G.R. No. 133547 & G.R. No. 133843 , December 7, 2001
HEIRS OF ANTONIO PAEL, ET AL. and MARIA DESTURA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JORGE H. CHIN and RENATO B. MALLARI, respondents.

FACTS

This case involves consolidated motions for reconsideration of a prior Supreme Court Decision. The petitioners, the Heirs of Pael and Maria Destura, sought to overturn rulings that invalidated the title of PFINA Properties, Inc. (PFINA), from whom they derived their claim, and reinstated the titles of respondents Chin and Mallari. The Supreme Court found the transfer of title to PFINA from the Heirs of Pael in 1983 to be replete with fraud and irregularities, rendering it void, especially since the Paels had already disposed of their rights earlier. The Court affirmed the factual findings of the Court of Appeals.
During the pendency of these motions, the University of the Philippines (U.P.) filed a motion for intervention. U.P. claims that the properties covered by the reinstated titles of Chin and Mallari form part of the vast U.P. Campus registered under its name. It argues that any pronouncement affecting these properties would cloud its title, citing previous jurisprudence where titles derived from the Paels were declared dubious. Respondents Chin and Mallari counter that their titled properties are outside the legitimate boundaries of U.P.’s land.

ISSUE

The primary issue for resolution is whether the motions for reconsideration filed by the original petitioners have merit and whether the intervention by the University of the Philippines should be allowed at this late stage.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petitioners’ motions for reconsideration with finality. The arguments presented were a mere rehash of previously considered and rejected claims. The Court reiterated that PFINA’s title was illegally issued, as the underlying transfer from the Heirs of Pael was void, being fictitious and executed when the Paels were no longer owners. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals, being supported by evidence, were deemed conclusive.
However, the Court granted the motion for intervention filed by U.P. While intervention at a late stage is generally disallowed, the Court exercised its discretion to prevent further litigation and resolve an inescapable issue. The conflicting claims regarding the boundaries between U.P.’s titled land and the properties of Chin and Mallari necessitate a factual determination to avoid continuous legal disputes. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that procedural rules should facilitate justice. To resolve this boundary conflict, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for the reception of evidence specifically on the overlapping claims between U.P. and the respondents.