SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242936. June 10, 2019.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES [DENR], petitioner, vs.MARIA VIRGINIA JAYME, REPRESENTED BY JESUS A. JAYME, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242936 — Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources [DENR] versus Maria Virginia Jayme, represented by Jesus A. Jayme, Jr.
The instant Petition and the application for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) should be denied.
In its Petition, petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic) argues that it has legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation. However, this is not the only consideration for allowing a party to intervene in a proceeding. As stated in the Rules of Court and as correctly emphasized in the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision, 1 in deciding whether a party may intervene, the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. 2 Hence, even assuming that the petitioner has legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation, this does not mean that the intervention should automatically be allowed. HTcADC
Here, the judgment has already been rendered in favor of respondent Maria Virginia Jayme (Maria) and this had already become final. Verily, allowing the Republic to intervene at this juncture will only prolong the execution of the judgment and unduly prejudice the rights of the prevailing party.
Further, as correctly pointed out by the CA, the Republic's alleged ownership and title over the disputed portion of the lot can be determined in a separate proceeding, especially considering that there is already a pending case filed by the Republic against several people, including Jesus A. Jayme, Jr., for Cancellation of Certificates of Title and Reversion. It must be emphasized that this is an accion publiciana case which aims to resolve the issue of possession independently of title. Indeed, there is no justifiable reason why the Republic should be allowed to intervene in this case or to further prevent the execution of the November 18, 2008 RTC Decision 3 in favor of Maria.
In light of the foregoing, the CA did not commit any reversible error in affirming the RTC's orders denying the Republic's motions to intervene and to defer execution of judgment. The instant Petition and application for the issuance of a TRO and WPI are DENIED for lack of merit. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Decision dated October 18, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 144459, penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig; rollo, pp. 54-65.
2. See rollo, p. 58, citing RULES OF COURT, Rule 19, Sec. 1.
3. See Decision dated November 18, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80 in Civil Case No. Q-99-39411, penned by Presiding Judge Charito B. Gonzales, id. at 153-158.