GR 220340 41; (June, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 220340-41 and 220682-84, June 14, 2021
RMFPU HOLDINGS, INC., RAYMOND M. MORENO, AND RMFPU PROPERTIES, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. FORBES PARK ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENT. [and] QUICK SILVER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. FORBES PARK ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Three consolidated petitions for annulment of judgment were filed by Forbes Park Association, Inc. (FPA) before the Court of Appeals (CA) concerning separate ex-parte petitions for cancellation of a Deed of Restrictions annotated on titles of properties within Forbes Park Village, Makati City.
1. In LRC Case No. M-4570, Raymond M. Moreno (later the property was transferred to RMFPU Holdings, Inc.) filed an ex-parte petition before the RTC, Branch 59, for the cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions on TCT Nos. S-93867 and S-93868, alleging the restrictions expired on December 31, 1998. The RTC granted the petition in an Order dated July 29, 2004.
2. In LRC Case No. M-5359, RMFPU Properties, Inc. filed an ex-parte petition before the RTC, Branch 59, for the cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions on TCT No. 226850, also alleging expiration on December 31, 1998. The RTC granted the petition in an Order dated March 26, 2010.
3. In LRC Case No. M-4133, Quick Silver Development Corporation filed an ex-parte petition before the RTC, Branch 58, for the cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions on TCT No. 156723. The RTC granted the petition in an Order dated February 23, 2001.
The Deed of Restrictions, annotated on the titles, stated the land was subject to restrictions for a period of 50 years from January 1, 1949, and included provisions such as the requirement for building and landscaping plans to be approved by the Forbes Park Association. FPA was not impleaded in any of these ex-parte proceedings. FPA filed petitions for annulment of these RTC Orders before the CA on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to FPA not being impleaded as an indispensable party. The CA granted FPA’s petitions and annulled the RTC Orders. RMFPU and Quick Silver filed the present Petitions for Review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly annulled the Orders of the Regional Trial Court for lack of jurisdiction due to the failure to implead Forbes Park Association, Inc. as an indispensable party in the ex-parte petitions for cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals is correct. The Supreme Court denied the petitions and affirmed the CA Decision and Resolution.
The Supreme Court ruled that FPA is an indispensable party in the petitions for cancellation of the annotated Deed of Restrictions. An indispensable party is one whose interest in the controversy is such that a final decree would necessarily affect that interest, and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The Deed of Restrictions explicitly refers to FPA, stating the land is subject to restrictions and amendments as FPA “may from time to time adopt and prescribe” and that all building and landscaping plans “must be approved by the Forbes Park Association.” These annotations on the titles clearly establish FPA’s interest in the properties. Therefore, FPA’s legal standing is apparent from the face of the titles themselves. Its non-joinder in the ex-parte proceedings deprived the RTC of jurisdiction to issue the cancellation orders. The expiration of the 50-year period on December 31, 1998, as claimed by the petitioners, is a matter that requires an adversarial proceeding where FPA must be heard, as it pertains to the very existence and continued enforceability of the restrictions in which FPA has a direct interest.