Berones, Kathleen Amor R.

Executive Class
Land Titles and Deeds

CASE DIGEST

Heirs of the Late Jose De Luzuriaga represented by Jose De Luzuriaga Jr, heirs of
Manuel R De Luzuriaga, Heirs of the Late Remedios De Luzuriaga-Valdez and the
Late Norma De Luzuriaga-Dianon

versus

Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor-General

GR No. 168848
June 30, 2009

FACTS:

These are two petitions under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, namely, a
Verified Petition for Review on Certiorari and a Supplemental Petition, both to assail
the Decision of the Court of Appeals.

The antecedent facts start with the application filed by the petitioners for the
registration of title of a parcel of land situated in Bacolod, which was later amended
to make the original certificate of title (OCT) be issued in the name of the Late Jose
De Luzuriaga Sr. pursuant to Decree No. 22752. Said decree was issued by GLRO
pursuant to a decision of a cadastral case that grants the late De Luzuriaga full
ownership of the lot in question.

RTC confirmed the incomplete title of the late De Luzuriaga Sr over the lot
and ordered an Original Certificate of Title be issued in his name.

Meanwhile, DAALCO filed a civil case against petitioners for Quieting of Title,
Annulment and Cancellation of the OCT, and averred that the RD only issued a
reconstituted title, not an OCT as ordered by the RTC. Further, DAALCO names
Antonio Lizares as the registered and lawful owner of the lot to which he is in actual,
open, and continuous possession.

Subsequently the Republic through the OSG sought for annulment via an
unverified Petition for Relief from Judgment in the court a quo. RTC denied such
petition as it was insufficient in form and substance and was filed out of time. The
Republic elevated the case to the CA through a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
after its motion for reconsideration was yet again denied by the trial court. CA
granted the Certiorari and ordered the case to be remanded to the trial court.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied, hence, this
case.

Page 1 of 2
Berones, Kathleen Amor R.
Executive Class
Land Titles and Deeds

ISSUE:

Whether or not CA gravely abused its discretion in granting the Republic’s

petition for Relief from Judgment despite:
a. The fact that the RTC decision was final and executory
b. The issue of double titling had already been raised in DAALCO’s complaint for
Quieting of Title and Cancellation of OCT before the RTC

HELD:

The petitions have no merit.

CA has acted within its sound discretion in giving due course to the Republic’s
petition for Relief from Judgment and remanding the case to the trial court. A petition
for relief is a second opportunity for an aggrieved party to ask for new trial. The case
shall stand as if judgment had never been made. Although the unverified petition
was filed out of time, to promote substantial justice the Court may relax its rules on
procedure to facilitate attainment of justice in exceptional cases.

As in this case, the OSG who represents the Republic was able to properly
make out a prima facie evidence over the issue on double titling of the parcel of land
in question. A Letter/Report issued by RD indicated the registration of the subject lot
and its subsequent issuance of OCT in the name of Antonio Lizares pursuant to
Decree No. 22752. The petitioners also used the same decree for its judicial
confirmation of imperfect title. One and same decree cannot serve as basis for a
valid grant of separate titles over the same lot to two different persons.

The OCT was issued to Lizares several months after Decree No. 22752 was
rendered. De Luzuriaga Sr. never contested the title issuance in his lifetime,
suggesting the possibility of a lawful transfer.

The fact that an OCT was already issued for the subject lot would foreclose
the issuance of another OCT for the same lot.

The Court also noted that RD had issued a reconstituted title over the subject
parcel of land in the name of the heirs of De Luzuriaga, Sr which was a grave abuse
of discretion because the RTC decision specifically ordered that an OCT be issued in
the name of the late Jose De Luzuriaga, Sr.

As for the issue on double titling being raised in DAALCO’s civil case,
DAALCO basically seeks to nullify the issuance of OCT in the name of the De
Luzuriaga heirs, while the Republic’s petition assails the grant of ownership to De
Luzuriaga, Sr. over a parcel of land duly registered in the name of Lizares who have
transferred the title to his heirs or assigns. Both actions may proceed independently
as the cause of action of one is different from the second.

Page 2 of 2