THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227180. March 21, 2018.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. MYRNA C. RUMBINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 21, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 227180 (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MYRNA C. RUMBINES, Respondent.) — This appeal seeks the review and reversal of the decision promulgated on August 31, 2016, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the order issued in Cad. Case No. 09-0902-A on August 12, 2010 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10, in San Jose, Antique granting the petition for the cancellation of Decree No. 453165 covering Lot No. 4638 of the San Jose, Antique Cadastre, and for the issuance of a new decree covering the lot. 2
On May 18, 2006, respondent Myrna C. Rumbines (Rumbines) purchased 3 in a public auction a tax delinquent real property with an area of 707 square meters declared in the name of Agustin Cabinbin under Tax Declaration No. 2000-2006 and adjudicated to Juliana Magbanua as Cadastral Lot No. 4638 in the decision dated March 27, 1930 in Cadastral Case No. 13 per GLRO Record No. 994. 4 Although the Register of Deeds of Antique had no record of any original certificate of title (OCT) issued for Lot 4638, 5 the Land Registration Authority (LRA) certified 6 that Decree No. 453165 had been issued on September 11, 1931 covering Lot 4638 pursuant to the cadastral decision of March 27, 1930; and that the copy of Decree No. 453165 was presumed to have been lost or destroyed during the Second World War. 7
In order to have Lot 4638 registered in her name in the absence of the OCT, the respondent filed in the RTC her petition for the cancellation and re-issuance of Decree No. 453165, and for the issuance of the OCT pursuant to the re-issued decree covering Lot No. 4638. 8 The petition was docketed as RTC CAD Case No. 09-0902-A. The respondent as the petitioner thereat identified and presented documents in support of her petition in an ex-parte hearing.
In the order dated August 12, 2010, 9 the RTC granted the respondent's petition and directed the Land Registration Authority to cancel Decree No. 453165 and to issue a new decree for Lot No. 4638 of the San Jose, Antique, Cadastre in the name of Juliana Magbanua and thereafter issue the corresponding certificate of title for Lot No. 4638.
Disagreeing with the order, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed to the CA.
In the assailed decision of August 31, 2016, 10 the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the order dated August 12, 2010.
Hence, this appeal by the Republic, through the OSG.
The OSG claims that the proceedings in the RTC were tainted with serious irregularities, including the following, namely: (1) it was not notified of the scheduled reception of respondent's evidence; (2) it was not required to submit its opposition and responsive pleading to all of respondent's submissions; (3) the reception of evidence for the respondent was conducted ex-parte before the Clerk of Court of the RTC, and without the participation of the State's deputized counsel; and (4) the respondent did not furnish the OSG as the statutory counsel of the Republic any copy of her formal offer of evidence, thereby depriving the OSG of the opportunity to oppose the admission of the respondent's documentary exhibits.
Ruling of the Court
The OSG argues that the ex parte hearing conducted without its deputized counsel, and the RTC's failure to serve copies of court notices to it amounted to the denial of due process.
We do not agree.
Due process as a constitutional precept does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. 11 The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. 12 Accordingly, the filing by the OSG of its notice of appearance 13 and of the authority deputizing the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Antique to represent the Republic in the case 14 indicated receipt by OSG of the petition.
The records show that the OSG received the RTC's notice of hearing dated October 28, 2009 15 requiring any person having any objection to the petition to show cause why the petition should not be granted. The representative of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Antique appeared during the presentation of the jurisdictional requirements, and interposed no objection to the petition as well as to all documents marked by the respondent, including the March 27, 1930 Cadastral decision. 16 The representative also appeared during the presentation of evidence ex parte before the Branch Clerk of Court. 17 Under the circumstances, the OSG cannot validly argue having been deprived of due process considering that it was afforded all the opportunity to actively participate in the proceedings and to oppose the petition and any evidence presented in support of the petition. In view of the failure of the OSG or its deputized counsel to oppose the petition and the motion to present its evidence ex parte, it cannot now complain about the proceedings being procedurally defective. 18 We emphasize that what the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be heard. 19
The OSG contends that the presentation of the March 27, 1930 cadastral decision written in Spanish without the accompanying English or Filipino translation rendered the decision inadmissible in evidence pursuant to Section 33, 20 Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which provides that documents written in an unofficial language would not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied by a translation into English or Filipino.
The contention lacks basis. Section 33, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court only requires the English or Filipino translation whenever the document offered in evidence is written in an unofficial language. It is indubitable, however, that Spanish was an official language at the time of the rendition of the March 27, 1930 decision. In this regard, we review the evolution of Philippine official languages starting in 1899, when the First Constitution was written. It is notable that said constitution did not make any reference to an official language for the Philippines. Article 93 21 thereof provided that Spanish could be used for acts of public authority and the courts. Thereafter, the 1935 Constitution directed Congress to take steps towards the development and adoption of a common national language based on one of the existing native languages. Although the common national language was being determined, both Spanish and English were used as official languages. 22 It was only under the 1973 Constitution that English and Pilipino became referred to as official languages. 23 With the March 27, 1930 cadastral decision being written in Spanish when it was an official language of the Philippines, it was admissible in evidence even without the accompanying translation thereof in English or Filipino. The CA correctly observed that the admissibility of the March 27, 1930 cadastral decision was bolstered by the uncontested fact that an original copy thereof was on file with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and a certified true copy thereof was presented by the respondent in court. aScITE
A cadastral decision is issued pursuant to Cadastral Act No. 2259, the law that requires that titles to any lands be settled and adjudicated. Our following pronouncement in Government of the Philippine Islands v. Abural24 is instructive on the judicial act involved in the issuance of a cadastral decision and the ensuing ministerial act of issuing a cadastral decree and land registration decree, to wit:
x x x The proceedings are initiated by a notice of survey. When the lands have been surveyed and plotted, the Director of Lands, represented by the Attorney General, files a petition in court praying that the titles to the lands named be settled and adjudicated. Notice of the filing of the petition is then published twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette in both the English and Spanish languages. All persons interested are given the benefit of assistance by competent officials and are informed of their rights. A trial is had. All conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by the court and decrees awarded in favor of the persons entitled to the lands or the various parts thereof, and such decrees, when final, shall be the bases of original certificates of title in favor of said persons. (Act No. 2259, Sec. 11.) Aside from this, the commotion caused by the survey and a trial affecting ordinarily many people, together with the presence of strangers in the community, should serve to put all those affected on their guard.
After trial in a cadastral case, three actions are taken. The first adjudicates ownership in favor of one of the claimants. This constitutes the decision — the judgment — the decree of the court, and speaks in a judicial manner. The second action is the declaration by the court that the decree is final and its order for the issuance of the certificates of title by the Chief of the Land Registration Office. Such order is made if within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the decision no appeal is taken from the decision. This again is judicial action, although to a less degree than the first.
The third and last action devolves upon the General Land Registration Office. This office has been instituted for the due effectuation and accomplishment of the laws relative to the registration of land. (Administrative Code of 1917, Sec. 174.) An official found in the office, known as the chief surveyor, has as one of his duties to prepare final decrees in all adjudicated cases. (Administrative Code of 1917, Sec. 177.) This latter decree contains the technical description of the land and may not be issued until a considerable time after the promulgation of the judgment. The form of the decree used by the General Land Registration Office concludes with the words: Witness, the Honorable (name of the judge), on this the (date). The date that is used as authority for the issuance of the decree is the date when, after hearing the evidence, the trial court decreed the adjudication and registration of the land.
The judgment in a cadastral survey, including the rendition of the decree, is a judicial act. As the law says, the judicial decree when final is the base of the certificate of title. The issuance of the decree by the Land Registration Office is ministerial act."
The respondent established that Decree No. 453165 was issued pursuant to a cadastral decision adjudicating Lot No. 4638 to Juliana Magbanua; and that there was no competent evidence showing that a decree had been issued in due course by the Land Registration Authority pursuant to said cadastral decision. In Republic v. Heirs of Spouses Donato Sanchez and Juana Meneses, 25 we held that when there is no clear and convincing proof that a decree was ministerially issued by the Land Registration Authority, the valid and intact decree had to be cancelled and re-issued because under Section 39 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 the OCT "shall be a true copy of the decree of registration." Hence, if the old decree would not be canceled and no new decree issued, the corresponding OCT issued today should bear the signature of the present Administrator while the decree upon which it was based shall bear the signature of the past Administrator. This is not consistent with the clear intention of the law which states that the OCT shall be true copy of the decree of registration. Ostensibly, therefore, the cancellation of the old decree and the issuance of a new one are necessary.
It is clear that the CA did not commit any reversible error in affirming the RTC's decision and in granting the respondent's petition for cancellation of Decree No. 453165, the issuance of the new decree, and the issuance of the OCT pursuant to the re-issued decree covering Lot No. 4638 of the San Jose Cadastre.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; and AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on August 31, 2016, without pronouncement on costs of suit. (Leonen, J., on official leave.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 29-37; penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol.
2.Id. at 38-42; penned by Judge Sylvia G. Jurao.
3.Id. at 63.
4.Id. at 55-61.
5.Id. at 81.
6.Id. at 82.
7.Id. at 41.
8.Id. at 49-54.
9.Supra, note 2.
10.Supra, note 1.
11.Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013, 709 SCRA 276, 282; citing Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166280, December 27, 2007, 541 SCRA 444, 451.
12.Esperida v. Jurado, G.R. No. 172538, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 66, 74; citing Mutuc v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 48108, September 26, 1990, 190 SCRA 43, 49.
13.Rollo, p. 40.
14.Id. at 41.
15.Id. at 35.
16.Id. at 39.
17.Id. at 41.
18. Republic v. Mercadera, G.R. No. 186027, December 8, 2010, 637 SCRA 654, 671.
19. Astillero v. Casimiro, G.R. No. 190569, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 357, 371.
20. Sec. 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. — Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. (34 a)
21. Article 93. The use of languages spoken in the Philippine shall be optional. Their use cannot be regulated except by virtue of law, and solely for acts of public authority and in the courts. For these acts the Spanish language may be used in the meantime.
22. Article 14, Section 3 of the 1935 Constitution. Section 3. The Congress shall take steps toward the development and adoption of a common national language based on one of the existing native languages. Until otherwise provided by law, English and Spanish shall continue as official languages.
23. Section 3, Article 15 of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, provides:
Section 3.
1. This Constitution shall be officially promulgated in English and in Pilipino, and translated into each dialect spoken by over fifty thousand people, and into Spanish and Arabic. In case of conflict, the English text shall prevail.
2. The National Assembly shall take steps towards the development and formal adoption of a common national language to be known as Filipino.
3. Until otherwise provided by law, English and Pilipino shall be the official languages.
24. 39 Phil. 996, 1001-1002 (1919).
25. G.R. No. 212388, December 10, 2014, 744 SCRA 700, 704-707.