FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215586. July 6, 2021.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU (LMB), DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), petitioner, vs.CELAYO PROPERTIES, INC., CITY GOVERNMENT OF VALENZUELA, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 6, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 215586 (Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director, Land Management Bureau (LMB), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) v. Celayo Properties, Inc., City Government of Valenzuela, et al.). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to nullify the Decision 2 dated February 19, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 130812 denying the petition for certiorari and affirming the Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela, Branch 171, dismissing petitioner's complaint for reversion and/or cancellation of title pursuant to Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Likewise assailed is the Resolution 3 dated November 24, 2014 which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Facts of the Case
On January 21, 2010, petitioner filed a Complaint 4 for reversion and/or cancellation of title (Civil Case No. 5-V-10) against respondents Celayo Properties, Inc. (Celayo), the City Government of Valenzuela, and the Register of Deeds (RD) of Valenzuela City before the RTC of Valenzuela City, Branch 171. The subject matter involves Lot Nos. 604 and 607 which are portions of Malinta Friar Lands Estate situated in the Municipality of Polo, Bulacan (now Valenzuela City, Metro Manila), covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 374 registered in the name of the Government of the Philippine Islands on September 5, 1913 in the registration book of the RD of Bulacan. Said title was originally kept in the RD of Bulacan, then transferred to the RD of Caloocan City, Metro Manila District III, and finally to the RD of Valenzuela City. 5
By virtue of Verification Relocation Plan, Lot 604 was subdivided into 604-A, 604-B, 604-C, 604-D, 604-E, and converted by virtue of the same Verification Relocation Plan into 604-new, 1537, 1538, 1539 and 1540. 6 Lot 1537 is now registered in the name of respondent Celayo under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) V-9553. Lot 604-new, on the other hand, was later subdivided into 604-new-A and 604-new-B. Lot 604-new-B is now registered in the name of respondent Celayo under TCT V-9554. Lot 604-new-A was also subdivided into 604-new-A-2 and 604-new-A-1, which are now registered in the name of respondent Valenzuela City under TCT V-71335 and TCT V-71336. 7
As to Lot 607, it was also subdivided by virtue of Subdivision Plan Fls 1453-D. Lot 607-A was registered in the name of respondent Celayo under TCT V-9555. While Lot 607-C-1 was registered in the name of respondent Valenzuela City under TCT V-71337. 8
Sometime in 1995, the Heirs of Pascual Francisco filed a Petition for Mandamus (Civil Case No. 4813-V-95) against the Director of Lands before the RTC of Valenzuela City, Branch 75, praying for the RTC to issue an order directing the Director of Lands to execute a Final Deed of Conveyance over several parcels of lands covered by sales certificates. After trial, the RTC issued a Decision dated March 12, 1999 granting the issuance of a writ of mandamus and ordering the Director of Lands to execute a Final Deed of Conveyance over the several parcels of lands covered by the various sales certificates. It was found that the lots identified as Lot Nos. 604, 604-B, 604-C, 604-D, 604-E and 667 are all covered by Sales Certificates issued to the Franciscos (Gervacio, Gregorio and Anastacia), petitioners' (Heirs of Pascual) predecessors, as certified to by the Chief, Records Management Division of Land Management Bureau (LMB). However, despite the full payment of the purchase price, the Director of Lands refused to execute the final deed of conveyance. Respondent Celayo challenged said Decision to the CA which dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The Decision became final and executory. 9
Petitioner alleged that the records of the above mandamus case which decision has become final and executory, established the irregularity in the issuance of TCT Nos. V-9553, V-9554, V-9555 in the name of Celayo (total lot area of 15,251 square meters subject of expropriation by the City Government of Valenzuela) and TCT Nos. V-71335, V-71336 and V-71337 in the name of the City Government of Valenzuela. The following was also established: (1) that genuine Sales Certificates in favor of Gervacio Francisco, Gregorio Francisco and Anastacia Francisco, the predecessor-in-interest of Juanita Francisco, et al., exist; (2) that Deeds of Conveyance were accordingly issued for these Sales Certificates, however, the LMB has no records showing that the corresponding final deeds of conveyance were issued to the subject lots up to this date; (3) that the back of OCT No. 374 shows that the lots involved have not been actually conveyed by the government in favor of respondent Celayo and the City Government of Valenzuela, or its predecessors-in-interest. Since the TCTs under the name of respondents were issued despite non-compliance with the provisions of Act No. 1120 of the Friar Lands Act, the State brought this action for reversion to recover ownership and possession of the lots. 10
On March 22, 2010, respondent the City Government of Valenzuela filed a Motion for a More Definite Statement or a Bill of Particulars 11 claiming that the allegations in the complaint are vague, ambiguous, uncertain and that the same are not alleged with sufficient definiteness or particularity such that it cannot intelligently prepare its answer. 12 This was opposed by petitioner. 13 Respondent Celayo filed a Manifestation with Motion. 14 In its Order dated September 14, 2010, the RTC denied the motion and the subsequent motion for reconsideration. 15
Subsequently, Juanita Francisco Manlapaz's filed a motion to intervene. Thereafter, respondents Celayo and the City Government of Valenzuela filed their respective Answers. 16 On November 18, 2011, the RTC issued a Notice 17 setting the pre-trial conference on December 14, 2011, January 18 and January 25, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. The parties were also directed to file with the court their pre-trial briefs and serve on the adverse party. 18
On December 14, 2011, the scheduled pre-trial conference was cancelled since the presiding judge had to attend to an official matter in this Court. 19 The pre-trial was reset on January 18 and 25, 2012. On January 18, 2012, the pre-trial conference was cancelled and reset on January 25, 2012, the presiding judge being indisposed. 20 Thereafter, respondent Celayo moved for cancellation of hearing; hence, the pre-trial conference on January 25, 2012 was reset on February 29, 2012, March 21, and April 11, 2012. 21 At the pre-trial conference on February 29, 2012, only the counsel for the intervenor appeared. 22 The pre-trial was reset on March 21 and April 11, 2012. On the scheduled pre-trial on March 21, 2012, respondent Celayo's representative and its counsel and intervenor Juanita Manlapaz and her counsel, appeared. Atty. Jojo C. Cruzat (from the Office of the Solicitor General), petitioner's counsel, failed to appear despite notice. On motion of both counsels, the RTC dismissed the case pursuant to Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 23
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied by the RTC in its Order 24 dated January 2, 2013. Hence, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the CA. 25
On February 19, 2014, the CA rendered a Decision 26 denying the petition and affirming the Orders of the RTC dismissing petitioner's complaint for reversion and/or cancellation of title. 27 The CA ruled that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy in filing a petition for certiorari. Petitioner could have availed of the remedy of ordinary appeal but it failed to do so through its own fault. Even assuming that petitioner availed of the proper remedy, the CA held that the RTC dismissed petitioner's complaint in accordance with the law, jurisprudence and the facts on record. The justification offered by petitioner for its failure to appear during the scheduled pre-trial does not constitute excusable negligence, i.e., failure to calendar the scheduled setting of the pre-trial hearings, and failure of its counsel to transfer to his notes the scheduled hearing due to heavy work pressure. The CA deemed the foregoing circumstances insufficient to justify petitioner and its counsel's non-appearance at the scheduled pre-trial hearing. 28 Also, the CA noted that petitioner failed to file its pre-trial brief at least three days before the date of the pre-trial. Petitioner filed its pre-trial brief four months after the RTC issued its notice directing the parties to filed their respective pre-trial briefs. 29
Lastly, the CA stated that petitioner has no direct interest involved in the Celayo case considering that the government had already conveyed the subject land to private individuals. Hence, these private claimants should recover the subject properties from Celayo since it is a private matter between them. 30
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied in the Resolution 31 dated November 24, 2014.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed petitioner anchored on a lone issue:
WHETHER OR NOT THE AFFIRMANCE OF THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDERS DATED MARCH 31, 2012 DISMISSING PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT FOR REVERSION FOR ITS FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE PRE-TRIAL AND THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED JANUARY 2, 2013 WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 1997 RULES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE AND APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE. 32
Petitioner argues that a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy since the RTC's act of dismissing the complaint constituted grave abuse of discretion. While it submits that the remedy is ordinary appeal, there are certain recognized exceptions like when the dismissal is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner went on to justify the absence of its counsel on the schedule pre-trial. 33 It likewise claims that the subject matter of the case is a matter of public importance as it involves the warranty of the state over parcels of land it had conveyed to private individuals. The dismissal of the complaint is a serious blow to the government's effort to correct the present state of impunity of various persons who claim title to the land on the basis of certificate which are of dubious origins. 34
In its Comment, 35 respondent the City Government of Valenzuela avers that the petition has no basis both on technical and substantial aspects of the case. Petitioner repeatedly failed to attend the pre-trial hearings which led to the dismissal of the case. Further, it points out that the case has long attained finality when petitioner filed certiorari instead of appeal. Hence, the RTC Orders are now final and any action related to the reversion case is now barred by res judicata.
Respondent Celayo, in its Comment, 36 contends that the dismissal of the case by the RTC was not tainted with abuse of discretion much less contrary to the Rules of Court or any rules for that matter. Petitioner's repeated failure to attend the pre-trial conference and to file the pre-trial brief are grounds for the dismissal of the case. Moreover, petitioner did not avail the correct remedy allowed by the rules. Respondent Celayo likewise avers that the City Government of Valenzuela has initiated expropriation proceedings involving the subject property as a site for the Valenzuela City Central and People's Park. The RTC had rendered a decision allowing the expropriation and ordering the City Government of Valenzuela to pay just compensation to respondent Celayo at P18,000.00 per square meter. 37
In its Consolidated Reply, 38 petitioner asserts that the subject matter of this case is of public importance as it involves a huge parcel of land that was sold by the government to private individuals. However, the Final Deed of Conveyance could not be transmitted to the Register of Deeds concerned because of the anomalous issuance of spurious certificates of title covering the subject property. Since the government is the vendor, it is its duty to comply with its warranty. Otherwise, the government will find itself open to suits to enforce the warranty of the lands it had lawfully conveyed but which were illegally titled by different persons other than the lawful vendee. 39
In addition, petitioner claims that the RTC should not have precipitately dismissed the case considering that the absences of petitioner's counsel were neither intentional nor intended to delay the disposition of the case. Petitioner's counsel has not been remiss in prosecuting the case except for his consecutive absences for the two (2) scheduled pre-trial which were brought about by inadvertence. Petitioner's counsel failed to calendar the scheduled hearings of the case because of heavy pressure of work. Aside from his regular case load, he is likewise an active member of the Department of Public Works and Highways, Bureau of Customs and Department of Environment and Natural Resources Task Forces all of which refer cases to him. It was never the intention of petitioner's counsel to delay the disposition of the case or in any way defy the order of the trial court. 40
Ruling of the Court
The petition is granted.
The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner for being a wrong remedy; an ordinary appeal being the proper remedy. While appeal is the proper remedy to assail the RTC's dismissal of petitioner's complaint for its failure to attend the pre-trial conference, the Court has allowed the filing of a petition for certiorari despite the existence of an appeal or other appropriate remedy in several instances, including when the court a quo acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed order. 41 In filing the petition for certiorari before the CA, petitioner explicitly pointed out the grave abuse of discretion committed by the RTC in dismissing its complaint. However, the CA found no merit in petitioner's assertions, stating that the RTC dismissed the complaint in accordance with Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.
The failure of a party to appear at the pre-trial has adverse consequences. If the absent party is the plaintiff, then he may be declared non-suited and his case dismissed. If it is the defendant who fails to appear, then the plaintiff may be allowed to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof. 42 In certain instances, however, the non-appearance of a party may be excused if a valid cause is shown. 43 What constitutes a valid ground to excuse litigants and their counsels at the pre-trial is subject to the sound discretion of a judge. Unless and until a clear and manifest abuse of discretion is committed by the judge, his appreciation of a party's reasons for his nonappearance will not be disturbed. 44
Petitioner's counsel explained that it failed to appear at the pre-trial on March 21, 2012 for he was unable to transfer his notes of the scheduled hearings on his calendar of hearings due to heavy work pressure. Such is not a valid or reasonable excuse to justify his absence. As observed by the CA, petitioner's counsel was present during the January 25, 2012 hearing wherein the pre-trial conference of the case was reset to February 29, 2012 and March 21, 2012. Hence, petitioner's counsel was personally notified in open court of the re-settings. Moreover, petitioner did not even offer any justification as to its belated filing of the pre-trial brief, which was filed four (4) months after the RTC issued its notice directing the parties to file their respective pre-trial briefs. Petitioner skirted this issue and was not mentioned at all in this petition.
While the RTC properly dismissed the complaint pursuant to Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, the Court deems it just and proper to reinstate petitioner's complaint for reversion and/or cancellation of title, setting aside procedural technicality, in the broader interest of substantial justice.
In the Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Dando, 45 the Court cited reasons that may provide a justification for a court to suspend a strict adherence to procedural rules, namely: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) the fact that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. 46
As vigorously professed by petitioner, the subject matter of the case is one of public importance since it involves the state's warranty over parcels of land which it had conveyed to private individuals. It involves a huge parcel of land which the government had sold to private individuals in 1931. The Final Deed of Conveyance could not, however, be transmitted to the Register of Deeds due to the anomalous issuance of spurious certificates of titles to unscrupulous persons. Indeed, the dismissal of this case will deprive the government of its right to establish its cause for the reversion of a big parcel of land which was allegedly illegally acquired and titled by respondents.
When a rigid application of the rules tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, this Court is empowered to suspend their operation. The Court is of the view that the ends of justice will be better served if this case is determined on the merits, after full opportunity is given to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. 47 As held by this Court:
x x x It is far better to dispose of the case on the merits, which is a primordial end, rather than on a technicality that may result in injustice. While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully observed, courts should not be too strict with procedural lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice. The rules are intended to ensure the proper and orderly conduct of litigation because of the higher objective they seek, which is the attainment of justice and the protection of substantive rights of the parties. 48
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 19, 2014 and the Resolution dated November 24, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 130812 are SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 171, is hereby DIRECTED to REINSTATE Civil Case No. 5-V-10 and conduct further proceedings. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-33.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court) and Pedro B. Corales; id. at 41-56.
3.Id. at 57-59.
4.Id. at 60-71.
5.Id. at 62.
6.Id. at 62.
7.Id. at 63.
8.Id. at 65.
9.Id. at 63-64.
10.Id. at 65-67.
11.Id. at 73-85.
12.Id. at 73.
13.Id. at 86-96.
14.Id. at 68-69.
15.Id. at 17.
16.Id. at 42.
17.Id. at 120-121.
18.Id.
19.Id. at 125.
20.Id. at 126.
21.Id. at 127.
22.Id. at 128.
23.Id. at 129.
24.Id. at 130-132.
25.Id. at 20.
26.Supra note 2.
27.Rollo, p. 56.
28.Id. at 50-53.
29.Id. at 54-55.
30.Id. at 54-55.
31.Id. at 57-59.
32.Id. at 20.
33.Id. at 21-23.
34.Id. at 30.
35.Id. at 138.
36.Id. at 146-150.
37.Id. at 147-148.
38.Id. at 202-212.
39.Id. at 204-205.
40.Id. at 207-208.
41.Manungas v. Loreto, 671 Phil. 495, 505 (2011), citing Republic v. Coalbrine International Philippines, Inc., 631 Phil. 487 (2010).
42. Section 5. Effect of failure to appear. — The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.
43. Section 4. Appearance of parties. — It shall be the duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial. The non-appearance of a party may be excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor or if a representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents.
44.Daaco v. Yu, 761 Phil. 161, 168 (2015).
45. 614 Phil. 553 (2009).
46.Id. at 563.
47.Tiangco v. Land Bank of the Phils., 646 Phil. 554, 568 (2010).
48.Id., citing Heirs of Victoriana Villagracia v. Equitable Banking Corporation, 573 Phil. 212 (2008).