Petition For Annulment of Judgment
Petition For Annulment of Judgment
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,
-versus CA-G.R. SP No. 70014
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
PASAY CITY, BRANCH 6,
NOW PRESIDED BY THE HON
ERNESTO A. REYES et. al
REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE
OF RIZAL AND REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE
OF BULACAN
,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------x
PETITION FOR ANNULMENT
OF JUDGMENT
(With Urgent Prayer for Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Writ of Preliminary Injunction)
____________________________________________________
PETITIONER REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, by counsel,
respectfully states:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
The instant case relates to the reconstitution of three (3)
fake titles, namely: OCT No. T-01-4, TCT No. T-408 and TCT
No. T-498. The alleged OCT No. T-01-4 purportedly covers
the whole archipelago and represents four (4) regions:
Luzon, Visayas, Palawan-Zamboanga embracing (Tagean)
Kalayaan and Sabah, and that Mindanao region. Further,
alleged TCT Nos. T-408 and T-498 (which are purportedly
derivative titles of alleged OCT No. T-01-4) purportedly cover
some FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (500,000) HECTARES
of land. The sheer area covered constitutes more than
conclusive evidence regarding the spurious character of said
titles.
The instant petition is being filed effectively in defense of
the integrity of the Philippines as a State since what are
ANNEX A
ANNEX
Annex
THE PARTIES
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines is a sovereign
political entity with capacity to sue. It may be served with
judicial processes through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) at 134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City.
The Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 6, now
being presided by Judge Ernesto A. Reyes, formerly Court of
First Instance, Branch 28, is the trial court which purportedly
rendered the assailed Decisions/Order sough to be annulled.
Private respondents, ANACLETQ MADRIGAL ACOPIADO,
ANACLETO MADRIGAL ACOP and JULIAN M. TALLANO,
intervenors in the case a quo, would benefit from the
implementation of the assailed Decisions/Order sought to be
annulled herein and the alleged writs and other documents
issued pursuant thereto. It must be emphasized at this point
that whether intervenors Anacleto Madrigal Acopiado and
Anacleto Madrigal Acop are one and the same person is
unclear or could not be determined with certainty from the
case records.
RELEVANT FACTS AND ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS
JURISDICTION OVER
THE PETITION DUETO
NON-COMPLIANCE
WITH THE
JURISDICTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS OF
PUBLICATION IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE AND
NOTICE TO ALL THE
OCCUPANTS OR
PERSONS IN POSSESSION
OF THE PROPERTY, THE
OWNERS OF THE
ADJOINING PROPERTIES
AND ALL OTHER
INTERESTED PARTIES.
As previously discussed, the respondent Court does not have
jurisdiction to render the assailed alleged Decisions/Order
which ordered the reconstitution of the alleged OCT No. T01- 4 and the alleged TCT Nos. 408 and 498. But even
assuming arguendo that the respondent Court had
jurisdiction to render the assailed alleged Decisions/Order,
the same would nonetheless be void because there is
absolutely no showing from the assailed alleged
Decisions/Order that there was compliance with the
jurisdictional requirements of publication of the notice of
hearing in the Official Gazette and the service of notice to all
occupants of the subject property, the adjoining owners and
other interested parties.
Sections 12 and 13 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26, provide:
Sec. 12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated
in sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2 (f) with the proper Court of First
Instance, by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person
having an interest in. the property. The petition shall state or
contain, among other things, the following:
(a) that the owner s duplicate of the certificate of title had
been lost or destroyed;
(b) that no co-owners, mortgagees or lessees duplicate
had been
issued, or, if any had been issued; the same had been lost or
destroyed;
(c) the location, area and boundaries of the property;
(d) the nature and description of the buildings or
improvements, if any, which do not belong to the owner of
PARCEL I
Las Pias 4,150 hectares
Muntinglupa 4,870 hectares
Paraaque 3,830 hectares
Pasay City 1,390 hectares
PARCEL II
Manila 3,830 hectares
Makati 2,700 hectares
Pasig 2,040 hectares
Mandaluyong 2,600 hectares
San Juan 1, 040 hectares
San Juan 1,040 hectares
Total 26,250 hectares
PARCEL III
Pateros 1,040 hectares
Taguig 3,370 hectares
Total land area in
Greater Manila Area 30,660 hectares
PARCEL IV
San Pedro, Laguna 8,250 hectares
Binan 8,550 hectares
Carmona 5,215 hectares
GMA 7,105 hectares
Silang 7,918 hectares
Imus 6,211 hectares
Naic 5,815 hectares
Noveleta 5,310 hectares
General Trias 5,800 hectares
Ternate 7,125 hectares
It is a notorious fact that the areas embraced by said alleged
OCT No. T-01-04, TCT Nos. 408 and 498 are already
covered by Torrens titles that have been subsisting in the
respective Registries of Deeds even long before or during the
alleged reconstitution preceding.
This fact can properly be taken judicial notice of under Rule
129 of the Rules of Court. The issuance of a reconstituted
title over property that is covered by an existing title is
proscribed since it constitutes a collateral attack on said
existing title. The circumstance that the action was directly
RECONSTITUTION OF THE
ALLEGED D E C I S I O N S !
ORDER, THE SAME CAN NO
LONGER BE ENFORCED 9N
ACCOUNT OF
PRESCRIPTION; HENCE THE
ASSAILED ORDERS OF THE
RESPONDENT COURT WHICH
ORDERED THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF SAID
ALLEGED DECISIONS /
ORDER WERE ISSUED
WITHOUT JURISDICTION.
It bears emphasis that in its assailed Order dated October 8,
2001, respondent Court improperly and irregularly ruled that
prescription has not barred the enforcement of the alleged
Decision with Compromise Agreement dated February 4,
1972 and the alleged Decision dated November 4, 1975
(Annexes A and C hereof):
In this instant case, it would be palpably unfair to downplay
the Decision with Compromise Agreement of February 4,
1972 of which the Solicitor General was then party to that
agreement. Besides, that judgment granting exemption of
the five (5) year prescription period for execution has long
become final and executory. Whether the judgment so
rendered and Compromise Agreement entered or agreed
upon by and between the parties was correct or erroneous is
of no moment by now because it became the law of the
case. (at page 3)
In the first place, the records of the Office of the Solicitor
General do not show the existence, among others, not only
of said Decision dated February 4, 1972 but also of said
alleged Compromise Agreement. Thus, the same cannot be
used as a basis by respondent Judge. Further, the ruling of
the respondent Court is based on a wrong premise, for it
unabashedly assumes that the alleged exemption of the
five (5) year prescriptive period for execution allegedly
embodied in the alleged Decision dated February 4, 1972 is
valid, legal and enforceable.
On the contrary, the alleged waiver of the prescriptive period
for execution, even assuming arguendo that it exists, is, at
the very least, blatantly ultra vires and illegal and
NESTOR J. BALLACILLO
Solicitor
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 9th day of
April,
2002, in Makati City, Metro Manila.
THOMAS M. LARAGAN
Solicitor
Copy Furnished:
(By Registered Mail)
HON. ERNESTO A. REYES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 111
Pasay City, Metro Manila
ANACLETO MADRIGAL ACOP
c/o ATTY. TERESITO ABELLA
No. 4435, Catalagan Street
Palanan, Makati City
Metro Manila
c/o JULIAN M. TALLANO
No. 31, BMA Avenue
Tatalon, Quezon City
Metro Manila
ANACLETO MADRIGAL ACOPIADO
c/o ATTY. MELICIO V. EMATA
Ground Floor, Door B
Lagasca Apartments
8259 Constancia Street
Makati City, Metro Manila
c/o ROBERT M. DEL RIO
23 Ipil Street, Project 3
Quezon City, Metro Manila
JULIAN M. TALLANO
No. 31, BMA Avenue
Tatalon, Quezon City
Metro Manila
ROBERT M. DEL RIO
Attorney-inFact of Anacleto Madrigal Acopiado
and Julian M. Tallano
23 Ipil Street, Project 3
Quezon City, Metro Manila.
MR. ROMEO C. CAMPOS
Attorney-in-Fact of Julian M. Tallano
No. 3-A, John Street
Multinational Village
Paraaque City, Metro Manila