Del Rosario v. Montaña
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns Lot No. 18, Block 19, Pangarap Village, Caloocan City, part of the Tala Estate. Petitioner Fe Lumotan applied to purchase this lot in 1983 under Presidential Decree No. 293, which canceled certain sales certificates and declared the properties open for disposition to the Malacañang Homeowners Association, Inc. (MHAI). Despite a claim by respondent Virgilio Montaña's father being rejected, the lot was awarded to petitioner, and a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 120788 was issued in her name. Although not in actual possession, petitioner paid taxes on the property. In 1995, petitioner discovered respondent Montaña had constructed a house on the lot and claimed petitioner had lost her rights. Procedural History: In 1988, this Court declared Presidential Decree No. 293 unconstitutional in Tuason vs. Register of Deeds, Caloocan City. Consequently, an entry was inscribed on petitioner's TCT No. 120788, invalidating it. On January 17, 1997, petitioners Sps. Wilfredo and Fe del Rosario filed a complaint for Quieting of Title with Recovery of Possession de jure against respondents Virgilio Montaña and Generoso Carlobos. Respondents asserted ownership, claiming their father bought the property and that petitioner's title was invalidated. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 121, dismissed the complaint on February 9, 1998, ruling that petitioner's title, stemming from the unconstitutional PD 293, was void. The RTC noted that petitioner's title was canceled and that petitioners were not in actual possession, while respondents were. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the RTC's decision. They argued their title was indefeasible as its existence prior to the declaration of PD 293's nullity was an operative fact, and cited a Court of Appeals case (Aben vs. Sps. Abella) where a similar title was upheld. Respondents contended the petition was filed out of time, as it was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not the 60-day period for certiorari under Rule 65. The Supreme Court, while noting the procedural misstep and the disregard for the hierarchy of courts, opted to resolve the substantive issue due to its paramount importance: whether petitioner's title is invalidated by the declaration of PD 293's unconstitutionality.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari was timely filed and whether the proper mode of appeal was followed. Whether the Supreme Court's declaration of P.D. No. 293 as unconstitutional automatically invalidated petitioner's title. Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint for quieting of title with recovery of possession de jure.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit, and the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City (Branch 121) is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition and the proper mode of appeal: The Court ruled that the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was not the proper remedy to assail the RTC's final decision dismissing the complaint. A final order, which disposes of the entire case and leaves nothing more to be done in the lower court, should be appealed through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which has a 15-day reglementary period. The petition was filed beyond this period. The Court also noted the petitioners' disregard for the doctrine of hierarchy of courts by directly filing a Rule 65 petition with the Supreme Court, when it should have been filed with the Court of Appeals, absent special and important reasons. The Court, however, opted to resolve the substantive issue for future guidance. On the effect of P.D. No. 293's unconstitutionality on petitioner's title: The Court reiterated its ruling in Tuason vs. Register of Deeds, Caloocan City, which declared P.D. No. 293 unconstitutional and void ab initio. While the Torrens system is not a means of acquiring title but merely a system of registration, the declaration of unconstitutionality of the decree under which a title was issued has significant implications. The Court clarified that the Tuason ruling commanded the cancellation of titles and restoration of original rights, and the Register of Deeds had indeed invalidated petitioner's title based on this pronouncement. The Court emphasized that the declaration of unconstitutionality meant that the decree itself was void from the beginning, and any act done pursuant to it was likewise invalid. The Court distinguished the present case from the Aben case cited by petitioners, where the title was not canceled and the defendant admitted possession. On the dismissal of the complaint for quieting of title: The Court affirmed the RTC's dismissal of the complaint. The Court found that petitioners' title, TCT No. 120788, had been invalidated by the Register of Deeds pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Tuason. Petitioners were thus holders of a canceled title. Furthermore, while petitioners paid taxes, they were not in actual possession of the property, which was occupied by respondent Montaña. These circumstances, coupled with the invalidation of their title, worked against the petitioners and confirmed their lack of cause of action. The Court concluded that the RTC did not err in dismissing the complaint.
Main Doctrine
A title issued under a decree later declared unconstitutional is not automatically invalidated if it was acquired in good faith prior to the declaration of nullity, but its efficacy may be affected by subsequent actions such as cancellation by the Register of Deeds pursuant to the Supreme Court's ruling. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing a final order of the RTC should be filed within sixty days, and a direct resort to the Supreme Court without observance of the hierarchy of courts is generally disallowed absent compelling reasons.