By Rey Panaligan
After 22 years, a case for judicial confirmation of land title that has reached the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Supreme Court (SC) has been ordered back for further proceedings before the regional trial court (RTC) in Bacoor City where it was first filed in 1997.
(MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
The remand of the case to the RTC was ordered by the SC in its recent resolution which affirmed the CA’s 2018 ruling that directed the trial court to resolve the motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
The 22-year journey of the case from the RTC to the SC was summarized in the High Court’s resolution.
On May 29, 1997, Maria P. Mendoza filed an application for judicial confirmation of title over five parcels of land with a total area of 17.5 hectares located in Barangay Lantic, Carmona, Cavite.
The application was opposed by the OSG and the heirs of Eugenio Austria and Vicente Panganiban.
On November 28, 2000, Bacoor City RTC Judge Eduardo Israel Tanguanco handed down a decision that confirmed the ownership of Mendoza over the five parcels of land.
The OSG filed its motion for reconsideration on Jan. 12, 2001. The private oppositors also filed their own motion.
On July 17, 2001, the RTC issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration but did not specify whether the denial was for the OSG’s motion or for that of the private oppositors’.
The private oppositors challenged the denial of the motion for reconsideration before the CA on January 23, 2003 but their case was dismissed by the appellate court for their failure to file their appellants’ brief. The denial became final with the entry of judgment on July 4, 2003.
Thereafter, on September 25, 2003, the RTC issued an order that declared its November 28, 2000 decision final and executory. Then, on November 13, 2003, the trial court issued another order for the issuance of a decree for registration of the land in favor of Mendoza.
However, 11 years after the RTC’s issuance of a decree for registration, the OSG filed with the trial court on Aug. 14, 2014 a second motion to resolve its motion for reconsideration filed 13 years ago.
The OSG told the RTC that it discovered its unresolved motion while updating its case inventory.
On September 18, 2014, the RTC denied the OSG’s motion with a reiteration that the motion filed by government lawyers had been denied in the July 17, 2001 trial court’s resolution.
The RTC said that is November 28, 2000 decision (in favor of Mendoza) “can no longer be changed because it has become immutable.”
Then the OSG filed before the RTC motions to vacate order directing issuance of decree of registration, to cancel original certificates of title and their derivatives, and to give due course to notice of appeal filed on March 10, 2016.
It was the OSG’s contention that the RTC’s decision could not have attained finality because its (OSG’s) motion for reconsideration has not been resolved.
Mendoza opposed the OSG’s motion as she reiterated that the government lawyer’s motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s 2000 decision had been dismissed.
She pointed out that the OSG had received the CA’s dismissal of the private oppositors’ appeal and the appellate court’s entry of judgment.
Thus, she stressed, the OSG’s failure to follow up on the case for 13 years “is a clear act of gross negligence.”
On January 9, 2017, the RTC denied the OSG’s notice of appeal and motions. It stressed that the OSG’s motion to reconsider the 2000 decision “had already been resolved a long time ago.”
The OSG elevated the issues before the CA which ordered a remand of the case to the RTC for the trial court to resolve the OSG’s motion to reconsider the 2000 decision in favor of Mendoza.
The CA said the RTC’s July 17, 2001 resolution addressed only the issues raised by the private oppositors.
With the pendency of the OSG’s motion for reconsideration, the CA nullified the RTC’s orders on the finality of the 2000 decision and the issuance of a decree of registration.
The CA said that while it recognized Mendoza’s right to speedy trial and early disposition of her case, the delay to be caused cannot be held against the government.
“It is a well settled rule that the Republic or its government is not estopped by mistake or error on the part of its officials or agents. Granting that the persons representing the government were negligent, the doctrine of estoppel cannot be taken against the Republic,” the CA said.
Mendoza challenged the CA’s decision before the SC which denied her petition.
Resolving the issues, the SC said: “It is undisputed that the respondent (OSG) timely filed its motion for reconsideration on January 12, 2001 and no resolution on such motion was served and received by the OSG.”
“Moreover, as the CA has properly ruled, a careful perusal of the July 17 2001 order shows that it was solely intended to address the motion for reconsideration filed by the private respondents to the exclusion of the OSG,” the SC said.
“Considering the pending motion for reconsideration of the OSG, it is clear that there is no final and immutable judgement in this case to speak of,” it stressed.
“Moreover, it is crucial to note that the matter involved in this case is 17.5 hectares of land. Under the Regalian Doctrine … all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of land. Accordingly, substantial justice and fair play will be served in a decision on the merits of the motion,” it added.
“Thus, the CA committed no reversible error in remanding the case to the RTC for the resolution of the respondent’s (OSG’s) motion for reconsideration,” the SC ruled.