*

G.R.No.131794.December10,2003.

RUBENAUGUSTOandATTY.NOELD.ARCHIVAL,petitioners,
vs.HON.JUDGETEODOROK.RISOS,PresidingJudge,Regional
Trial Court, Branch 27, LapuLapu City, CLEOFE OMOLON,
respondents.

Remedial Law Appeals An appeal may be taken only from a final

orderandnotfromaninterlocutoryoneAfinalorderisonewhichdisposes
ofthewholesubjectmatterorterminatesaparticularproceedingoraction,
leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been
determined An order is interlocutory if it does not finally dispose of the
case.Section1,Rule41oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthatanappealmay
betakenonlyfromafinalorder,andnotfromaninterlocutoryone.Afinal
order is one which disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates a
particularproceedingoraction,leavingnothingtobedonebuttoenforceby
executionwhathasbeendetermined.Anorderorjudgmentisdeemedfinalif
itfinallydisposesof,adjudicates,ordeterminestherights,orsomerightor
rightsoftheparties,eitherontheentirecontroversyoronsomedefiniteand
separatebranchthereof,andconcludesthemuntilitisreversedorsetaside.
Wherenoissueisleftforfutureconsideration,exceptthefactofcompliance
withthetermsoftheorder,suchorderisfinalandappealable.Incontrast,an
orderisinterlocutoryifitdoesnotfinallydisposeofthecase.

SPECIALCIVILACTIONintheSupremeCourt.Certiorari.

_______________

*SECONDDIVISION.

409

VOL.417,DECEMBER10,2003 409
Augustovs.Risos

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
NorbertoB.Luna,Jr.andNoelD.Archivalforpetitioners.
JamesJosephGupanaforprivaterespondent.

CALLEJO,SR.,J.:
ThisisapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65ofthe1997Rulesof
Court, as amended, filed by Ruben Augusto and Atty. Noel
1
D.
Archival,forthenullificationoftheDecember5,1997Order ofthe
RegionalTrialCourtBranch7,LapuLapuCity.

TheAntecedents

FelisaAugustoandhersiblings,JoseAugusto,MagdalenaAugusto
andAlfonsoAugusto,allmarried,werethecoownersofaparcelof
land, identified as Cadastral Lot No. 4429, with an area of 1,857
squaremeters.ThelotislocatedinBarrioMactan,Opon,Cebu.
OnApril20,1961,thethenJusticeofthePeaceandExOfficio
NotaryPublicnotarizedaDeedofAbsoluteSalewhereFelisa,Jose,
MagdalenaandAlfonso,allsurnamedAugusto,soldthepropertyto
Guillermo Omolon for P200.00. Guillermo Omolon and his wife,
Cleofe Omolon, caused the aforesaid document to be registered in
theOfficeoftheCityAssessorofLapuLapuCity.TaxDeclaration
No.02729wasissuedthereafter,andthevendorstookpossessionof
theproperty.
In the meantime, the property was registered in the names of
Monico,Felisa,Jose,Filomeno,TeofiloandSinfroso,allsurnamed
Augusto,underOriginalCertificateofTitle(OCT)No.RO3560.
Guillermo Omolon died intestate and was survived by Cleofe
Omolon.
Sometime in July 1995, Cleofe Omolon filed a petition for the
reconstitutionoftheOCTcoveringLotNo.4429,beforetheRTCof
LapuLapu City, Branch 54, docketed as LRC Case No. 21. On
January 10, 1997, the RTC rendered a decision, the dispositive
portionofwhichreads:

_______________

1 Penned by Executive Judge Teodoro K. Risos, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial

Court,Branch27,LapulapuCity.

410

410 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Augustovs.Risos

WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the Court grants the petition and
thus directs the Register of Deeds of LapuLapu City to reconstitute the
Original Certificate of Title for Lot No. 4429 of the Cadastral Survey
2
of
Oponstrictlyinaccordancewiththetechnicaldescriptionofsaidlot.

However, upon presentation of the aforesaid order to the Office of

theRegisterofDeedsofLapuLapuCity,Cleofewasinformedthat
the owners copy had already been issued to Ruben Augusto,
pursuanttoanOrderissuedbythecourtdatedAugust23,1996,and
that based on the record, the same was in the possession of Atty.
NoelArchival.
Hence,onMay14,1997,CleofefiledapetitionbeforetheRTC
of LapuLapu City, docketed as Cad. Case No. 21, alleging that as
lawfulcoownerandpossessorofLotNo.4429,shehadeveryright
tohaveandholdtheownersduplicateofthesaidOCT.Sheprayed
thatafterdueproceedings,therespondentsRubenAugustoandAtty.
NoelArchivalbeorderedtosurrendertheownerscopyofthesaid
title:

WHEREFORE,itismostrespectfullyprayedofthisHonorableCourtthat
after due consideration, respondents be ordered to surrender the owners
copy of Original Certificate of Title No.
3
3560 of the Register of Deeds of
LapuLapuCitytothepetitionerherein.

In their Comment on the petition, therein respondents Ruben

AugustoandAtty.NoelArchivalalleged,interalia,thattheDeedof
AbsoluteSaleexecutedbyFelisa,Magdalena,AlfonsoandJose,all
surnamed Augusto, was falsified and fictitious, and, thus, null and
void. In the interim, Cleofe had her adverse claim annotated at the
dorsal portion of the title in the Office of the Register of Deeds of
LapuLapuCity.
On October 22, 1997, the RTC issued an order directing Atty.
Noel Archival to produce the owners copy of OCT No. 3560 to
allow the annotation of Cleofes interest, upon which the owners
duplicatecopyofthetitlemaythereafterbereturned:

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Noel Archival is hereby directed to

producetheownerscopyofOCTNo.3560,beforetheOfficeoftheClerk
of

_______________

2Rollo,p.73.

3Id.,atp.17.

411

VOL.417,DECEMBER10,2003 411
Augustovs.Risos

Courtwithinten(10)daysfromreceiptofthisordertoallowtheannotation
ofpetitionersinterest,afterwhichtitlemaybereturnedtotherespondent.
Furnishcopiesofthisordertopetitionerandrespondentsaswellastheir
4
respectivecounsels.

The trial court declared that, based on the pleadings of the parties,
the issue of ownership over the property had been raised, a matter
which the court, sitting as a cadastral court, could not pass upon.
The trial court further ruled that pending resolution of the issue of
ownershipoverthepropertyinanappropriateproceedingstherefor,
therewasaneedfortheannotationofthepetitionersinterestover
the property. The respondents therein filed a Motion for a Partial
ReconsiderationoftheOrderallegingthatCleofesinterestoverthe
property had been sufficiently protected by the annotation of her
adverseclaim.Therespondentssuggestedthat:

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to

partially reconsider its Order dated 22 October 1997 and issue a new order
enjoin(sic) the respondent to produce the owners copy of OCT No. 3560
beforetheOfficeoftheRegisterofDeeds,LapuLapuCityon25November
1997 at 2:30 p.m. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for
underthepremises. 5
CebuCity,06November1997,Philippines.

However,onNovember14,1997,thecourtissuedanOrderdenying
themotionoftherespondentstherein.
OnNovember26,1997,therespondentsfiledanoticeofappeal
fromthesaidordertotheCourtofAppeals.OnDecember5,1997,
the RTC issued an order denying due course therefor, on its
perceptionthattheorderssubjectthereofwereinterlocutoryhence,
notappealable.
The respondents, now the petitioners, filed the instant petition
alleging that the public respondent committed a grave abuse of
discretionamountingtoexcessorlackofjurisdictionwhenitissued
theassailedorders,andthatthereisnoappealnoranyplain,speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law available to
them.Thepetitionersarguethatcontrarytotherulingof

_______________

4Id.,atp.21.

5Id.,atp.24.

412

412 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Augustovs.Risos

the public respondent, its October 22, 1997 Order was final and
appealable,asthesamedisposedofthecase.
In her comment on the petition, the private respondent averred
thattheOctober22,1997Orderofthepublicrespondentwasmerely
interlocutoryasitdidnotfullydisposeofthecaseandhadreserved
the further determination of other questions. By its order, the RTC
merelyrequiredthepetitionerstopresenttheownerscopyofOCT
No.3560intheOfficeoftheRegisterofDeedsfortheannotationof
her proprietary interest over the property and ordered the return of
thesaidownersduplicatetotherespondentsaftersuchannotation.

TheRulingoftheCourt

Section1,Rule41oftheRulesorCourtprovidesthatanappealmay6
betakenonlyfromafinalorder,andnotfromaninterlocutoryone.
A final order is one which disposes of the whole subject matter or
terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to 7
be
done but to enforce by execution what has been determined. An
order or judgment is deemed final if it finally disposes of,
adjudicates, or determines the rights, or some right or rights of the
parties, either on the entire controversy or on some definite and
separate branch thereof, and concludes them until it is reversed or
setaside.Wherenoissueisleftforfutureconsideration,exceptthe
fact of compliance
8
with the terms of the order, such order is final
andappealable. In contrast, an order is interlocutory if it does not
finallydisposeofthecase.
In this case, the order of the public respondent directing the
petitioners to produce the owners copy of OCT No. 3560 in the
Office

_______________

6 SECTION 1.Subject of appeal,An appeal may be taken from a judgment or

finalorderthatcompletelydisposesofthecase,orofaparticularmatterthereinwhen
declaredbytheseRulestobeappealable.
Noappealmaybetakenfrom.

(a) Anorderdenyingamotionfornewtrialorreconsideration
(b) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief
fromjudgment
(c) Aninterlocutoryorder

7 Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. JANCOM Environmental

Corporation,375SCRA320(2002).
8Investments,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,147SCRA334(1987).

413

VOL.417,DECEMBER10,2003 413
Augustovs.Risos

of the Register of Deeds for the annotation of the private

respondents interest over the property is merely interlocutory and
not final hence, not appealable by means of a writ of error. The
publicrespondenthadnotfullydisposedofthecaseasithadnotyet
ruled on whether to grant the private respondents prayer for the
surrender of the owners copy of OCT No. 3560. As gleaned from
the order of the respondent judge, he believed that he had no
jurisdictiontodelveintoandresolvetheissueofownershipoverthe
propertyandwasdisposedtodismissthepetition.Beforesodoing,
he believed it was necessary that the petitioners claim over the
property be annotated at the dorsal portion of the title before the
institutionofanordinarymotionfortheresolutionoftheconflicting
claimsofownershipovertheproperty:

Goingoverthepleadingsoftheparties,thecourtgathersthatownershipover
thelandinquestion,isdisputedbytheparties,whichthiscourt,sittingasa
cadastral court, cannot pass upon. However, since the petitioner has also
shown enough basis for claiming possession of the owners copy of OCT
No.3560,byvirtueoftheDeedofAbsoluteSale(AnnexA),andinview
ofthewillingnessofAtty.Archivaltohavepetitionersinterestannotatedat
thebackofthetitle,thecourtfeelsthatfortheprotectionofbothparties,the
owners copy of OCT No. 3560 in the possession of Atty. Noel Archival
mustbeproduced,inorderthatpetitionersinterestmaybeannotatedtherein
pendingresolutionoftheissueonownershipintheproperproceedings.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Noel Archival is hereby directed to
producetheownerscopyofOCTNo.3560,beforetheOfficeoftheClerk
of Court within ten (10) days from receipt of this order to allow the
annotationofpetitionersinterest,afterwhichthetitlemaybereturnedtothe
9
respondent.

In fine, the assailed order of the respondent judge partook of the

natureofanadcautelamorder.Thisisnottosaythattherespondent
courtsittingasacadastralcourthadnojurisdictiontodelveintoand
resolve the issue of ownership over the property.10
Apropos is our
rulinginVda.deArceov.CourtofAppeals,etal., viz.:

The first question must, however, be resolved against the petitioners. We

have held that under Section 2 of the Property Registration Decree, the
jurisdictionoftheRegionalTrialCourt,sittingasalandregistra

_______________

9Rollo,p.21.

10185SCRA489(1990).

414

414 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Augustovs.Risos

tion court, is no longer as circumscribed as it was under Act No. 496, the
former land registration law. We said that the Decree has eliminated the
distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court
andthelimitedjurisdictionconferreduponitbytheformerlawwhenacting
merely as a cadastral court. The amendment was [a]imed at avoiding
multiplicity of suits, the change has simplified registration proceedings by
conferring upon the required trial courts the authority to act not only on
applications for original registration but also over all petitions filed after
original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions
arisingfromsuchapplicationsorpetitions.Atanyrate,wehavealsostated
thatthelimitedjurisdictionrulegoverninglandregistrationcourtsissubject
to recognized exceptions, to wit: (1) where the parties mutually agreed or
have acquiesced in submitting controversial issues for determination (2)
where they have been given full opportunity to present their evidence and
(3) where the court has considered the evidence already of record and is
convinced that the same is sufficient for rendering a decision upon such
controversialissues.Bythesametoken,ithasbeenheldthattheruleisnot,
in reality, one of jurisdiction, but rather, of mere procedure, which may be
waived. It is not amiss to state likewise that where the issue, say, of
ownership, is ineluctably tied up with the question of right of registration,
thecadastralcourtcommitsnoerrorinassumingjurisdictionoverit,as,for
instance,inthiscase,wherebothpartiesrelyontheirrespectiveexhibitsto
defeatoneanothersclaimsovertheparcelssoughttoberegistered,inwhich
case,registrationwouldnotbepossibleorwouldbeundulyprolongedunless
11
thecourtfirstdecidedit.
12
Earlier,weruledinAveria,Jr.v.Caguioa, thus:

The above provision has eliminated the distinction between the general
jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and the limited jurisdiction
conferreduponitbytheformerlawwhenactingmerelyasacadastralcourt.
Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits, the change has simplified
registration proceedings by conferring upon the regional trial courts the
authority to act not only on applications for original registration but also
overallpetitionsfiledafteroriginalregistrationoftitle,withpowertohear
anddetermineallquestionsarisinguponsuchapplicationsorpetitions.
Consequently,andspecificallywithreferencetoSection112oftheLand
RegistrationAct(nowSection108ofP.D.No.1529),thecourtisnolonger
fettered by its former limited jurisdiction which enabled it to grant relief
only in cases where there was unanimity among the parties or none of
themraisedanyadverseclaimorseriousobjection.Underthe

_______________

11Id.,atpp.494495.

12146SCRA459(1986).

415

VOL.417,DECEMBER10,2003 415
Serranovs.CourtofAppeals
 amended law, the court is now authorized to hear and decide not only such
noncontroversialcasesbuteventhecontentiousandsubstantialissues,such
13
asthequestionatbar,whichwerebeyonditscompetencebefore.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is

DISMISSED. The December 5, 1997 Order of the Regional Trial
Court,Branch7,LapuLapuCity,isAFFIRMED.Costsagainstthe
petitioners.
SOORDERED.

Puno(Chairman),Quisumbing,AustriaMartinezandTinga,
JJ.,concur.

Petitiondismissed,judgmentaffirmed.

Note.An order of dismissal, be it right or wrong, is a final

order, which is subject to appeal and not a proper subject of
certiorari. (Heirs of Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay vs. Del Rosario,
304SCRA18[1999])

o0o

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.