GR L 1998; (July, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1998; July 22, 1948
ANGEL LIM, petitioner, vs. HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, Judge of First Instance of the Mountain Province, and PEDRO FUENTES, Register of Deeds of the City of Baguio, respondents. CARMEN SANTOS, assisted by her husband Ireneo M. Santos, respondent-intervenor.
FACTS
Charles Pucay sold the same parcel of land (Lot No. 107-C) twice on May 10, 1944: first in the morning to Carmen Santos, and then in the afternoon to Angel Lim. Both buyers sought registration of their respective deeds of sale with the Register of Deeds of Baguio. The Register initially refused to register Santos’s deed due to formal defects. The next day, Pucay’s agent presented Lim’s deed for registration, but the Register also refused, noting the prior presentation of Santos’s deed. Both presentations were recorded in the day book. Santos filed a motion in the land registration case (G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 211-R) to compel Pucay to surrender the duplicate certificate of title for registration of her sale. Lim later filed a mandamus action (Civil Case No. 46) to compel the Register to register his deed. The trial court, on July 26, 1947, granted Lim’s mandamus petition and ordered the registration of his deed. Subsequently, the Register moved for reconsideration, seeking suspension of the order pending finality of the land registration case. Santos also moved to intervene. On August 23, 1947, the trial court suspended its July 26 order and allowed Santos to intervene. Lim’s motion for execution was denied on January 19, 1948. Lim then filed this original mandamus action with the Supreme Court to annul the August 23, 1947 order and compel execution of the July 26, 1947 order.
ISSUE
Whether the trial judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in suspending the execution of his July 26, 1947 order (granting mandamus to Lim) and in allowing Carmen Santos to intervene.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied Lim’s petition. The trial judge still had full control over the July 26, 1947 order and jurisdiction over the case when he issued the suspension order on August 23, 1947, as the order had not yet become final. There was no showing of a lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Any alleged error in the trial court’s decision is a matter to be resolved in the pending appeal, not through an original mandamus action. Costs were taxed against the petitioner.
AI Generated by Armztrong.