Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 164687 February 12, 2009
SM PRIME O!"INGS, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
#NGE!# $. M#"#%#G, Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
N#CUR#, J.:
This is a petition for revie" on certiorari of the Decision
#
of the !ourt of $ppeals %!$& dated March #', ())* and
Resolution dated +ul, #-, ())*, "hich set aside the lo"er court.s order to suspend the proceedin/s on respondent.s
application for land re/istration.
On +ul, #(, ())#, respondent $n/ela V. Mada,a/ 0led "ith the Re/ional Trial !ourt %RT!& of 1rdaneta, Pan/asinan an
application for re/istration of a parcel of land "ith an area of #,*'( s2uare 3eters located in 4aran/a, $nonas,
1rdaneta !it,, Pan/asinan.
(
$ttached to the application "as a tracin/ cloth of Surve, Plan Psu5)#5))6*76, approved b,
the 8and Mana/e3ent Services %8MS& of the Depart3ent of nviron3ent and Natural Resources %DNR&, Re/ion #, San
9ernando !it,.
On $u/ust (), ())#, petitioner SM Pri3e Holdin/s, Inc., throu/h counsel, "rote the !hief, Re/ional Surve, Division,
DNR, Re/ion I, de3andin/ the cancellation of the respondent.s surve, plan because the lot encroached on the
properties it recentl, purchased fro3 several lot o"ners and that, despite bein/ the ne" o"ner of the ad:oinin/ lots, it
"as not noti0ed of the surve, conducted on +une 6, ())#.
7
Petitioner then 3anifested its opposition to the respondent.s application for re/istration. The Republic of the
Philippines, throu/h the O;ce of the Solicitor <eneral, and the heirs of Ro3ulo Visperas also 0led their respective
oppositions.
On 9ebruar, =, ())(, petitioner 0led its for3al opposition. Petitioner alle/ed that it had recentl, bou/ht seven parcels
of land in 4aran/a, $nonas, 1rdaneta, delineated as 8ots 4, !, D, , <, H and I in !onsolidation5Subdivision Plan No.
%8R!& Pcs5(#7(', approved b, the 8and Re/istration !o33ission on $u/ust (=, #'>=, and previousl, covered b,
Surve, Plan No. Psu5(7=)') approved b, the 4ureau of 8ands on Dece3ber (', #'>). These parcels of land are
covered b, separate certi0cates of title, so3e of "hich are alread, in the na3e of the petitioner "hile the others are
still in the na3e of the previous o"ners.
On 9ebruar, (), ())(, the RT! declared a /eneral default, e?cept as to the petitioner, the Republic, and the heirs of
Ro3ulo Visperas. Thereafter, respondent co33enced the presentation of evidence.
Mean"hile, actin/ on petitioner.s re2uest for the cancellation of the respondent.s surve, plan, DNR $ssistant
Re/ional ?ecutive Director for 8e/al Services and Public $@airs, $llan V. 4arcena, advised the petitioner to 0le a
petition for cancellation in due for3 so that the DNR could properl, act on the sa3e.
*
$ccordin/l,, petitioner for3all,
0led "ith the DNR a petition
-
for cancellation of the surve, plan so3eti3e in March ())(, alle/in/ the follo"in/
/roundsA
I.
THR IS NO S1!H THIN< $S $8IN$48 OR DISPOS$48 PROPRTB CHI!H IS TH S14+!T 8OT IN THIS !$S
II.
NO NOTI! C$S M$D 1PON PTITIONR %$S $D+OININ< 8$NDOCNR $ND CHO 4$RS INTRST OVR TH S14+!T
8OT& M1!H 8SS TH OCNRS O9 $D+OININ< 8$NDS.
III.
TH !IR!1MST$N!S VIDNT8B SHOC TH$T 4$D 9$ITH $NDDOR M$8I! $TTNDD TH $PPROV$8 O9 %P8$N CITH
PS1 NO. )#5))6*76&.
=
On +ul, #>, ())(, petitioner 0led an 1r/ent Motion to Suspend Proceedin/s
>
in the land re/istration case, alle/in/ that
the court should a"ait the DNR resolution of the petition for the cancellation of the surve, plan Eas the ad3inistrative
case is pre:udicial to the deter3inationE of the land re/istration case.
On October 6, ())(, the RT! issued an Order /rantin/ the 3otion, thusA
CHR9OR, PRMISS !ONSIDRD, the !ourt hereb, <R$NTS the instant 3otion and suspends the proceedin/s
herein. In the 3eanti3e, and until receipt b, this !ourt of a cop, of the resolution of the petition for cancellation b,
the DNR, the instant case is hereb, $R!HIVD.
SO ORDRD.
6
3phasiFin/ that a surve, plan is one of the 3andator, re2uire3ents in land re/istration proceedin/s, the RT! a/reed
"ith the petitioner that the cancellation of the surve, plan "ould be pre:udicial to the petition for land re/istration.
'
On 9ebruar, #7, ())7, the RT! denied the respondent.s 3otion for reconsideration of its order.
#)
Respondent thereafter
0led a petition for certiorari "ith the !$ assailin/ the order suspendin/ the proceedin/s.
On March #', ())*, 0ndin/ that the RT! co33itted /rave abuse of discretion in suspendin/ the proceedin/s, the !$
/ranted the petition for certiorari, thusA
CHR9OR, pre3ises considered, the instant petition is hereb, <R$NTD. The challen/ed Orders dated October 6,
())( and 9ebruar, #7, ())7 of the respondent !ourt are declared N188 and VOID.
The !ourt a 2uo is directed to continue the proceedin/s until its 0nal deter3ination. No pronounce3ent as to costs.
SO ORDRD.
##
The !$ ratiocinated that the surve, plan "hich "as dul, approved b, the DNR should be accorded the presu3ption
of re/ularit,, and that the RT! has the po"er to hear and deter3ine all 2uestions arisin/ fro3 an application for
re/istration.
#(
On +ul, #-, ())*, the !$ issued a Resolution
#7
den,in/ the petitioner.s 3otion for reconsideration. Petitioner "as, thus,
co3pelled to 0le this petition for revie", ascribin/ the follo"in/ errors to the !$A
I. TH !O1RT O9 $PP$8S !OMMITTD M$NI9ST RROR IN NOT 9INDIN< TH$T TH S1SPNSION O9 TH
PRO!DIN<S IN TH 8$ND R<ISTR$TION !$S IS 8<$8 $ND PROPR PNDIN< TH DTRMIN$TION $ND
RSO81TION O9 TH $DMINISTR$TIV !$S 49OR TH DP$RTMNT O9 NVIRONMNT $ND N$T1R$8 RSO1R!S5
R<ION #.
II. TH !O1RT O9 $PP$8S !OMMITTD M$NI9ST RROR IN 9$I8IN< TO 9IND TH$T TH $SS$I8D ORDRS O9 TH
8OCR !O1RT H$V PROPR $ND S199I!INT 4$SS IN 9$!T $ND IN 8$C.
III. TH !O1RT O9 $PP$8S !OMMITTD M$NI9ST RROR IN HO8DIN< TH$T TH 8OCR !O1RT H$S $!TD CITH
<R$V $41S O9 DIS!RTION IN S1SPNDIN< TH PRO!DIN<S $ND $R!HIVIN< TH !$S.
IV. TH !O1RT O9 $PP$8S !OMMITTD M$NI9ST RROR IN 9$I8IN< TO 9IND TH$T TH 9I8IN< O9 TH PTITION 9OR
!RTIOR$RI, 1NDR R18 =- O9 TH RVISD R18S O9 !IVI8 PRO!D1R, IS NOT TH ON8B P8$IN, SPDB $ND
$DG1$T RMDB IN TH ORDIN$RB !O1RS O9 8$C ON TH P$RT O9 HRIN RSPONDNT.
#*
The petition has no 3erit.
Petitioner contends that, since the respondent.s cause of action in the land re/istration case depends heavil, on the
surve, plan, it "as onl, prudent for the RT! to suspend the proceedin/s therein pendin/ the resolution of the petition
for cancellation of the surve, plan b, the DNR.
#-
It, therefore, insists that recourse to a petition for certiorari "as not
proper considerin/ that respondent "as not arbitraril, deprived of her ri/ht to prosecute her application for
re/istration.
#=
1ndeniabl,, the po"er to sta, proceedin/s is an incident to the po"er inherent in ever, court to control the disposition
of the cases in its docHets, "ith econo3, of ti3e and e@ort for the court, counsel and liti/ants. 4ut courts should be
3indful of the ri/ht of ever, part, to a speed, disposition of his case and, thus, should not be too ea/er to suspend
proceedin/s of the cases before the3. Hence, ever, order suspendin/ proceedin/s 3ust be /uided b, the follo"in/
preceptsA it shall be done in order to avoid 3ultiplicit, of suits and prevent ve?atious liti/ations, conIictin/ :ud/3ents,
confusion bet"een liti/ants and courts,
#>
or "hen the ri/hts of parties to the second action cannot be properl,
deter3ined until the 2uestions raised in the 0rst action are settled.
#6
Other"ise, the suspension "ill be re/arded as an
arbitrar, e?ercise of the court.s discretion and can be corrected onl, b, a petition for certiorari.
None of the circu3stances that "ould :ustif, the sta, of proceedin/s is present. In fact, to a"ait the resolution of the
petition for cancellation "ould onl, dela, the resolution of the land re/istration case and under3ine the purpose of
land re/istration.
The funda3ental purpose of the 8and Re/istration 8a" %Presidential Decree No. #-('& is to 0nall, settle title to real
propert, in order to pree3pt an, 2uestion on the le/alit, of the title J e?cept clai3s that "ere noted on the certi0cate
itself at the ti3e of re/istration or those that arose subse2uent thereto.1avvphi1 !onse2uentl,, once the title is
re/istered under the said la", o"ners can rest secure on their o"nership and possession.
#'
<larin/l,, the petition for cancellation raises practicall, the ver, sa3e issues that the herein petitioner raised in its
opposition to the respondent.s application for re/istration. Principall,, it alle/es that the surve, plan should be
cancelled because it includes portions of the seven properties that it purchased fro3 several lando"ners, "hich
properties are alread, covered b, e?istin/ certi0cates of title.
Petitioner posits that it is the DNR that has the sole authorit, to decide the validit, of the surve, plan that "as
approved b, the 8MS.
()
It cites Section *%#-&, !hapter #, Title KIV, $d3inistrative !ode of #'6> "hich provides that the
DNR shall
%#-& ?ercise %of& e?clusive :urisdiction on the 3ana/e3ent and disposition of all lands of the public do3ain and serve
as the sole a/enc, responsible for classi0cation, sub5classi0cation, surve,in/ and titlin/ of lands in consultation "ith
appropriate a/encies.
Ho"ever, respondent ar/ues that the land re/istration court is clothed "ith ade2uate authorit, to resolve the
conIictin/ clai3s of the parties, and that even if the DNR cancels her surve, plan, the land re/istration court is not
b, dut, bound to dis3iss the application for re/istration based solel, on the cancellation of the surve,
plan.
(#
lawphil.net
Cithout delvin/ into the :urisdiction of the DNR to resolve the petition for cancellation, "e hold that, as an incident to
its authorit, to settle all 2uestions over the title of the sub:ect propert,, the land re/istration court 3a, resolve the
underl,in/ issue of "hether the sub:ect propert, overlaps the petitioner.s properties "ithout necessaril, havin/ to
declare the surve, plan as void.
It is "ell to note at this point that, in its bid to avoid 3ultiplicit, of suits and to pro3ote the e?peditious resolution of
cases, Presidential Decree %P.D.& No. #-(' eli3inated the distinction bet"een the /eneral :urisdiction vested in the RT!
and the latter.s li3ited :urisdiction "hen actin/ 3erel, as a land re/istration court. 8and re/istration courts, as such,
can no" hear and decide even controversial and contentious cases, as "ell as those involvin/ substantial
issues.
((
Chen the la" confers :urisdiction upon a court, the latter is dee3ed to have all the necessar, po"ers to
e?ercise such :urisdiction to 3aHe it e@ective.
(7
It 3a,, therefore, hear and deter3ine all 2uestions that arise fro3 a
petition for re/istration.
In vie" of the nature of a Torrens title, a land re/istration court has the dut, to deter3ine "hether the issuance of a
ne" certi0cate of title "ill alter a valid and e?istin/ certi0cate of title.
(*
$n application for re/istration of an alread,
titled land constitutes a collateral attacH on the e?istin/ title,
(-
"hich is not allo"ed b, la".
(=
4ut the RT! need not
"ait for the decision of the DNR in the petition to cancel the surve, plan in order to deter3ine "hether the sub:ect
propert, is alread, titled or for3s part of alread, titled propert,. The court 3a, no" verif, this alle/ation based on the
respondent.s surve, plan vis5L5vis the certi0cates of title of the petitioner and its predecessors5in5interest. $fter all, a
surve, plan precisel, serves to establish the true identit, of the land to ensure that it does not overlap a parcel of land
or a portion thereof alread, covered b, a previous land re/istration, and to forestall the possibilit, that it "ill be
overlapped b, a subse2uent re/istration of an, ad:oinin/ land.
(>
Should the court 0nd it di;cult to do so, the court 3a, re2uire the 0lin/ of additional papers to aid in its deter3ination
of the propriet, of the application, based on Section (# of P.D. No. #-('A
S!. (#. Re2uire3ent of additional facts and papersM ocular inspection. J The court 3a, re2uire facts to be stated in
the application in addition to those prescribed b, this Decree not inconsistent there"ith and 3a, re2uire the 0lin/ of
an, additional papers.
The court 3a, also directl, re2uire the DNR and the 8and Re/istration $uthorit, to sub3it a report on "hether the
sub:ect propert, has alread, been re/istered and covered b, certi0cates of title, liHe "hat the court did in !arva:al v.
!ourt of $ppeals.
(6
In that case, "e co33ended such 3ove b,
the land re/istration court for bein/ Ein accordance "ith the purposes of the 8and Re/istration 8a".E
('
CHR9OR, pre3ises considered, the petition is DNID. The !ourt of $ppeals Decision dated March #', ())* and
Resolution dated +ul, #-, ())* are $99IRMD. The Re/ional Trial !ourt of 1rdaneta, Pan/asinan is DIR!TD to
continue "ith the proceedin/s in 8.R.!. !ase No. 15##7* and to resolve the sa3e "ith dispatch.
SO ORDRD.