Ong v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns cadastral proceedings for Lots Nos. 1146 and 2585 in the Iligan Cadastre. Initially, only Silvestre Openiano and Jose E. Ong filed answers, each claiming exclusive ownership. An order of general default was issued against all other potential claimants. Subsequently, the courthouse burned, necessitating the reconstitution of filed answers. Openiano sold the disputed lots to Escolastica Paguio, who registered the sale and took possession, constructing a P70,000 school building. Despite Ong's knowledge of Paguio's possession and improvements, he did not dispute it. 2. Procedural History: Following the fire, Openiano reconstituted his answer without informing the Paguios. The cadastral case proceeded between Ong and Openiano, resulting in a June 22, 1967 decision by the Court of First Instance favoring Ong, subject to a P5,900 payment to Openiano. An order for decree of registration in Ong's favor was issued, followed by a writ of possession. When the sheriff attempted to eject the Paguios, they refused, asserting they were not parties to the case. On December 18, 1967, the Paguios filed a petition for relief from judgment. The cadastral court, through Judge Teodulo C. Tandayag, set aside the June 22, 1967 judgment and ordered a retrial, which was later denied reconsideration. This led to Jose E. Ong's petition to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Jose E. Ong filed a petition for certiorari, seeking to reinstate the June 22, 1967 judgment and have it declared final. He argued that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction in setting aside the final judgment and ordering a retrial. Ong contended that the Paguios, as transferees pendente lite, were not indispensable parties whose failure to intervene constituted excusable negligence, and that the trial court considered grounds not raised in the petition for relief. He also argued that the Paguios were not innocent purchasers and could not claim a better title than their transferor. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petition, finding the Paguios' petition for relief to be in order given the circumstances and that the trial judge acted within his jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the final cadastral judgment and ordering a retrial. Whether the Paguio spouses, as transferees pendente lite, were indispensable parties whose failure to intervene constituted excusable negligence for the allowance of their petition for relief. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court's order allowing the petition for relief by considering grounds not asserted in the petition. Whether the Paguio spouses were innocent purchasers in good faith despite knowledge of the pending cadastral litigation. Whether the Paguio spouses, as transferees pendente lite, could claim a better title than their transferor. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the Paguio spouses to file a cadastral answer almost twelve years after the case was instituted.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the propriety of the petition for relief: The respondent judge acted within his jurisdiction in entertaining the petition for relief from judgment filed by the Paguios. The petition for relief was filed within sixty (60) days from the time the petitioners learned of the decision and not more than six months after its promulgation. The affidavit accompanying the petition alleged that Escolastica Paguio was the owner, acquired in good faith, was unable to intervene due to the burning of records and Openiano's failure to notify her of the reconstitution, and that she had a good claim and had made valuable improvements. The respondent judge, after receiving evidence, correctly set aside the judgment and ordered a retrial, preventing the Paguios from being deprived of their opportunity to defend themselves without fault on their part. On the status of the Paguios as indispensable parties and transferees pendente lite: It cannot be denied that Openiano reconstituted his answer without informing the Paguios, thus preventing them from substituting themselves as claimants, appearing in court, intervening, or appealing. Therefore, the filing of a petition for relief was in order. The court retains control over proceedings prior to the issuance of a decree of registration. The Paguios, as transferees pendente lite, were indeed indispensable parties. Their failure to intervene was due to Openiano's actions and their own lack of knowledge, which could be considered excusable negligence, justifying the allowance of the petition for relief. On the grounds for the petition for relief and the comparison to Elvinia vs. Filamor: The respondent court did not err in sustaining the trial court's order. The petition for relief, supported by an affidavit and evidence, established grounds for setting aside the judgment. The case of Elvinia vs. Filamor (56 Phil. 305) is applicable, holding that a person not originally a party may be allowed to avail of a petition for relief in land registration cases, and that an order of default and judgment may be set aside even after thirty days if filed within six months due to fraud, surprise, or excusable negligence, and before the decree of registration is issued. On the Paguios' status as innocent purchasers in good faith: The contention that the Paguios were not innocent buyers is unmeritorious. They immediately took possession and introduced improvements. Petitioner Ong never protested. The Paguios transferred the tax declaration and registered the sale. While they did not file an answer at the commencement of proceedings, they could not have done so as they had not yet purchased the lots. Their possession, along with their predecessors, covered more than forty years, which was continuous, open, public, peaceful, and adverse. On the claim of transferees pendente lite possessing a lesser title: The Paguios, as transferees pendente lite, were allowed to file their answer and participate in the proceedings. This was justified by the circumstances, including the failure of Openiano to notify them and the subsequent setting aside of the default judgment. The court's discretion to allow them to defend their acquired rights was exercised properly, especially considering the improvements made and the long period of possession. On the issue of allowing the Paguio spouses to file a cadastral answer late: The Paguios, as transferees pendente lite, were allowed to file their answer and participate in the proceedings. This was justified by the circumstances, including the failure of Openiano to notify them and the subsequent setting aside of the default judgment. The court's discretion to allow them to defend their acquired rights was exercised properly, especially considering the improvements made and the long period of possession.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief from judgment is a proper remedy to set aside a cadastral judgment, even after it has become final, when the petitioner, who is an indispensable party and a transferee pendente lite, was deprived of due process due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, provided the petition is filed within the reglementary periods and before the decree of registration is issued.