Augusto v. Risos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Felisa Augusto and her siblings were co-owners of a parcel of land. They executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property to Guillermo Omolon. The property was registered under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-3560 in the names of several Augustos. Guillermo Omolon died, survived by his wife, Cleofe Omolon. Procedural History: Cleofe Omolon filed a petition for reconstitution of OCT No. 4429, which was granted. Upon attempting to register, she was informed that the owner's copy was with Ruben Augusto, through Atty. Noel Archival. Cleofe then filed a petition for the surrender of the owner's copy of OCT No. 3560. Ruben Augusto and Atty. Archival alleged the Deed of Absolute Sale was falsified. Cleofe annotated an adverse claim. The RTC directed Atty. Archival to produce the owner's copy for annotation of Cleofe's interest, pending resolution of ownership. The respondents moved for reconsideration, suggesting the owner's copy be produced before the Register of Deeds. The RTC denied the motion. The respondents filed a notice of appeal, which the RTC denied due course, deeming the orders interlocutory. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in issuing the assailed orders and denying due course to their appeal, arguing the October 22, 1997 Order was final and appealable.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the October 22, 1997 Order and the December 5, 1997 Order denying due course to the appeal; and whether the October 22, 1997 Order of the RTC was a final and appealable order or an interlocutory one. On the jurisdiction of a cadastral court.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The December 5, 1997 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Lapu-Lapu City, is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature and appealability of the October 22, 1997 Order: The Supreme Court held that the order directing the production of the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 3560 for the annotation of Cleofe Omolon's interest was merely interlocutory. An interlocutory order does not finally dispose of the case, leaving matters for further determination. In contrast, a final order completely disposes of the subject matter or terminates the proceeding. The RTC had not yet ruled on Cleofe's prayer for the surrender of the owner's copy, indicating that the case was not yet concluded. The order was issued ad cautelam to protect the parties' interests pending resolution of the ownership dispute. Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an appeal may only be taken from a final order. Since the October 22, 1997 Order was determined to be interlocutory, the subsequent order denying due course to the appeal was correct. The RTC correctly perceived that the orders subject to the appeal were not final as they did not completely adjudicate the rights of the parties concerning the ownership of the property. The RTC's action was consistent with the procedural rules governing appeals. On the jurisdiction of a cadastral court: The Court clarified that under Section 2 of the Property Registration Decree (PD 1529), the jurisdiction of a Regional Trial Court sitting as a land registration or cadastral court is no longer circumscribed. It can hear and determine all questions arising from applications or petitions, including contentious and substantial issues like ownership, especially when such issues are inextricably tied to the right of registration. This is aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits. The Court cited Vda. de Arceo v. Court of Appeals and Averia, Jr. v. Caguioa to support the expanded jurisdiction of cadastral courts, which can now resolve issues previously beyond their competence, such as disputes over ownership, provided the parties have been given full opportunity to present their evidence or have acquiesced to the submission of such issues.
Main Doctrine
An order directing the production of the owner's duplicate copy of a title for annotation of an interest, pending resolution of ownership in a proper proceeding, is interlocutory and not appealable. A cadastral court, under PD 1529, has jurisdiction to pass upon contentious issues of ownership when tied to registration.