Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Fernando, Pampanga v. Soriano, Jr.

– 057
August 17, 2011

Nature: 2 petitions
1. Certiorari, Rule 45 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Roman Catholic Archbishop (RCA) of San Fernando, Pampanga
2. Injunction, Rule 58 filed by Benjamin Guinto, seeking to enjoin the implementation of the Writ of Execution
Facts:
A. G.R. 153829
1) MCTC** of Macabebe, Pampanga  Ruled in FAVOR of RCA
 Petitioner’s claim: RCA of San Fernando Pampanga represented by Most Rev. Paciano B. Aniceto claimed that it is the owner of
a vast tract of land located near the Church at Macabebe, Pampanga covered by Official Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 17629
issued by the Registry of San Fernando on 21 February 1929. RCA alleged that several individuals unlawfully occupied the land
and refused to vacate despite repeated demands. Thus, RCA filed an ejectment case before the MCTC of Masantol, Pampanga.
 Defendants countered that RCA has no cause of action against them because its title is spurious. They contend that the land
belonged to the State but they have acquired the land by acquisitive prescription due to continuous possession of the land for
more than 30 years.
RULING: 28 Sep 2001: OCT in the name of RCA is valid. Respondents ordered to vacate premises and pay reasonable monthly
rentals from 15 Aug 2000 until they vacate.
2) RTC: Defendant’s appealed. DISMISSED for failure to file appeal memorandum.
3) CA: Defendant’s filed petition for certiorari. DISMISSED for failure to file appeal memorandum. Ejectment decision became
final.
4) MCTC: RCA filed Urgent Motion for Immediate Issuance of Writ of Execution (Feb 10, 2003). GRANTED. MTC issued another
Order issuing a writ of execution.
5) SHERIFF: Issued Notice to Vacate dated 8 December 2003.

B. ** During the pendency of the ejectment case some of the defendants filed Quieting of Title and Declaration of Nullity cases
against RCA before RTC Macabebe.
CLAIMS:
1) They are in actual possession of land in the concept of owners
2) RCA OCT is fake and spurious

C. G.R. 160909
1) RTC (Injunction & TRO): Guinto filed a petition for Injunction with TRO to enjoin the implementation of the writ. (Later on DENIED by
SC)
2) RTC (MOTION TO DISMISS): Before filing its answer, RCA moved to dismiss case on grounds of noncompliance with condition
precedent, laches, and collateral attach on title.
Ruling: MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED.
Reasons:
a. “non-compliance wit condition precedent” NOT APPLICABLE - refer to failure to secure certificate to file action under Local
Government Code or failure to exert efforts towards amicable settlement.
b. CAUSE of ACTION - Alleged unlawful occupants HAVE cause of action
c. RCA’s argument that property cannot be acquired by acquisitive prescription as it has title over the land is a matter of evidence
– established during trial on merits.
3) RTC (re: MTD, MR): RCA filed a MR. DENIED.
4) CA (re: MTD): RCA filed petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction. DISMISSED for lack of merit.
5) CA (re: MTD, MR): RCA filed a MR. DENIED for lack of merit.
6) SC: Certiorari. RCA submits that an action for quieting of title is a special civil action covered by Rule 63, while an action for declaration
for nullity of title is governed by ordinary rules. Both these reliefs are sough after by defendants. Thus, these cases should have been
dismissed for violation of the rule on joinder of actions under Sec. 5, Rule 2 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

D. Court consolidated GRs. 160909 and 153829

Issue: WON the reliefs sought (quieting of title – special civil action AND nullity of title) should be dismissed for violation of rule on
joinder of actions under Sec. 5, Rule 2 of ROC. (NO)

Held/Ruling: Such contention is bereft of merit and insufficient to show that CA erred in upholding the trial court’s decision. Sec. 6 of
Rule 2 explicitly provides that misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action.
Rule 2
SEC 5. Joinder of causes of action - A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he
may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions:
 (a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;
xxx-xxx-xxx

SEC 6. Misjoinder of causes of actions. – Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of
action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

OTHER ISSUES:
1) Did RTC err in denying motion to dismiss filed by RCA? NO. CA not convinced of RCA’s arguments.
Rule: Trial court’s denial of a MTD cannot be questioned in certiorari proceeding under Rule 65. Certiorari writ is remedy
designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not error of judgment
a. PROPER REMEDY: File ANSWER and interpose AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES.
b. If TC decision adverse, elevate on APPEAL.
c. EXCEPTION: Grave abuse of discretion
2) Quieting of Title case is COLLATERAL ATTACK on title, which is prohibited by law.
COURT: Action for declaration of nullity of title is a CLEAR and DIRECT attack.
ATTACK: When objective is to nullify title, challenging the judgment decreeing title.
DIRECT: When objective is to annul or set aside judgment or enjoin enforcement
INDIRECT/ COLLATERAL: When in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on judgment is made as an incident thereof.
3) Preliminary Injunction: Court did not grant relief for defendants in this case possess no legal rights that merit protection of the
courts through writ of preliminary injunction. Defendants’ right to possess the property has been declared inferior or inexistent
in relation to the right of the RCA in the MCTC decision, which has become final and executory.

Digested by: Kimmie Manalo