CRIMPRO DIGESTS G01
ATTY. ARNO V. SANIDAD
[ALONSO v CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, RP] [GR no. 188471] [April 20, 2010]
FACTS OF THE 2002, 2003, 2010 CASE:
1. 1992: Francisco M. Alonso, who died pendente lite and substituted by his legal heirs,
discovered documents and records Friar Lands Sale Certificate Register/Installment
Record Certificate No. 734, Sales Certificate No. 734 and Assignment of Sales
Certificate showing that his father acquired Lot No. 727 of the Banilad Friar Lands
Estate from the Government of the Philippine Islands in or about the year 1911.
2. Documents show that Leoncio Alburo, the original vendee of Lot No. 727, assigned his
shares to Alonso's father who completed the required installment payments and was
issued Patent No. 14353. The Director of Lands, acting in behalf of the government,
executed a final deed of sale in favor of Alonso's father, but said deed was unregistered
due to lack of approval of the deed of sale by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources.
3. Alonso found out from the Registrar of Deeds that title to Lot No. 727 of the Banilad
Friar Lands Estate had been administratively reconstituted from the owners duplicate
on July 26, 1948 under TCT no. RT-1310 in the name of United Service Country Club
(now known as Cebu Country Club [CCC]).
4. TCT No. RT-1310 (T-11351) has been partially cancelled when Lot No. 727 was
subdivided in accordance with the MOA entered into by CCC, Inc. and Sps. Ingles by
virtue of the ruling of the CA in the case of Heirs of Ramon Cabrera and Graciano Ingles
v. Cebu Country Club, Inc. and affiirmed by SC.
5. July 7, 1992: Alonso made a formal demand upon CCC, Inc. to restore to him the
ownership and possession of said lot. He indicated that his claim was analogous to that
of the heirs of the late Ramon Cabrera and Graciano Ingles which was upheld by the
CA but Cebu Country Club refused.
6. Sept. 25, 1992: Alonso filed with RTC a complaint for declaration of nullity and non
existence of deed/title, cancellation of certificates of title and recovery of property
against CCC, alleging that the latter illegally managed to secure in its name the
administrative reconstitution of TCT No. RT-13 10 (T-11351) hence, CCC's title is null
and void. CCC, in its counterclaim, alleged that Alonso had no cause of action against
them because the same had prescribed, they having been in possession of the land
since 1935 in the concept of owner and in good faith.
7. TC: Lot No. 727 legally belonged to the Cebu Country Club. CA affirmed. Alonso filed
MR but was denied. SC required SolGen to file a comment whereby the latter said that
CCC's certificate of title is a reconstituted title. A reconstituted title does not confirm
or adjudicate ownership of land covered by lost or destroyed title. The Governments
right to file reversion proceedings cannot be barred by prescription that does not run
against the State.
TOPIC: OTHER PRINCIPLES OF JURISDICTION – HIERARCHY OF COURTS
AUTHOR: CHUA
8. SC ruled that neither Tomas N. Alonso nor his son Francisco M. Alonso or the latters
heirs are the lawful owners of Lot No. 727 in dispute. Neither has Cebu Country Club,
Inc. been able to establish a clear title over the contested estate. The reconstitution of
a title is simply the re-issuance of a lost duplicate certificate of title in its original form
and condition. A reconstituted title, like the original certificate of title, by itself does
not vest ownership of the land or estate covered thereby.
9. Alonso appealed to SC, in GR no. 130876, but petition for review was denied as the
land belongs to the Government. He filed a MR, denied so decision became final and
executory.
10. The OSG filed motion for issuance of writ of execution in RTC but CCC opposed. In the
proceedings, Congress enacted RA 9443 to validate the TCTs and reconstituted titles
covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate. Both Alonso and Cebu Country brought the
law to RTC, resulting in the denial of OSG's motion.
11. Alonso filed MR for the denial of the motion. RTC denied Alonso's MR, saying that they
had no legal standing to file MR, and that situation of the parties had materially
changed, rendering the enforcement of the final and executory judgment unjust,
inequitable, and impossible, because Cebu Country Club was now recognized by the
State itself as the absolute owner of Lot 727 D-2. Alonso filed an appeal by petition
for review on certiorari.
ISSUE (Not the only issue but the one relevant to syllabus): WoN Alonso et al violated the
hierarchy of courts that warrants immediate dismissal of the petition? YES.
HELD:
1. Alonso et al violated the hierarchy of courts by coming directly to SC to appeal the
assailed issuances of the RTC via petition for review on certiorari. The CA stands
between the RTC and the Court, and its establishment has been precisely to take over
much of the work that used to be done by the Court. Historically, the CA has been of
the greatest help to the Court in synthesizing the facts, issues, and rulings in an orderly
and intelligible manner and in identifying errors that ordinarily might escape
detection.
2. The need to elevate the matter first to the CA is also underscored by the reality that
determining whether the petitioners were real parties in interest entitled to bring this
appeal against the denial by the RTC of the OSGs motion for the issuance of a writ of
execution was a mixed question of fact and law. As such, the CA was in the better
position to review and to determine (so Alonso violated Rule 45, Sec. 1 RoC because
appeal by petition for review is limited to questions of law).
WINNER: CEBU COUNTRY CLUB is exclusive owner