GR 149992; (August, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149992 ; August 20, 2004
HI-TONE MARKETING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. BAIKAL REALTY CORPORATION and ALEJANDRO R. VILLANUEVA, in his capacity as Register of Deeds of Cavite, respondents.
FACTS
Baikal Realty Corporation filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Register of Deeds of Cavite to register two deeds of absolute sale covering parcels of land. The Register of Deeds had refused registration because the titles presented by the sellers, which were derived from reconstituted titles, did not match the records in the Registry. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order. Subsequently, Baikal Realty moved to withdraw its petition, which was granted, and the TRO was recalled. This motion was later withdrawn due to miscommunication with counsel.
Petitioner Hi-Tone Marketing Corporation, claiming to be the registered owner of one of the lots (Lot 5765-A) under its own Transfer Certificate of Title, filed a motion for intervention upon learning of the mandamus case and Baikal Realty’s development activities on the land. The trial court denied Hi-Tone’s motion for intervention for failure to comply with the three-day notice rule. In the same order, the trial court directed the Register of Deeds to register the deeds, finding no issues with their formal requirements. Hi-Tone’s subsequent petitions for annulment of this order were dismissed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Hi-Tone’s motion for intervention and in ordering the registration of the deeds.
RULING
Yes, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. On the denial of intervention, the Court held that while Hi-Tone technically violated the notice rule, the trial court should have liberally applied the rules. The urgency of the situation—where Hi-Tone, as a registered owner, sought to protect its property from an allegedly fraudulent registration—and the lack of prejudice to Baikal Realty, which was aware of the conflicting claim, warranted allowing the intervention. The trial court’s rigid application defeated substantial justice.
More critically, the trial court gravely abused its discretion in ordering the registration. The Register of Deeds had already elevated the matter to the Land Registration Authority via a consulta under Section 117 of the Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529), having doubted the validity of the titles presented. Mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of a discretionary act, especially when the official has a legal doubt. The proper procedure was to await the LRA’s resolution. By preempting this administrative process and ordering registration despite the patent conflict between two certificates of title for the same lot, the trial court acted arbitrarily and capriciously, violating the Torrens system’s integrity. The case was remanded for further proceedings with Hi-Tone admitted as intervenor.