ALSONS v HEIRS OF CONFESOR G.R. NO.

215671, September 19, 2018

FACTS:
Petitioner and the DENR, through its Regional Executive Director executed a leasehold
agreement with a term of 25 years over a parcel of land in General Santos City, South Cotabato,
wherein the coverage area was later on expanded.
Respondent filed a protest against the petitioner before the DENR, praying for the
cancellation of IFPMA No. 21 on the ground that a large portion of the land was part of the
property covered by consolidated Original Certificate of Title. Furthermore, they argued that
the DENR had no jurisdiction to enter into the said leasehold agreement because the subject
property was no longer classified as a public land.
Prior to the filing of the respondent’s protest, the subject property was put under
investigation through the Task Force Titulong Malinis of the LRA with a report stating that it is a
spurious title and that the Plan is situated in San Pablo City, Laguna. However, the said report
was set aside by the DOJ, sustaining the validity and authenticity of the said title. Furthermore,
the DOJ found that the said title existed in the DENR files; that it was affirmed that the said land
is located in Buayan, Cotabato; and that the subject property was classified as alienable and
disposable with no adverse claim of ownership except that of the registered owners.
The DENR conducted its own investigation and found out that the said title was genuine,
and that there were other certificates of title issued to the heirs of Confesor which were all fake
and spurious. Thus, the respondents’ protest was dismissed for lack of merit.
On appeal, the OP set aside the DENR’s decision, upholding the validity and existence of
the said title under the Torrens system, and the OP ruled that the respondents have established
their ownership of the subject property.
The petitioner file a Petition for Review with a Prayer for Status Quo Order before the
CA, questioning the OP’s decision, manifesting that a petition for annulment of title and
reversion of the land was filed before the RTC to nullify the respondents’ title for being fake and
spurious. However, the CA denied the motion and the Civil Case No. 7711 was ordered
dismissed by the RTC, without prejudice, for failure of parties to file judicial affidavits.
The Republic re-filed the petition for the annulment of titles before the RTC. With that,
the petitioner now argues that the CA erred in not considering that the issue of whether or not
to cancel IFPMA No. 21 is dependent solely on the outcome of the Civil Case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the civil case for annulment of title and reversion before the RTC
constitutes a prejudicial question.
RULING:
Yes, because considering the rationale of the Article 36 of the Civil Code, pertaining to
the principle of prejudicial question, which is to avoid two conflicting decisions, prudence
dictates that the principle underlying the doctrine should be applied to the case at bar as based
on the case of Abacan, Jr. v. Northwestern University, Inc.
In this case, the 2 cases involved are the cancellation of IFPMA No. 21 in the case at bar,
and the cancellation of title and reversion case before the RTC. The cancellation of the IFPMA
No. 21 should solely depend on the determination of whether or not the respondents have the
right over the subject property, and whether or not the title is indeed fake and spurious.
Furthermore, if the cancellation of the IFPMA No. 21 would be allowed and later on found out
that the said title is indeed fake and spurious, it would then turn out that the cancellation was
not proper. Thus, making it a clear case of conflicting decisions.
Therefore, the petition is granted.