Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 182136-37 August 29, 2008
BON-MAR REALTY AND SPORT CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
SPOUSES NICANOR AND ESTHER DE GUZMAN, EVELYN UY AND THE ESTATE OF JAYME UY, HON. LORNA CATRIS F. CHUA-CHENG, Presiding Judge, Branch 168 of RTC-Marikina City, (formerly Pasig City), HON. AMELIA A. FABROS, Branch 160 of RTC-San Juan, (formerly Pasig City), and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF SAN JUAN, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari assails the November 14, 2007 Decision1 and March 17, 2008 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases involving CA-G.R. SP Nos. 949453 and 97812.4
In CA-G.R. SP No. 94945, the Court of Appeals denied Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corporation’s (BON-MAR) petition to intervene in Civil Case No. 56393, a case filed by Spouses Nicanor, Jr. and Esther de Guzman (the DE GUZMANS) for annulment of titles and reconveyance of the properties against Mario and Erlina Siochi (SIOCHIS) and Jayme and Evelyn Uy (UYS), and affirmed the orders of the trial court granting the motion for issuance of a writ of possession of the DE GUZMANS.
In CA-G.R. SP No. 97812, the Court of Appeals granted the DE GUZMANS’ leave to intervene in SCA No. 2988-SJ, a proceeding for indirect contempt instituted by BON-MAR against the Registrar of Deeds of San Juan for the latter’s refusal to cancel the DE GUZMANS’ titles and issue new ones in BON-MAR’s name.
The antecedent facts:
The DE GUZMANS were the owners of two lots located in Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila (the subject lots or properties), which were covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 9052 and 9053. Owing to the need for campaign funds for Nicanor’s candidacy as member of the House of Representatives, the DE GUZMANS borrowed money from the SIOCHIS. As collateral, the DE GUZMANS executed a deed of sale dated April 10, 1987 in favor of the Siochis over the subject lots.
The SIOCHIS, however, caused the cancellation of TCT Nos. 9052 and 9053 by virtue of the April 10, 1987 deed of sale. New titles, TCT Nos. 275-R and 276-R, were issued in their name.
Thereafter, the SIOCHIS sold the subject lots to the UYS who were issued TCT Nos. 277-R and 278-R. Subsequently, the UYS entered into a lease agreement with Roberto Salapantan.
Upon learning of the said transfers, the DE GUZMANS filed Civil Case No. 563935 seeking to annul the sales to the SIOCHIS and the UYS, as well as the lease to Salapantan. On December 28, 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 168 rendered a Decision6 finding the agreement between the DE GUZMANS and the SIOCHIS as a mere equitable mortgage, which precluded the latter from selling or foreclosing upon the subject lots without the knowledge and consent of the DE GUZMANS. Thus the trial court ordered the nullification of the deeds of sale to the SIOCHIS and the UYS, as well as the lease to Salapantan; the reconveyance of the subject lots to the DE GUZMANS; and the cancellation of the certificates of title issued in the name of the UYS.
The SIOCHIS and the UYS appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the ruling of the trial court.
From the appellate court’s adverse decision, the SIOCHIS appealed to this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 109217; the UYS likewise appealed docketed as G.R. No. 109197.
On June 21, 1993, the Court, in G.R. No. 109217, issued a Resolution denying SIOCHIS’ petition. Judgment in said case became final upon entry of judgment on December 11, 1994.
Meanwhile, on March 10, 1999 or while the UYS’ petition in G.R. No. 109197 was pending, BON-MAR filed Civil Case No. 673157 for nullification of title against the UYS and the Register of Deeds of San Juan. BON-MAR claimed that after G.R. No. 109217 became final and executory (on December 11, 1994), the UYS’ titles were cancelled and in lieu thereof new titles were issued in the name of the DE GUZMANS (TCT Nos. 6982-R and 6983-R); that thereafter, the DE GUZMANS sold the subject lots to spouses Abundia and Jose Garcia (the GARCIAS); that on January 23, 1996, BON-MAR bought the lots from the GARCIAS and, as a result, TCT Nos. 7480-R and 7481-R were issued in its name; that on April 1, 1996, BON-MAR caused the subdivision of the properties into four (4) lots, under TCT Nos. 7650-R to 7653-R; that TCT Nos. 7650-R to 7653-R were transferred to the UYS on January 10, 1997, to whom TCT Nos. 8238-R to 8241-R were issued; however, the said January 10, 1997 transfer in favor of the UYS was a forgery, as the latter allegedly forged the signature of BON-MAR’s President (Bonifacio Choa or CHOA) on the deed of sale and other related documents.
On March 11, 1999, BON-MAR caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens in Civil Case No. 67315, under Entry No. 34865, on the titles covering the subject properties.
On June 21, 2001, this Court rendered a Decision8 in G.R. No. 109197 finding that the UYS were not buyers in good faith of the subject lots; that as equitable mortgagees, the SIOCHIS could not validly appropriate the subject lots since they were not the owners thereof; that the UYS, as mere transferees of the SIOCHIS, acquired no better right to the subject lots than what the latter had. The said decision became final and executory on November 20, 2001.
Meanwhile, on September 25, 2001, the trial court in Civil Case No. 67315 rendered a Decision,9 which nullified and cancelled UYS’ titles (TCT Nos. 8238-R to 8241-R) and ordered the Register of Deeds of San Juan to reinstate BON-MAR’s titles (TCT Nos. 7650-R to 7653-R).
Aggrieved, the UYS appealed to the Court of Appeals,10 but it was dismissed on August 16, 2004. The dismissal became final and executory, and entry of judgment thereon was made on September 5, 2004. The Court of Appeals11 declared that the UYS, in accordance with the ruling in G.R. No. 109197, have no right over the subject lots; hence, they may not assail BON-MAR’s title over the same.
Meanwhile, on May 28, 2002, the DE GUZMANS, in Civil Case No. 56393, moved for the issuance of a writ of execution, which was granted by the trial court.12 The writ of execution was issued on August 1, 2002 but it was not implemented because BON-MAR filed an Omnibus Motion13 asking leave to intervene and to quash the writ.
In its Omnibus Motion, BON-MAR alleged that by virtue of the judgment in G.R. No. 109217, the DE GUZMANS were able to re-acquire title over the subject lots (TCT Nos. 6982-R and 6983-R), and sold the same to the GARCIAS who in turn sold the subject lots to BON-MAR in 1996; that the DE GUZMANS no longer have any right to move for execution, for the second time, on the decision in said civil case because it has been satisfied already; that by allowing the DE GUZMANS to execute on the judgment anew would constitute unjust enrichment and double recovery upon a judgment; that since it (BON-MAR) is the successor-in-interest of the DE GUZMANS, it must be considered as the present lawful registered owner of the subject lots, such that it possesses actual legal interest to intervene in Civil Case No. 56393 in order to defend its title. BON-MAR thus prayed for intervention in the proceedings; for a stay in the execution of the judgment; for the quashal of the writ of execution; and for the issuance of an order decreeing that judgment in Civil Case No. 56393 has been fully satisfied.
On December 18, 2003, however, the trial court denied14 BON-MAR’s motion to intervene and to quash the writ of execution on the ground that its right to the subject lots was merely inchoate, since BON-MAR’s claim was still the subject of a pending appeal in the Court of Appeals. The writ of execution in Civil Case No. 56393 was thus carried out, and TCT Nos. 8238-R to 8241-R in the name of the UYS were cancelled and TCT Nos. T-11566-R to T-11569-R were issued in the name of the DE GUZMANS. These titles were consolidated into two titles, TCT Nos. 11607-R and 11608-R.15 Entry No. 34865, or the notice of lis pendens covering Civil Case No. 67315, was carried over to these titles.
BON-MAR appealed the denial of its Omnibus Motion to the Court of Appeals which was denied. The appellate court ruled that BON-MAR is a stranger to the litigation in Civil Case No. 56393, which is a case between the DE GUZMANS and the UYS, and that the writ of execution that was issued in said case was directed against the UYS, who were the registered owners of the property in question at the time, and not BON-MAR. The appellate court likewise found BON-MAR’s attempt at intervention to be belated and improper since the case was in its execution stage.
BON-MAR filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. BON-MAR did not appeal the aforequoted decision to this Court, thereby rendering the same final and executory on February 10, 2006.16
Meanwhile, after finality of the judgment in Civil Case No. 67315 declaring it as owner of the subject properties, BON-MAR moved for execution which was granted by the trial court. A writ of execution was issued on March 29, 2005, but the Register of Deeds of San Juan refused to transfer the titles in BON-MAR’s name.
On the other hand, the DE GUZMANS in Civil Case No. 56393, moved for the issuance of a Writ of Possession,17 which BON-MAR opposed.18 The trial court granted19 the DE GUZMANS’ prayer for the issuance of a writ of possession, to which BON-MAR filed a motion for reconsideration. On February 16, 2006, BON-MAR also filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim20 executed by CHOA, whereby it set forth its claim of ownership.
On May 24, 2006, the trial court denied21 BON-MAR’s motion for reconsideration of the Order granting a writ of possession in favor of the DE GUZMANS. As for BON-MAR’s third-party claim, the trial court did not conduct a hearing thereon, nor did it consider the same in the resolution of BON-MAR’s motion for reconsideration.
On June 26, 2006, BON-MAR appealed the trial court’s denial of its motion for reconsideration to the Order granting a writ of possession in favor of the DE GUZMANS to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 94945,22 which issued a writ of preliminary injunction, thus preventing the enforcement of the writ of possession.
Meanwhile, after BON-MAR’s request to cancel the titles in UYS’ names and issue new ones in its favor as decreed by the trial court in its final and executory decision in Civil Case No. 67315, was denied by the Registrar of Deeds of San Juan, BON-MAR filed SCA No. 2988-SJ,23 a special civil action for contempt against the Registrar of Deeds of San Juan. The DE GUZMANS sought to intervene,24 but it was denied25 by the trial court. The DE GUZMANS’ motion for reconsideration was denied,26 hence they appealed to the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 97812.27
After the Court of Appeals ordered the consolidation of CA-G.R. SP No. 97812 and CA-G.R. SP No. 94945, it rendered the herein assailed November 14, 2007 Decision, the dispositive portion of which, reads:
WHEREFORE, above premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:
The petition in CA G.R. SP No. 94945 is DENIED for lack of merit. The November 30, 2005 and the June 15, 2006 Order(s) of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Br. 168, granting the motion for issuance of a writ of possession in Civil Case No. 56393 are declared VALID. Accordingly, the writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court is hereby LIFTED and the bond posted therefor is ORDERED RELEASED. With costs.
The petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 97812 is hereby GRANTED. The November 8, 2006 and the January 18, 2007 Order(s) of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Br. 160, are declared NULL and VOID. The Spouses Nicanor, Jr. and Esther de Guzman are given leave to intervene in SCA No. 2988-SJ and the said court is DIRECTED to proceed with the case accordingly. No costs.
SO ORDERED.28
Hence, the instant petition.
The issues for resolution are:
I. May BON-MAR intervene in the proceedings in Civil Case No. 56393? – Yes.
II. Are the DE GUZMANS entitled to a writ of possession? – No.
III. May the DE GUZMANS intervene in SCA No. 2988-SJ? – No.
I. BON-MAR MAY INTERVENE IN CIVIL CASE NO. 56393.
The decision in Civil Case No. 67315 declared BON-MAR as successor-in-interest of the DE GUZMANS. Thus, BON-MAR is not a mere stranger to the litigation in Civil Case No. 56393; it is a necessary party who must be joined in the suit if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.29 BON-MAR’s intervention is necessary in order to put an end to Civil Case No. 56393, because if it were established that BON-MAR obtained its title from the GARCIAS who in turn obtained the same from the DE GUZMANS, then there is nothing left for the DE GUZMANS to execute, because their claim in Civil Case No. 56393 has been fully satisfied as early as 1995.30 There would thus be no further reason for the proceedings in Civil Case No. 56393 to continue.
The trial court did not err when it initially denied on December 18, 2003 BON-MAR’s Omnibus Motion (to intervene and to quash the writ of execution) because at that time, the decision in Civil Case No. 67315 (which cancelled UYS’ titles and recognized BON-MAR’s ownership over the subject lots) had not yet become final and executory. Said decision attained finality only on September 5, 2004.
BON-MAR could not yet intervene in Civil Case No. 56393 until its title to the subject lots is established, or recognized, by way of a final and executory decision in Civil Case No. 67315. Since title to the subject lots were then still registered in the name of the UYS, BON-MAR had nothing to show to the trial court in Civil Case No. 56393 that it had any legal interest to protect in the subject lots.
However, with the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 67315 (declaring BON-MAR as owner of the subject lots) it acquired legal interest to defend its title against any threat or challenge. The pronouncement by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82807 that BON-MAR is a stranger to the litigation in Civil Case No. 56393 thus no longer applies, because the facts which gave rise to the decision in said case no longer holds true. Having been declared the owner of the subject lots, BON-MAR is now possessed of the legal interest to intervene in Civil Case No. 56393, and to oppose DE GUZMANS’ attempt to re-acquire the subject lots through execution proceedings.
To warrant intervention, two requisites must concur: (a) the movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, and (b) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding.31 The interest, which entitles a person to intervene in a suit, must involve the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.32
The judgment in Civil Case No. 67315 declaring BON-MAR as owner of the subject lots should have convinced the trial court to conduct an inquiry. Although BON-MAR may have conceded that it is a stranger to the litigation, the same does not bind the Court. Besides, the facts and the law belie this claim. While this Court gives considerable weight to the parties’ formulation of the issues, the resolution of the controversy may warrant an approach that goes beyond the narrow confines of the issues raised.33 Justice does not depend on the depth of the parties’ arguments; it is based on the established facts and the applicable law.
Thus, when BON-MAR moved to reconsider the trial court’s Order denying its motion to intervene and granting the writ of possession to the DE GUZMANS, the trial court should have granted the same in view of the final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. 67315 declaring BON-MAR as owner of the subject lots.
Moreover, the trial court erred in ignoring BON-MAR’s third-party claim, which the latter filed after its attempt at intervention was rebuffed. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, provides:
Sec. 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third person.
If the property levied on is claimed by any person other than the judgment obligor or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves the same upon the officer making the levy and a copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment obligee, on demand of the officer, files a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on. In case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be determined by the court issuing the writ of execution. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is filed within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond.
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of the property, to any third-party claimant if such bond is filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the property in a separate action, or prevent the judgment obligee from claiming damages in the same or a separate action against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim.
When the writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or any officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be required, and in case the sheriff or levying officer is sued for damages as a result of the levy, he shall be represented by the Solicitor General and if held liable therefor, the actual damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of such funds as may be appropriated for the purpose.
The above provision bestows upon third parties claiming rights to property under execution the right to protect their interests by interposing a third-party claim in the same case, or by instituting a separate reivindicatory action against the executing creditor.34 The third-party claim that is heard in the same case may be tried at length or summarily. Proceedings to resolve the possession of third-party claimants may proceed independently of the action which said claimants may bring to enforce or protect their claim of ownership over the property.35
The records show that BON-MAR’s third-party claim was not even considered by the trial court, despite its declaration of ownership over the subject lots pursuant to the judgment in Civil Case No. 67315. BON-MAR is not an ordinary stranger charged with knowledge of the DE GUZMANS’ pending suit with respect to the disputed lots; it is one which claims ownership precisely as a result of that suit.
Thus, BON-MAR should be given the opportunity to ventilate, in Civil Case No. 56393, and not in another suit, its claim that the DE GUZMANS are unlawfully attempting to execute anew a judgment that has been previously satisfied. The judgment in Civil Case No. 67315 is superior to that in Civil Case No. 56393, because the evidence established in the former renders the decision in the latter case moot. It is therefore unnecessary for BON-MAR to file a separate action against the DE GUZMANS.
II. THE DE GUZMANS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A WRIT OF POSSESSION.
A writ of possession may not be issued in favor of the DE GUZMANS pending resolution of BON-MAR’s intervention cum third-party claim. If possession were surrendered to the DE GUZMANS before BON-MAR’s claim is resolved, and it is later adjudged that BON-MAR is the true owner such that the disputed lots should then be returned to it, then the court would have simply engaged in futile endeavor.
(I)t is impractical to award possession to a party who, after all, purchased the property with knowledge of the existence of a third-party claim, before said claim has been decided, even at least preliminarily, after a hearing, only to return said possession to the third-party claimant should he win. Such a procedure is liable to give rise to more complications than if the procedure laid down above were followed.36
A proceeding for the issuance of a writ of possession is a mere incident in the transfer of title;37 the courts may not grant the writ where title is in doubt, as in this case, where the trial court still has to hear BON-MAR on its claim. The prudent course of action, therefore, is to hold in abeyance proceedings for the issuance of the writ. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property, not summarily through a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession.38
Civil Case Nos. 56393 and 67315 – despite involving title to real property, are essentially actions quasi in rem. Judgment in both cases affects only the parties thereto and their successors-in-interest; it does not bind the whole world.
A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property to another is in personam; it is binding only against the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action. "Suits to quiet title are not technically suits in rem, nor are they, strictly speaking, in personam, but being against the person in respect of the res, these proceedings are characterized as quasi in rem. The judgment in such proceedings is conclusive only between the parties." In this case, the action below is basically one for declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real property, or re-conveyance. "An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing." "Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded."39
Thus, the DE GUZMANS cannot be bound by what has been decreed in Civil Case No. 67315 unless they are given the opportunity to refute it. Conversely, BON-MAR may not be prevented from attacking the judgment in Civil Case No. 56393, in order to preserve its title. Under these circumstances, there is no other practical venue for both parties to present their conflicting claims than in Civil Case No. 56393, through BON-MAR’s intervention cum third-party claim.
III. THE DE GUZMANS CANNOT INTERVENE IN SCA NO. 2988-SJ.
Anent the propriety of DE GUZMANS’ intervention in SCA No. 2988-SJ, this Court finds that contempt is not the proper remedy available to BON-MAR for the Registrar of Deeds’ denial of its request for issuance of titles pursuant to the judgment in Civil Case No. 67315. Under Presidential Decree No. 1529, or the Property Registration Decree, BON-MAR should appeal the Registrar of Deeds’ denial by consulta to the Commissioner of the Land Registration Authority. Thus:
SECTION 117. Procedure. — When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or memorandum to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other instrument presented to him for registration, or where any party in interest does not agree with the action taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to any such instrument, the question shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Land Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest thru the Register of Deeds.
Where the instrument is denied registration, the Register of Deeds shall notify the interested party in writing, setting forth the defects of the instrument or legal grounds relied upon, and advising him that if he is not agreeable to such ruling, he may, without withdrawing the documents from the Registry, elevate the matter by consulta within five days from receipt of notice of the denial of registration to the Commissioner of Land Registration.
The Register of Deeds shall make a memorandum of the pending consulta on the certificate of title which shall be cancelled motu proprio by the Register of Deeds after final resolution or decision thereof, or before resolution, if withdrawn by petitioner.
The Commissioner of Land Registration, considering the consulta and the records certified to him after notice to the parties and hearing, shall enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made. His resolution or ruling in consultas shall be conclusive and binding upon all Registers of Deeds, provided, that the party in interest who disagrees with the final resolution, ruling or order of the Commissioner relative to consultas may appeal to the Court of Appeals within the period and in manner provided in Republic Act No. 5434.
Under the 1997 Rules of Procedure, the resolution by the Commissioner of the Land Registration Authority on the consulta may be appealed to the Court of Appeals, which has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the same, within the period and in the manner provided in Rule 43 thereof. SCA No. 2988-SJ should thus be dismissed for being the wrong mode of remedy.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby resolves as follows:
1) The petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 94945 is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 14, 2007 denying BON-MAR Realty and Sport Corporation’s petition for intervention in Civil Case No. 56393 and granting Spouses Nicanor, Jr. and Esther de Guzman’s motion for issuance of a writ of possession, and the Resolution dated March 17, 2008 denying reconsideration thereof, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 168, in Civil Case No. 56393 is DIRECTED to receive evidence on Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corporation’s third-party claim with a view to determining the nature and extent of its claim to the subject lots and to hold in abeyance the enforcement of the writ of possession.
2) The petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 97812 is DISMISSED. The November 14, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals granting the leave to intervene of the Spouses Nicanor, Jr. and Esther de Guzman in SCA No. 2988-SJ, as well as the March 17, 2008 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. SCA No. 2988-SJ is ordered DISMISSED for being the wrong mode of remedy.
SO ORDERED.
Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario, Nachura, Reyes, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 66-86; penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and concurred in by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Lucenito N. Tagle.
2 Id. at 120-121.
3 Entitled "Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corp. v. Hon. Lorna Catris F. Chua-Cheng."
4 Entitled "Nicanor de Guzman, Jr. v. Hon. Amelia A. Fabros and Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corp."
5 Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 168.
6 Rollo, pp. 383-396.
7 Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 167, entitled "Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corp. v. Spouses Jayme and Evelyn Uy and the Register of Deeds of San Juan, Metro Manila."
8 Rollo, pp. 397-408; penned by Associate Justice Jose A.R. Melo and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Vitug, Artemio V. Panganiban, Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes and Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez.
9 Id. at 160-173.
10 Entitled "Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corp. v. Spouses Jayme Uy and Evelyn Uy and the Register of Deeds of San Juan, Metro Manila.
11 Rollo, pp. 175-182; penned by Associate Justice Eloy R. Bello, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Lucenito N. Tagle.
12 Id. at 409.
13 Id. at 410-425.
14 Id. at 427-429.
15 Id. at 20, 334.
16 Id. at 19.
17 Id. at 208-212.
18 Id. at 213-217.
19 Id. at 450-452.
20 Id. at 443-446.
21 Id. at 453-455.
22 Id. at 22, 456-482; entitled "Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corporation v. Hon. Lorna Catris F. Chua-Cheng, Spouses Nicanor (Jr.) and Esther de Guzman, Evelyn Uy and the Estate of Jaime Uy, and the Registrar of Deeds of San Juan."
23 Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 160, entitled "Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corp. v. Atty. Corazon Chavez in her capacity as Register of Deeds of San Juan."
24 Rollo, pp. 338, 491-494; Motion for Leave to Intervene dated July 21, 2006.
25 Id. at 260-261.
26 Id. at 262.
27 Entitled "Nicanor de Guzman, Jr., as Administrator of the Conjugal Property v. Hon. Amelia A. Fabros, Presiding Judge of RTC Br. 160, Pasig City and Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corporation."
28 Rollo, p. 85.
29 RULES OF COURT, Rule 3, Sec. 8.
30 When the UYS’ titles (TCT Nos. 277-R and 278-R) were cancelled under Inscription Nos. 13241 and 13242 of the Primary Log Book of the Register of Deeds of San Juan and TCT Nos. 6982-R and 6983-R in the name of the DE GUZMANS were issued by virtue of the Certification issued by the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, Entry of Judgment issued by this Court in G.R. No. 109217.
31 Mabayo Farms, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140058, August 1, 2002, 386 SCRA 110, 116.
32 Garcia v. David, 67 Phil. 279, 284 (1939).
33 Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, 338 SCRA 81, 103.
34 China Banking Corp. v. Ordinario, G.R. No. 121943, March 24, 2003, 399 SCRA 430, 435.
35 Unchuan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78775, May 31, 1988, 161 SCRA 710, 718.
36 Dissenting Opinion of Justice Barredo in Guevara v. Ramos, G.R. No. L-24358, March 31, 1971, 38 SCRA 194, 208.
37 Yu v. Philippine Commenrcial International Bank, G.R. No. 147902, March 17, 2006, 485 SCRA 56, 71.
38 Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 34080 & 34693, March 22, 1991, 195 SCRA 482, 491-492.
39 Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, G.R. No. 130876, January 31, 2002, 375 SCRA 390, 408-409.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
