Republic of the Philippines vs. Clemente Tapay and Alberto T. Barrion, as the legal representative of the heirs of the deceased Floral Tapay,
G.R. No. 157719, March 2, 2022
Facts:
1. Sometime in 1980, Flora and Clemente Tapay filed an application for registration of Lot No. 10786 before the RTC of Lipa City. They alleged that a certain Francisca Cueto had been in possession of the property since 1925 until it was sold to Teofila Lindog, respondents' predecessor. When Teofila died intestate in 1971, respondents inherited the property.
2. Respondents' application for registration was opposed by the Republic of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General.
3. During the course of the proceedings, the Land Registration Commission or LRC (now the Land Registration Authority or LRA) issued a report stating that based on the Books of Cadastral Lots, the lot was previously the subject of registration in another case-Cadastral Case No. 33 and had already been adjudicated to another person, but the cadastral court has yet to issue a decree of registration.
4. The LRC, however, was unable to determine the identity of the person to whom the property was adjudicated to because the records of the case, including a copy of the decision, were not available
5. Despite the report of the LRC, the RTC adjudicated the land to the respondents.
6. After the Decision became final, the RTC directed the LRC to issue the decree of registration and the corresponding certificate of title. However, instead of complying with the order, the LRC submitted a supplemental report reiterating that the subject land was previously the subject of registration proceedings in Cadastral Case No. 33. The LRC then recommended that the cadastral court's decision be nullified so that it can issue a decree of registration in favor of respondents.
7. Accordingly, respondents filed a motion to set aside the decision in Cadastral Case No. 33 in order to give effect to the Decision of the RTC. This motion was granted by the RTC.
Issue:
Whether or not RTC can set aside the decision of the cadastral court
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court agrees with petitioner that a regional trial court has no power to nullify or interfere with the decision of a co-equal court pursuant to the law and the doctrine of judicial stability. Applying the doctrine to this case, petitioner is correct in postulating that the Order of RTC Lipa City is void and thus, the cadastral court's decision in Cadastral Case No. 33 remains valid and subsisting as of this time.
However, the foregoing presupposes that Cadastral Case No. 33 really existed and that there actually is a decision in that case. Unfortunately for petitioner, aside from the single entry "Cadastral Case No. 33, LRC (GLRO) Cadastral Record No. 1305," no other record, including a copy of the decision, exists to support the theory.
Key information, such as the identity of the parties in the case and of the court that rendered the decision, as well as the outcome thereof, has remained unknown despite the lapse of more than 40 years since the LRC submitted its report. No one, aside from the Republic, has even come forward to claim any interest arising from the supposed case. The Court therefore agrees with the CA that the doctrine of judicial stability finds no application in this case. Practical considerations now demand that the proceedings in the RTC be no longer disturbed and the RTC Order no longer set aside.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment