SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198551. November 28, 2018.]
SPOUSES JOSE O. IGNACIO AND NATIVIDAD IGNACIO, petitioners, vs.THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 November 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 198551 (Spouses Jose O. Ignacio and Natividad Ignacio vs. The Land Registration Authority, et al.). — Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the May 13, 2011 Decision 1 and the September 8, 2011 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 114252. The challenged rulings affirmed the May 5, 2009 Order 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 108 of Pasay City dismissing the action for mandamus, prohibition and injunction filed by the petitioner against herein respondents.
The Facts
Jose O. Ignacio (petitioner) is the registered owner of a parcel of land with an area of 16,451 square meters, situated in Pasay City, Metro Manila, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 135476 issued on October 20, 1995 (the subject property). 4
The subject property was acquired by petitioner by way of a deed of absolute sale dated October 18, 1995 from one Vicente Ong Keng Liong (Ong Keng Liong). 5
Records reveal that, on October 23, 1989, 6 Ong Keng Liong purchased the subject property from Alberto Q. Tabujara who acquired the same on February 7, 1976 from its previous registered owner, Elfren Delos Santos, Sr. 7
After an investigation conducted by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) Task Force Titulong Malinis (LRA-TFTM), it was discovered that the issuance of TCT No. 19372 in the name of Elfren Delos Santos, Sr. was dubious. The Task Force declared that the property covered therein included portions of OCT No. 291, the entire area of which is a property of the State. Thus, the LRA-TFTM recommended the institution of annulment and cancellation of TCT No. 19372 and its derivative titles, including TCT No. 135476 registered under petitioner's name. 8
On May 10, 2000, the Register of Deeds of Pasay City, upon the recommendation of LRA-TFTM, surrendered to the LRA the original copy of TCT No. 135476 for purposes of initiating possible nullification proceedings against the said title. CAIHTE
On December 4, 2007, petitioner sent a demand letter to the LRA Administrator demanding the return of TCT No. 135476 to the Office of the Register of Deeds of Pasay City, otherwise, an administrative or judicial action will be filed.
On February 19, 2008, due to the failure of the LRA to heed petitioner's demand, the latter filed a petition for mandamus before the RTC of Pasay City to compel the LRA to restore the original copy of TCT No. 135476 to the Register of Deeds of Pasay City and for the removal of adverse annotations, if any.
Meanwhile, on January 21, 2008, the LRA returned TCT No. 135476 to the Register of Deeds of Pasay City and instructed the Registrar of Deeds to: (1) elevate any transaction involving the subject title to en consulta proceedings with the LRA; and (2) inscribe on the certified true copy of the title that will be subsequently issued upon request of any party, a cautionary note that said title was found to be questionable by the LRA-TFTM.
The petition was thus amended on April 28, 2008 to include reliefs of prohibition and injunction seeking to prohibit and enjoin respondents from annotating any cautionary note on TCT No. 135476 or further subjecting the validity of the said TCT to en consulta proceedings or any other adverse action.
On the other hand, on November 11, 2008, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed before the RTC of Pasay City a complaint for annulment and cancellation of TCT Nos. 19372, 135476, and all other derivative TCTs that may have been issued in lieu thereof. 9
RTC Ruling
On May 5, 2009, the RTC issued an Order 10 dismissing the petition. It ruled that the prayer for a writ of mandamus is moot and academic due to the transmittal of the LRA Administrator of TCT No. 135476 to the Office of the Register of Deeds of Pasay City. 11 As regards the other reliefs prayed for by petitioner, the same were likewise dismissed by the trial court giving credence to the administrative and discretionary functions of the LRA-TFTM. 12
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed before the CA maintaining that he is entitled to the reliefs of prohibition and injunction to protect his right as a bona fide holder of title for value from any indirect attack on his registered title or any derogation thereof. He also claimed that the State is already barred by laches due its failure, for an unreasonable length of time, to institute the required judicial proceedings for cancellation of his title to the subject property. 13
Furthermore, petitioner argued that respondents are guilty of forum-shopping when it filed the complaint for annulment and cancellation of TCT Nos. 19372, 135476, and all other derivative titles thereto despite the pendency of his petition for mandamus, prohibition and injunction. 14
CA Ruling
In its May 13, 2011 Decision, 15 the CA upheld the RTC's finding that there exists no ground for the issuance of the writs of prohibition and injunction. The LRA's instruction to the Registrar of Deeds of Pasay City to inscribe a cautionary note in petitioner's title or to elevate any transaction involving the subject property to en consulta proceedings with the LRA will not result to an injurious consequence which necessitates the court to issue prohibition or injunction. The CA stressed that such action on the part of the LRA is necessary to protect the public when negotiating with the subject property. 16
The CA further ruled that neither prescription nor laches runs against the State 17 and that respondents are not guilty of forum shopping since the petition for mandamus, prohibition and injunction and the case for cancellation of TCTs do not constitute litis pendencia nor res judicata in the other. The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Order appealed from is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 18 DETACa
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its September 8, 2011 Resolution. 19 Thus, he filed the instant petition raising the same arguments he had before the CA.
The Issue
The principal issue before this Court is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC's ruling denying the petition for prohibition and injunction.
The Court's Ruling
We deny the petition.
Petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs
Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court lays down under what circumstances a petition for prohibition may be filed, viz.:
SECTION 2. Petition for prohibition. — When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
For a party to be entitled to a writ of prohibition, he must establish the following requisites: (1) it must be directed against a tribunal, corporation, board or person exercising functions, judicial or ministerial; (2) the tribunal, corporation, board or person has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion; and (3) there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 20
On the other hand, an injunctive writ may be issued when the following requisites are established, to wit: (1) the invasion of the right is material and substantial; (2) the right of complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (3) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. An injunctive remedy may only be resorted to when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. 21
In the instant case, none of the foregoing requisites are present to entitle petitioner to avail of the relief of prohibition or injunction.
It must be noted that the LRA-TFTM's investigation yielded that TCT No. 19372 from which petitioner's title was sourced was allegedly spurious. Considering this circumstance, it is therefore necessary for the LRA to take the appropriate precautionary measure for the purpose of protecting the public from negotiating with the subject property. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion can be ascribed to the LRA when it directed the Registrar of Deeds of Pasay City to inscribe a cautionary note on petitioner's title or to elevate any transaction involving the same to en consulta proceedings with the LRA. Such measure, while may be deemed by petitioner as unfavorable to his interest, does not necessarily mean that it was issued with grave abuse of discretion, especially so when the facts and circumstances surrounding the issuance of TCT No. 19372 and its derivative titles were found to be dubious.
Furthermore, We uphold the CA's finding that the LRA's instruction to the Registrar of Deeds of Pasay City will not cause irreparable damage or injury to petitioner as to entitle him to the reliefs sought for. It must be stressed that his fear of being deprived of his rights as a registered owner of the subject property, should a cautionary note be inscribed on his title or any transaction involving the same be elevated to the LRA en consulta, is more imagined than real.
The LRA's directive will not result to an injurious consequence which necessitates the court to issue prohibition or injunction. 22 As correctly ruled by the CA, pending the court's ruling as to the real status of petitioner's title, the instruction of the LRA must remain. aDSIHc
Laches does not apply in the instant
Petitioner argues that the State's claim over the subject property is already barred by laches for its gross failure to institute any adverse judicial proceedings to assail the validity of TCT No. 135476 for over ten (10) years from the confiscation of his title.
We disagree.
Basic is the principle that prescription and laches will not bar actions filed by the State to recover its property acquired fraudulently by private individuals. 23 When the government is the real party in interest, and is proceeding mainly to assert its own rights and recover its own property, there can be no defense on the ground of laches or limitation. 24
In Republic vs. Heirs of Felipe Alejaga, Sr., 25 the Court held that the indefeasibility of a title cannot bar the State from investigating the manner by which the title was secured, viz.:
Further, this indefeasibility cannot be a bar to an investigation by the State as to how the title has been acquired, if the purpose of the investigation is to determine whether fraud has in fact been committed in securing the title.
In the case before us, the indefeasibility of a certificate of title cannot be invoked by the Alejagas, whose forebear obtained the title by means of fraud. Public policy demands that those who have done so should not be allowed to benefit from their misdeed. Thus, prescription and laches will not bar actions filed by the State to recover its own property acquired through fraud by private individuals. This is settled law. 26
Consequently, the Republic may not be prevented from instituting the appropriate action for the cancellation of TCT No. 135467 and its derivative titles.
Respondents did not commit forum
Equally unmeritorious is petitioner's argument that respondents engaged in forum shopping for filing the complaint for annulment and cancellation of title during the pendency of his petition for mandamus, prohibition and injunction.
As the CA aptly cited, forum shopping exists when two or more actions involve the same transactions, essential facts, and circumstances; and raise identical causes of actions, subject matter, and issues. 27 Still another test of forum-shopping is when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another — whether in the two or more pending cases, there is an identity of (a) parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interest in both actions; (b) rights or causes of actions; and (c) reliefs sought. 28
A comparison of the two cases would show that they seek different reliefs. In the petition for mandamus, prohibition and injunction, petitioner seeks to compel the LRA to return the original copy of TCT No. 135476 and to prohibit it or the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City from annotating any cautionary note on the subject TCT or certified true copies that may be subsequently issued. On the other hand, in LRC Case No. R-PSY-08-08381-CV, the Republic seeks the cancellation of several TCTs including TCT No. 135476 in the name of petitioner.
Likewise, the causes of actions are not identical in both cases. In the petition for mandamus, prohibition and injunction, the primary issues pertain to the proper repository of TCT No. 135476 and the propriety of the annotation of any cautionary note in the said TCT or its certified true copies. This is different from the issue in LRC Case No. R-PSY-08-08381-CV, which seeks to cancel petitioner's title given that it was sourced from a spurious title, TCT No. 19372. ETHIDa
Thus, needless to state, the two cases involve two different and distinct issues so that a ruling in either one will not affect the other. Clearly, there is no forum shopping.
Verily, this Court sees no reason to overturn the factual findings and the ruling of the CA.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 13, 2011 and the Resolution dated September 8, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114252 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Perlas-Bernabe,J., on wellness leave; Reyes, J., Jr., J., designated as additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by now Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza with Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Edwin D. Sorongon concurring; rollo, pp. 52-66.
2.Id. at 68-69.
3. Not attached to the petition.
4.Rollo, 159-160.
5.Id. at 161-163.
6.Id. at 164-165.
7.Id. at 167-168.
8.Id. at 53-55.
9. The case was docketed as LRC Case No. R-PSY-08-08381-CV, pending before the RTC Pasay City, Branch 115.
10. Not attached to the petition.
11.Rollo, p. 292.
12.Id. at 293.
13.Id. at 248.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 52-66.
16.Id. at 61.
17.Id. at 62-63.
18.Id. at 66.
19.Id. at 68-69.
20.Montes v. Court of Appeals, 523 Phil. 98, 107 (2006), and Ongsuco v. Hon. Mariano M. Malones, 619 Phil. 492, 508 (2009).
21.Almeida v. Court of Appeals, 489 Phil. 648, 662-663 (2005).
22. CA Decision, rollo, p. 61.
23.Manese v. Spouses Sulit, 597 Phil. 101, 108 (2009).
24.Republic v. Court of Appeals, 253 Phil. 698, 713 (1989).
25. 441 Phil. 656 (2002).
26.Id. at 674-675.
27.Rollo, pp. 64-65.
28.Daswani v. Banco De Oro Universal Bank, 765 Phil. 88, 99 (2015).