G.R. No. 134433 ; May 28, 2004
SPS. WILFREDO DEL ROSARIO and FE LUMOTAN DEL ROSARIO, petitioners, vs. VIRGILIO MONTAÑA and GENEROSO CARLOBOS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Fe Lumotan, a member of the Malacañang Homeowners Association, Inc. (MHAI), was awarded Lot No. 18, Block 19 of Pangarap Village by the Bureau of Lands pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 293. This decree had cancelled certain titles over the Tala Estate and opened the land for disposition to MHAI members. A Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. 120788) was subsequently issued in her name. Although not in actual possession, she paid the real estate taxes. In 1988, the Supreme Court in Tuason vs. Register of Deeds declared P.D. No. 293 unconstitutional. Consequently, the Register of Deeds inscribed an entry on petitioner’s title invalidating it. In 1995, petitioners discovered respondent Virgilio Montaña had constructed a house on the lot.
Petitioners filed a complaint for Quieting of Title with Recovery of Possession. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that petitioner’s title, springing from the void P.D. No. 293, conferred no rights. Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Respondents raised a procedural issue, contending the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period for appeal.

ISSUE

The primary substantive issue is whether petitioners’ certificate of title remains valid and can be a basis for an action to quiet title after P.D. No. 293, the source of the award, was declared unconstitutional.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the RTC. On procedure, the Court held that the RTC decision was a final order, not an interlocutory one, as it disposed of the case completely. An appeal via a petition for review under Rule 45 was the proper remedy, not certiorari under Rule 65. The petition was thus procedurally infirm.
On the merits, the Court upheld the dismissal of the complaint for quieting of title. The declaration that P.D. No. 293 was unconstitutional ab initio meant it was void from the beginning. Therefore, all acts flowing from that decree, including the award of the lot to petitioner and the issuance of TCT No. 120788, were likewise void. The subsequent annotation invalidating the title on the records of the Register of Deeds confirmed this legal effect. Petitioners, holding a canceled title and not being in actual possession, failed to establish a legal or equitable title interest sufficient to maintain an action to quiet title. Their reliance on a different Court of Appeals case was misplaced, as the factual circumstances there—where the title was not canceled and the plaintiff was in possession—were distinct.