Republic V Sta Ana
Republic V Sta Ana
SECOND DIVISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J.,
Chairperson
- versus - GESMUNDO,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
LOPEZ, M., and
ROSARIO, JJ.
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------x
DECISION
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
The Case
This Petition for Review assails the Decision I dated August 14, 2017
of the Comi of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 139385 entitled "Republic ofthe
Philippines v. Hon. Maria Gracia A. Cadiz-Casaclang in her capacity as
Presiding Judge ofthe Regional Trial Court, Branch 155, Pasig City, and the
Heirs of Julian Sta. Ana and Mercedes Sta. Ana." The Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition for certiorari of the Republic of the Philippines and
1
Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Prisc il la J.
Baltazar-Padil la (a ret ired member of this Court) and Pedro B. Corales, a ll members of the Special
Seventeenth Divis ion, rollo, pp. 39-45.
I
Decision 2 G.R. No. 233578
affirmed the trial court's directive for the Land Registration Authority (LRA)
to issue a title on the subject lot in the name of respondents.
Respondents Heirs of Julian Sta. Ana and Mercedes Sta. Ana filed with
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City an application for registration of
Lot 459, Pasig Cadastre, Psc-14 docketed as LRC Case No. N-5999. 2 It was
raffled to Branch 155.
Once this decision becomes final, let an order for the issuance of
Decree issue.
SO ORDERED. 5
xxxx
Director Cortez also made mention ofLRA's earlier report to the court
bearing the following recommendation:
xxxx
Too, he informed the court of the steps taken by the LRA to asce1iain
the details pe1iaining to the prior registration of the subject portion, viz.:
be signed by the Commissioner, emered and filed in the Land Registration Commission. The original of
the original certificate of title shall also be signed by the Commissioner and shall be sent, together with the
owner's duplicate certificate, to the Register of Deeds of the city or province where the property is situated
for entry in his registration book.
9
Id. at 56-57.
10
i d. at 56.
11
/d.at57.
12
id. at 56.
I
Decision 4 G.R. No. 233578
patent title, and furnished us with a print copy of the cadastral map wherein
said Lot 459 was projected.
xxxx
13
Id. at 56-57.
14
Id. at 74.
15
dated March 7, 2014, id. at 75-83 .
Decision 5 G.R. No. 233578
In its Opposition, 16 the Republic countered that the urgent motion for
reconsideration was filed out of time and respondents did not comply with
the directive.
By Order 19 dated August 17, 2014, the court required the LRA to issue
a title in the name of respondents' predecessors-in-interest over Lot 459, Pasig
Cadastre, Psc-14 consistent with its final and executory Decision dated
October 26, 1967, thus:
16
dated March 24, 20 14 , id. at 85-89.
17
Id. at 90-98.
18
Id. at 99-1 03.
19
Id. at 46-47.
20
Id. at 46.
21
dated September 24, 20 14, id. at I04-109.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 233578
therefore should not have directed the issuance of title in their favor for the
same would result in two (2) overlapping titles.
By its assailed Decision24 dated August 14, 2017, the Court of Appeals
dismissed the Republic' s petition for certiorari, ratiocinating, thus:
Necessarily, the Court cannot therefore help but wonder how private
respondents can produce an amended plan about the portion of Lot 459, to
the exclusion of the titled area, pursuant to the supposed Decision in
Cadastral Case No. 10 when such Decision in Cadastral Case No. 10 was
admittedly unavailable with the LRA.
25
Id. at 42-44.
26
Id. at I 0-35.
27
Id. at 195-207.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 233578
the name of Ma. Jovita Fontanilla, et. al. They have vehemently challenged
these persons' claim of ownership over that portion.
Issue
Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error when it affirmed the
trial court's directive to issue a registration decree on the entire Lot 459 in the
name of respondents' predecessors-in-interest?
Ruling
We affirm.
28
477 Phil. 379, 391 (2004).
Decision 9 G.R. No. 233578
Here, the trial court's Decision dated October 26, 1967 in LRC Case
No. N-5999 was rendered almost sixty-seven (67) years ago. Surely, to
challenge its validity now and to deny a registration decree to respondents
would be an affront to the fundamental purpose of the registration law. The
sentiment in Tichangco was reiterated in Herce, Jr. v. Municipality of
Cahuyao: 29
We therefore fully concur with the trial court and the Court of Appeals
that the only right and logical thing to do under the circumstances is to allow
the execution of the final and executory Decision dated October 26, 1967 for
registration of the entire Lot 459 filed by the same Julian Sta. Ana and
Mercedes Sta. Ana who are respondents' predecessors-in-interest thereto.
Remarkably, no private party has ever come forward to oppose the claim of
ownership invariably asserted by respondents' predecessors-in-interest over
the entire Lot 459 or a portion thereof. In any event, whatever decision, if any,
may have been issued over a portion of Lot 459 in Cadastral Case No. 10,
Cadastral Record No. 984, there is no existing title found in the records
29
5 11 Phil. 420, 431-432 (2005).
30
Sta. Ana v. Men/a, 111 Phil. 947 ( 1961).
Decision 10 G.R. No . 233578
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
ESTELA M~~BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson
. GESMUNDO
. ROSARIO
Decision 11 G.R. No. 233578
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
hQ~
ESTELA M~PERLAS-BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I ce1iify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Comi's Division.