Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy vs. City of Iligan

A petition for prohibition cannot be used to nullify emancipation patents and original certificates of title already issued and registered, because prohibition does not lie to restrain a fait accompli and administratively issued titles become indefeasible and incontrovertible after one year. The failure of all petitioners to sign the special power of attorney authorizing one signatory to execute the verification and certification against forum shopping is a fatal defect warranting dismissal.

Spouses Gregorio Nanaman and Hilaria Tabuclin originally owned a 34.7-hectare agricultural land in Tambo, Iligan City, and their heirs and the heirs of Jose C. Deleste, to whom Hilaria and Virgilio Nanaman had sold the property, asserted competing claims to it. The land was covered by Presidential Decree No. 27, which placed tenanted rice and corn lands under the Operation Land Transfer Program and allowed tenant-farmers to acquire emancipation patents and certificates of title. A portion of the land was also expropriated by the City of Iligan. These overlapping regimes—agrarian reform, registered title, and expropriation—frame the dispute over the validity of the emancipation patents and original certificates of title issued to the tenant-beneficiaries.

The spouses Gregorio Nanaman and Hilaria Tabuclin owned a 34.7-hectare parcel of agricultural land in Tambo, Iligan City, where they also maintained their residence. Virgilio Nanaman, Gregorio's son by another woman, and fifteen tenants lived on the property. After Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria administered the land with Virgilio. On 16 February 1954, Hilaria and Virgilio executed a deed of sale over the property in favor of Jose C. Deleste. Hilaria died on 15 May 1954. Juan Nanaman, Gregorio's brother, was then appointed special administrator of the joint estate of Gregorio and Hilaria, and on 16 June 1956, Edilberto Noel was appointed regular administrator. Although the property was listed as an asset of the joint estate, Deleste already possessed it, prompting Noel to file Civil Case No. 698 on 30 April 1963 before the Court of First Instance, Branch II, Lanao del Norte, for reversion of title to the estate.

While Civil Case No. 698 remained pending, Presidential Decree No. 27 was issued on 21 October 1972, placing tenanted rice and corn lands under the Operation Land Transfer Program for award to farmer-beneficiaries. The subject property was accordingly placed under the program. On 12 February 1984, the Department of Agrarian Reform issued certificates of land transfer in the names of the private respondents, the tenants and actual cultivators, and these were registered on 15 July 1986. On 1 August 2001, original certificates of title and emancipation patents were issued in favor of the private respondents over their respective portions; the OCTs were registered with the Register of Deeds of Iligan City on 21 September 2001 and 1 October 2001.

In Noel vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court on 11 January 1995 affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the subject property was the conjugal property of Gregorio and Hilaria, so that Hilaria could sell only her one-half share to Deleste. The intestate estate of Gregorio and Deleste thus became co-owners, each with a one-half interest. Deleste died in 1992. In 1991, the property was surveyed, and a 20.2611-hectare portion designated as Lot No. 1407 was approved on 8 January 1999. On 22 November 1999, the City of Iligan filed a complaint for expropriation of a 5.4686-hectare portion of Lot No. 1407, docketed as Civil Case No. 4979. On 11 December 2000, RTC Branch 4 granted the expropriation; because the true owner could not be determined, just compensation of P27,343,000.00 was deposited with the Development Bank of the Philippines in Iligan City, in trust for RTC Branch 4.

On 28 January 2002, the Heirs of Deleste filed a petition with the DARAB to nullify the private respondents' emancipation patents, docketed as Reg. Case No. X-471-LN-2002. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, on 21 July 2003, declared the EPs null and void because ownership issues remained pending and the property had been reclassified as residential/commercial. On appeal, the DARAB reversed on 15 March 2004, holding that the EPs were valid and that the Heirs of Deleste should have informed the DAR of the pendency of Civil Case No. 698 when the property was placed under the Operation Land Transfer Program; it also held that exemption from the program was within the DAR Secretary's jurisdiction. The DARAB denied reconsideration on 8 July 2004. The Heirs of Deleste then filed CA-G.R. SP No. 85471, which the Court of Appeals denied on 28 October 2004 for failure to attach material portions of the record under Section 6, Rule 43; their motion for reconsideration was denied on 13 September 2005 as pro forma.

On 7 June 2005, while CA-G.R. SP No. 85471 was pending, petitioners Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy, et al., more than one hundred twenty individuals claiming to be descendants of Fulgencio Nanaman, Gregorio's brother, and asserting a share in Gregorio's estate, filed a petition for prohibition, declaration of nullity of emancipation patents, injunction, and temporary restraining order with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00365. They alleged that they were deprived of their inheritance because the EPs were issued without notice to them, and they sought to prohibit the DAR Secretary, the Land Registration Authority, the DARAB, the Land Bank of the Philippines, and RTC Branch 4 from enforcing the EPs and OCTs, and to have those titles declared null and void. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on 13 July 2005 on several procedural grounds: some annexes were not duplicate originals or certified true copies; no explanation was given for service by registered mail; petitioners were not parties to the DARAB case; and the special power of attorney in favor of Rodolfo Lonoy, who signed the verification and certification against forum shopping, was not signed by all petitioners. The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration on 22 September 2006, and petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

• Procedural Dismissal: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals acted contrary to law and jurisprudence or committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in hastily dismissing their petition for prohibition on purely technical grounds, some of which were patently erroneous or untrue.
• Due Process: Petitioners maintained that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Land Registration Authority, and the DARAB violated their constitutional right to due process by depriving them of their inheritance shares in Lot 1407 without impleading them as indispensable parties and without service of summons upon them.
• Agrarian Reform Coverage: Petitioners argued that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in placing their residential-commercial lot under the coverage of agrarian reform, and violated Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657 by placing their individual inheritance shares in Lot 1407 under agrarian reform when those shares were below the landowner's retention limit.
• Absence of Tenancy: Petitioners contended that public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in making private respondents agrarian reform beneficiaries despite the absence of consent, agricultural production, sharing of harvests, and other elements of a legitimate tenancy relationship.
• Judicial Review: Petitioners argued that public respondents acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in reviewing and overruling judicial decisions, considering that the power of judicial review over acts of the executive or legislative branch belongs to the judiciary and not vice versa.
• Just Compensation and Expropriation: Petitioners argued that public respondents acted without jurisdiction in reviewing and overruling the earlier judicial determination of just compensation by RTC Branch 4, Iligan City, over the Lot 1407 portion affected by the Integrated Bus Terminal and Bagsakan Market, and committed grave abuse of discretion in expropriating through agrarian reform land already judicially expropriated for those purposes.
• Remand: Petitioners argued that if the dismissal of CA-G.R. SP No. 00365 were set aside, the Supreme Court should resolve the other issues instead of remanding the case to the Court of Appeals.

• Procedural Dismissal: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed outright CA-G.R. SP No. 00365 without considering the merits thereof.
• Defective Annexes: Whether the failure to attach duplicate originals or certified true copies of supporting annexes violated Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court and warranted dismissal.
• Service by Mail: Whether the failure to provide an explanation for service by registered mail violated Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court and warranted dismissal.
• Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping: Whether the failure of all petitioners to sign the special power of attorney authorizing Rodolfo Lonoy to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping was fatal to their petition.
• Prohibition as Remedy: Whether a petition for prohibition was the proper remedy to nullify emancipation patents and original certificates of title already issued and registered.
• Indefeasibility of Titles: Whether the emancipation patents and original certificates of title had become indefeasible and incontrovertible after one year, barring judicial review through prohibition.

• Procedural Dismissal: Yes, but not on all grounds relied upon by the Court of Appeals. The dismissal was affirmed because the verification and certification against forum shopping was fatally defective and prohibition was the wrong remedy.
• Defective Annexes: No. Section 3, Rule 46 requires a duplicate original or certified true copy only of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject of the petition; supporting annexes may be plain copies.
• Service by Mail: No. A written explanation for service by registered mail was incorporated in the petition, satisfying Section 11, Rule 13.
• Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping: Yes. The failure of all petitioners to sign the SPA authorizing Rodolfo Lonoy to sign the verification and certification was fatal; no sufficient justification for relaxation was shown.
• Prohibition as Remedy: No. Prohibition does not lie to restrain an act already a fait accompli; the EPs and OCTs had already been issued and registered.
• Indefeasibility of Titles: Yes. After one year from issuance, the EPs and OCTs became indefeasible and incontrovertible under Section 32 of the Property Registration Decree; the remedy was reconveyance or damages, not prohibition.

• Procedural Dismissal: The Court of Appeals dismissed CA-G.R. SP No. 00365 on several procedural grounds. The Supreme Court found that two of those grounds—defective annexes and lack of explanation for service by mail—were erroneous. Nonetheless, the dismissal was affirmed because the verification and certification against forum shopping was fatally defective and the petition for prohibition was the wrong remedy. The Court thus examined the dismissal rather than the merits of the agrarian dispute.

• Defective Annexes: Section 3, Rule 46 requires a petition originally filed in the Court of Appeals to be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof. It does not require all supporting papers and documents to be duplicate originals or certified true copies. The annexes cited by the Court of Appeals—Annexes V, W, HH, LL, NN, QQ, UU, and VV—were mere supporting documents and pleadings, not the challenged judgments, orders, or resolutions. Petitioners also attached certified true copies of these annexes to their motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals therefore erred in dismissing on this ground.

• Service by Mail: Section 11, Rule 13 requires a written explanation when service or filing is not done personally. Petitioners provided such an explanation in the body of their petition, before the relief, stating that copies were served by mail to save time and costs because of the number of parties to be served and the distance of the LBP office in Cagayan de Oro City and the DAR/DARAB and LRA offices in Diliman, Quezon City. The Court of Appeals thus erred in treating this as a ground for dismissal.

• Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping: Section 5, Rule 7 requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath against forum shopping. The SPA in favor of Rodolfo Lonoy, who signed the verification and certification, was not signed by all petitioners; some heirs did not sign, and only one person signed for the first four heirs of Donny Ruedas and for some of the heirs of Jose Febe Nanaman. Petitioners' explanation that some were at work was flimsy and unsatisfactory because it did not make securing signatures impossible. Under PET Plans, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, a verification and certification signed without authority is defective. While subsequent substantial compliance may justify relaxation in special circumstances, petitioners showed no reasonable cause. The defect was therefore fatal.

• Prohibition as Remedy: Section 2, Rule 65 allows prohibition when proceedings are without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Prohibition is extraordinary and commands a person not to do something he is about to do; it cannot undo an act already done. The petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 00365 was essentially an action to nullify the EPs and OCTs, with prohibition sought only to prevent their implementation. Because the EPs and OCTs had already been issued in 2001, prohibition could not lie to restrain a fait accompli.

• Indefeasibility of Titles: Section 32 of the Property Registration Decree provides that a decree of registration may be reopened or reviewed only within one year from entry, and after that period the decree and certificate of title become incontrovertible. Estribillo vs. Department of Agrarian Reform held that certificates of title issued in administrative proceedings are as indefeasible as those issued judicially. The EPs were issued on 1 August 2001, and the OCTs were registered on 21 September 2001 and 1 October 2001. Petitioners filed CA-G.R. SP No. 00365 only on 7 June 2005, almost four years later, and did not go to the RTC within the one-year period. After the one-year period, the remedy was an ordinary action for reconveyance, or, if the property had passed to an innocent purchaser for value, an action for damages. Prohibition was not available.

• Prohibition does not lie to restrain a fait accompli — Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that commands a person to desist from doing an act he is about to do; it cannot undo an act already accomplished. The Court applied this doctrine because the emancipation patents and original certificates of title had already been issued and registered in 2001, while the petition for prohibition was filed only in 2005.

• Indefeasibility of administratively issued certificates of title — Certificates of title issued in administrative proceedings, such as emancipation patents and corresponding original certificates of title under the agrarian reform program, are as indefeasible as certificates issued in judicial proceedings. After one year from the issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent, the title becomes incontrovertible and may no longer be the subject of a cadastral proceeding or decreed to another person. The Court applied this to bar the 2005 challenge to the 2001 EPs and OCTs.

• Verification and certification against forum shopping; authority to sign — The plaintiff or principal party must certify under oath against forum shopping. When the certification is signed by a representative, the representative must be duly authorized by all parties. Failure to comply is not curable by mere amendment and is cause for dismissal without prejudice. The Court applied this because not all petitioners signed the SPA authorizing Rodolfo Lonoy to sign the verification and certification.

• Liberal relaxation of procedural rules requires special circumstances — Subsequent and substantial compliance may justify relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of justice, but the petitioner must show reasonable cause for non-compliance and convince the court that outright dismissal would defeat the administration of justice. The Court found no such special circumstances because the excuse that some petitioners were at work was flimsy.

• Contents of a petition filed in the Court of Appeals — Under Section 3, Rule 46 and Section 2, Rule 65, only the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject of the petition must be accompanied by a duplicate original or certified true copy; other supporting documents and pleadings may be plain machine copies. The Court applied this to hold that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for failure to attach certified copies of supporting annexes.

• Written explanation for non-personal service — Under Section 11, Rule 13, a party who does not serve or file personally must provide a written explanation. The Court found substantial compliance where the explanation was incorporated in the body of the petition.

• "Prohibition, as a rule, does not lie to restrain an act that is already a fait accompli." — This states the core remedial ground for denying the petition for prohibition, because the emancipation patents and original certificates of title had already been issued and registered before the action was filed.

• "Section 3 of Rule 46 does not require that all supporting papers and documents accompanying a petition be duplicate originals or certified true copies. What it explicitly directs is that all petitions originally filed before the Court of Appeals shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution or ruling subject thereof." — This defines the procedural requirement for petitions filed in the Court of Appeals and explains why the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for defective supporting annexes.

• "A certificate of title becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent. Land covered by such title may no longer be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding, nor can it be decreed to another person." — This is the canonical formulation of the indefeasibility rule applied to the emancipation patents and original certificates of title issued in 2001.

• "Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing." — This states the consequence of a defective certification against forum shopping, which the Court applied to affirm the dismissal because not all petitioners signed the SPA authorizing the signatory.

• Noel vs. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 89 (1995) — Prior related decision in Civil Case No. 698; held the subject property was the conjugal property of Gregorio and Hilaria, that Hilaria could sell only her one-half share to Deleste, and that the estate of Gregorio and Deleste became co-owners in equal shares.
• Estribillo vs. Department of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 159674, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA 218 — Controlling precedent for the doctrine that certificates of title issued in administrative proceedings are as indefeasible as those issued in judicial proceedings; applied to the emancipation patents and OCTs.
• PET Plans, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148287, November 23, 2004, 443 SCRA 510 — Cited to support dismissal where the verification and certification against forum shopping was signed by a corporate officer without proof of authority; applied by analogy to the unauthorized signatory in this case.
• United Paragon Mining Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150959, August 4, 2006, 497 SCRA 638 — Cited for the rule that liberal relaxation of procedural rules requires reasonable cause and a showing that outright dismissal would defeat justice; the Court found no such justification.
• Cabañero and Mangornong vs. Torres, 61 Phil. 522 (1935) — Cited for the nature of prohibition: it commands a person not to do something he is about to do and cannot undo an act already done.
• Aguinaldo vs. Commission on Elections, 368 Phil. 253 (1999) — Cited for the rule that prohibition does not lie to restrain an act that is already a fait accompli.
• Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 171098, February 26, 2008, 546 SCRA 595 — Cited in support of the rule that only the challenged judgment, order, or resolution need be a duplicate original or certified true copy; supporting documents may be machine copies.
• Gonzales vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 69622, January 29, 1988, 157 SCRA 587 — Cited for the remedy of reconveyance after the expiration of the one-year period for reopening a decree of registration.

• Section 3, Rule 46, Rules of Court — Requires a petition originally filed in the Court of Appeals to be accompanied by a duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof and material portions of the record. The Court applied it to hold that supporting annexes need not be certified true copies, so the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing on that ground.
• Section 2, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for prohibition, requiring that the proceedings be without or in excess of jurisdiction or attended by grave abuse of discretion and that there be no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The Court applied it to hold that prohibition was improper because the EPs and OCTs were already a fait accompli.
• Section 11, Rule 13, Rules of Court — Requires a written explanation when service or filing is not done personally. The Court applied it to find that petitioners substantially complied because the explanation was incorporated in the petition.
• Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court — Requires the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath against forum shopping; failure is not curable by amendment and is cause for dismissal without prejudice. The Court applied it to hold that the failure of all petitioners to sign the SPA authorizing the signatory was fatal.
• Section 32, Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529) — Provides for review of a decree of registration within one year from entry; after one year, the decree and certificate of title become incontrovertible, and the remedy is an action for damages against those responsible for fraud. The Court applied it to bar the 2005 challenge to the 2001 EPs and OCTs.
• Section 105, Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529) — Directs the DAR to issue certificates of land transfer and emancipation patents under P.D. No. 27 and the Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding original certificate of title. The Court cited it to explain the administrative issuance of the titles in question.
• Presidential Decree No. 27 — Decreed the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil, transferring to them ownership of the land they till and providing the instruments and mechanism therefor. The Court cited it as the program under which the subject property was placed and the EPs were issued.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, and Ruben T. Reyes concurred. Justice Antonio T. Carpio was designated as an additional member replacing Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per Raffle dated 21 October 2007. No separate concurring opinions are indicated in the text.