GR L 2168; (October, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2168; October 31, 1949
CELSO ICASIANO, petitioner, vs. BIENVENIDO TAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and TEOFILO RIVERA, respondents; AMBROSIO PADILLA, respondent.
FACTS
Raymunda Santos owned a registered tract of land in Quezon City. Through her attorney-in-fact, Jose F. Zamora, the property was involved in multiple sale transactions. On June 15, 1944, Zamora accepted an offer from Teofilo Rivera (through broker Antonio Quirino). The next day, Ambrosio Padilla made a written offer to Quirino to buy the same property, which Quirino accepted. On June 17, Zamora conveyed the land to Celso Icasiano by absolute sale. That same day, Rivera filed an action for specific performance against Santos and Zamora. Icasiano and later Padilla intervened in that case. While that case was pending, Icasiano filed an ex parte motion on June 22, 1946, before Judge Eulalio Garcia, alleging the original and transfer certificates of title were destroyed due to the war, and seeking reconstruction and issuance of a new title in his name. Judge Garcia granted the motion without notice to other interested parties (Rivera and Padilla). After the title was issued, Icasiano sold the property to his business partner Emerito Ramos, who then mortgaged it to Philippine Trust Co. Upon learning of Judge Garcia’s order, Rivera and Padilla moved to set it aside before Judge Bienvenido Tan (Judge Garcia’s successor). Judge Tan granted the motion and set aside Judge Garcia’s order. Icasiano filed a petition for certiorari, arguing he was denied the right to present evidence and that Judge Tan acted without jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Bienvenido Tan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in setting aside Judge Garcia’s order and in denying Icasiano’s motion to present evidence.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition.
1. On Jurisdiction: Judge Tan had jurisdiction to set aside Judge Garcia’s order. If Judge Garcia had jurisdiction to issue the original order, Judge Tan, as a judge of the same court, had co-equal jurisdiction to revoke it. The petitioner did not allege grave abuse of discretion, and the Court found none.
2. On Denial of Presentation of Evidence: The taking of evidence is discretionary under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act. Judge Tan did not abuse his discretion in denying Icasiano’s belated request to present evidence, especially since Icasiano only made the request in his motion for reconsideration, not during the original hearing. The facts were sufficiently presented through written oppositions, annexes, and oral arguments.
3. On Rights of Subsequent Transferees: The decision does not adversely affect the rights of Emerito Ramos and Philippine Trust Co., as they were not parties to these proceedings. Their rights can be threshed out in the pending main action for specific performance, where a notice of lis pendens has been registered.
Costs were imposed on petitioner Icasiano.
AI Generated by Armztrong.