventures, Inc. v. Jamaica Realty and Marketing Corp.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 199542. September 4, 2019.]

OMEGA GOLD PROPERTY VENTURES, INC., REPRESENTED BY JESUS R. GUINHAWA, JOHNSON CHENG, HECTOR L. UY, EDUARDO D. ODIAMAR, ROBERT L. OBIEDO, DANIEL LEE, FILIPINO CANTONESE ASSOCIATION OF CAMARINES SUR, INC., REPRESENTED BY GERONIMO T. CHENG, SR., SOLCON DEVELOPMENT CORP., REPRESENTED By TERESITA B. ESTIPONA, BENJAMIN Y. LO AND MARGARITA S. GO, petitioners, vs.JAMAICA REALTY AND MARKETING CORP., THE HEIRS OF DOMINGO A. DIAZ, REPRESENTED BY J. RENATO S. DIAZ, THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF NAGA, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. GRETA FILIO-PARAISO AND THE BUREAU OF LANDS, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated04 September 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 199542 — OMEGA GOLD PROPERTY VENTURES, INC., represented by Jesus R. Guinhawa, JOHNSON CHENG, HECTOR L. UY, EDUARDO D. ODIAMAR, ROBERT L. OBIEDO, DANIEL LEE, FILIPINO CANTONESE ASSOCIATION OF CAMARINES SUR, INC., represented by Geronimo T. Cheng, Sr., SOLCON DEVELOPMENT CORP., represented by Teresita B. Estipona, BENJAMIN Y. LO and MARGARITA S. GO, petitioners, versus JAMAICA REALTY AND MARKETING CORP., THE HEIRS OF DOMINGO A. DIAZ, represented by J. Renato S. Diaz, THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF NAGA, represented by Atty. Greta Filio-Paraiso and THE BUREAU OF LANDS, represented by its Regional Technical Director, respondents.

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules) filed by petitioners, assailing the Decision 2 dated March 24, 2011 and the Resolution 3 dated November 24, 2011 of the Court of Appeals 4 (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 89054. The CA Decision denied the appeal and affirmed the Decision 5 dated January 23, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 62, Naga City (RTC) in Civil Case No. RTC 2001-0202. The CA Resolution denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

As found by the RTC and the CA, respondent Jamaica Realty and Marketing Corp. (Jamaica Realty), as buyer, and respondents Heirs of Domingo A. Diaz (Diaz Heirs), as sellers, executed on October 8, 1992 a deed of absolute sale over several parcels of land, among which is a parcel of land (Road Lot 14) covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (TCT) 13247. 6 On July 28, 1994, TCT 13247 was cancelled and replaced by TCT 26663 in Jamaica Realty's name. 7 Jamaica Realty developed the said parcels of land into a private residential subdivision, keeping the road lot as such. 8

Petitioners are property owners adjacent to the road lot and they have utilized the road as an access to their respective properties. 9 On January 16, 2001, they filed a complaint assailing the deed of sale, consolidation and transfer of ownership of titles, particularly the cancellation of TCT 13247 and the issuance of TCT 26663 in favor of Jamaica Realty. 10 They averred that Jamaica Realty and Diaz Heirs (respondents) failed to secure a prior court order for the conveyance of Road Lot 14 in violation of Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529 or the Property Registration Decree. 11 They also averred that when TCT 26663 was registered with the Register of Deeds (RD) of Naga City, the RD neglected to make an annotation on the title regarding the limitation over Road Lot 14, again in violation of Section 50, PD 1529. 12

After pre-trial, the presentation of John Estipona as petitioners' witness, who testified that the sale of Road Lot 14 between Jamaica Realty and Diaz Heirs was entered into without authority from the court, Jamaica Realty's decision to forego with the testimony of its witnesses, and with the approval of the RTC, both parties submitted the case for decision on the lone issue of whether non-compliance with the requirements of Section 50 of PD 1529 would warrant the nullification of the subject deed of sale. 13

On January 23, 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision dismissing the complaint. 14 The RTC reasoned that the sale of the subject road lot needed no authority from the court considering that "the sale was not for any purpose nor was it intended to be altered as a road lot; that despite the sale and transfer [thereof] to [Jamaica Realty] it has remained as a road lot." 15 The RTC also noted that "it is clear on the face of the certificate of title covering the road lot that the proper description and identification as a road has been indicated thereon and its original character has been retained up to the present." 16

After their motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC, petitioners appealed the RTC Decision to the CA. 17

The CA in its Decision dated March 24, 2011 denied petitioners' appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision. 18 The CA ruled that petitioners do not possess the necessary personality to question the validity of the sale of the subject road lot because they had no participation in its execution and had not claimed to be assigns or heirs of the sellers thereof. 19 Likewise, the CA found that petitioners failed to show that their right was prejudiced or they suffered any injury by the execution of the subject deed of sale. 20 Thus, the CA concluded that petitioners are not real parties in interest as contemplated under the law, who can seek its annulment or nullification. 21

The CA further stated that, granting for the sake of argument that petitioners were real parties in interest, their present complaint partakes the nature of a petition for review of a decree of registration and pursuant to Section 32 of PD 1529, they had one year from July 28, 1994 (when TCT 26663 was issued by the RD of Naga City) or up to July 27, 1995 within which to file a petition for review of the decree of registration. 22 Since they filed their complaint only on January 16, 2001, or more than 7 years after the subject title was issued, their complaint was belatedly filed. 23 The CA added that their petition to have the decree of registration reviewed or reopened could not be sustained because of their failure to allege actual fraud in the issuance of the subject title. 24

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied in its Resolution dated November 24, 2011. 25

Hence, the instant Petition. Jamaica Realty filed a Comment 26 dated June 11, 2012. Petitioners then filed a Reply 27 dated October 30, 2012.

The Court's Ruling

Petitioners argue that the CA erred when it found that they had not suffered any injury or prejudice because of the sale of the subject road lot to Jamaica Realty in view of the latter's admission that it had refused or restricted them access or entry thereto. 28 Petitioners also argue that the CA erred when it failed to actually rule on the sole legal issue originally submitted by the parties for decision: the failure of the sale of the road lot to comply with the provision of law, specifically the second paragraph of Section 50, PD 1529. 29

The Petition is not impressed with merit.

Petitioners' main anchor is the second paragraph of Section 50, PD 1529, which provides:

SEC. 50. Subdivision and consolidation plans. — x x x

If a subdivision plan, be it simple or complex, duly approved by the Commissioner of Land Registration or the Bureau of Lands together with the approved technical descriptions and the corresponding owner's duplicate certificate of title is presented for registration, the Register of Deeds shall, without requiring further court approval of said plan, register the same in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act, as amended: Provided, however, that the Register of Deeds shall annotate on the new certificate of title covering the street, passageway or open space, a memorandum to the effect that except by way of donation in favor of the national government, province, city or municipality, no portion of any street, passageway, waterway or open space so delineated on the plan shall be closed or otherwise disposed of by the registered owner without approval of the Court of First Instance of the province or city in which the land is situated.

xxx xxx xxx

A copy of TCT 26663, registered in the name of Jamaica Realty, is attached as Annex "E" 30 to the Complaint 31 dated December 22, 2000. TCT 26663 describes "that certain land situated in x x x Del Rosario, City of Naga x x x: A parcel of land (Lot 14 (Road) of the consolidation-subdivision survey Pcs-051724-000973" 32 and contains the following memorandum of encumbrance:

Pursuant to Sec. 50, of P.D. 1529 that except by way of donation in favor of the national government, province, city or municipality, no portion of any street, passageway, waterway or open space so delineated on the plan shall be closed or otherwise disposed of by the registered owner [without] the approval of the Court of First Instance of the province or city which the land is situated. 33

Given these entries in TCT 26663, the Court is of the opinion that the RD of Naga City acted conformably with Section 50, PD 1529 in the issuance of the said TCT. The memorandum required to be annotated on the new certificate of title was duly accomplished.

Besides, petitioners never disputed the findings of the RTC that the sale of the subject road lot was "not for any [other] purpose nor was it intended to be altered as a road lot" and that "the proper description and identification as a road has been indicated thereon and its original character has been retained up to the present." 34

If indeed petitioners have suffered any prejudice as a result of the refusal or restriction of their access to the subject road lot, then they should avail of the appropriate legal remedy. Definitely, the nullification of the deed of sale covering the subject road lot and the cancellation of TCT 26663 are not the proper remedies.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 9-30, excluding Annexes.

2.Id. at 31 to 38-A. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Danton Q. Bueser concurring.

3.Id. at 39-41.

4. Tenth Division and Former Tenth Division, respectively.

5.Rollo, pp. 42-43. Penned by Judge Antonio C.A. Ayo, Jr.

6.Id. at 32.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 42.

9.Id. at 43.

10.Id. at 32-33.

11.Id. at 33.

12.Id.

13.Id. at 33-34.

14.Id. at 34, 43.

15.Id. at 43.

16.Id.

17.Id. at 34.

18.Id. at 38 to 38-A.

19.Id. at 35-36.

20.Id. at 36-37.

21. See id. at 37.

22.Id. at 37-38.

23.Id. at 38.

24.Id.

25.Id. at 39-41.

26.Id. at 135-148.

27.Id. at 162-171.

28.Id. at 26.

29.Id.

30. Records, pp. 15-16.

31.Id. at 1-5, excluding Annexes.

32.Id. at 15.

33.Id. at 16.

34.Rollo, p. 43.