Back to Index
1983 / Oct

G.R. No. L-49891 - OCTOBER 1983 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-49891October 31, 1983 Republic of the Philippines vs. Irineo V. Mendoza G.R. No. L-62467October 31, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo S. Broqueza G.R. No. L-54009October 28, 1983 Valley Golf Club, Inc. vs. Emilio Salas G.R. No. L-54448October 28, 1983 University of Santo Tomas vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-55337October 28, 1983 Ninfa F. Cua vs. Judge Eulalio D. Rosete A.C. No. 1856October 28, 1983 Salvacion E. Marcayda vs. Justiniano P. Naz G.R. No. L-61255October 28, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Calimquim G.R. No. L-63557October 28, 1983 Lingner & Fisher Gmbh vs. Intermediate Appellate Court A.C. No. 1092October 27, 1983 Vicente Lim vs. Atty. Francisco G. Antonio A.C. No. 1422October 27, 1983 Jesus V. Merritt vs. Herminio H. Cacanindin A.C. No. 1519October 27, 1983 Wenceslao Sumapig vs. Macario Esmas, Jr. A.C. No. 2266October 27, 1983 Herminio R. Noriega vs. Atty. Emmanuel R. Sison G.R. No. L- 24548October 27, 1983 Wenceslao Vlnzons Tan vs. Director of Forestry G.R. No. L-26746October 27, 1983 Justo Alcaraz vs. Ricardo Racimo G.R. No. L-32550October 27, 1983 Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration vs. Hon. Antonio G. Lucero, et al. G.R. No. L-35336October 27, 1983 Amalia Vda. De Suan, et al. vs. the Honorable Vicente N. Cusi, Jr., et al G.R. No. L-37766October 27, 1983 Rogelia Perartilla, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-39835October 27, 1983 Phil. Veterans Affairs Office vs. Lino L. Añover G.R. No. L-40111October 27, 1983 Pedro S. Ravelo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-45857October 27, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Sison G.R. No. L-48419October 27, 1983 Eduardo M. Lesaca vs. Hon. Serafin R. Cuevas G.R. No. L-50320October 27, 1983 Phil. Apparel Workers Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission. G.R. No. L-50419October 27, 1983 Spouses Francisco K. Redor, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-53431October 27, 1983 Board of Transportation vs. Honorable Jose P. Castro, et al. G.R. No. L-55539October 27, 1983 Diosa De Leon vs. Employees' Compensation Commission. G.R. No. L-58399October 27, 1983 Eusebio Bernabe vs. Abelardo M. Dayrit G.R. No. L-58849ctober 27, 1983 Angel V. Caguioa vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-59280October 27, 1983 Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. the Honorable Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-60716October 27, 1983 Agusan Del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Hon. Fortunato A. Vailoces G.R. No. L-61289October 27, 1983 First Integrated Bonding & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Judge Mario M. Dizon G.R. No. L-62339October 27, 1983 Spouses Morata vs. Spouses Go G.R. No. L-62376October 27, 1983 Maria Velasquez vs. William George G.R. No. L-63779October 27, 1983 Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Corp. vs. Manuel M. Lazaro G.R. No. L-31179October 26, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Ulpiano Yarcia G.R. No. L-31949October 26, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Ildefonso Brecinio G.R. No. L-38700October 26, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Ludovico Cervantes, et al. G.R. No. L-44429October 26, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Eleuterio Torres G.R. No. L-50300October 26, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Yap, et al. G.R. No. L-60665October 26, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Cirilo Flores G.R. No. L-61679October 26, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Ponciano Oydoc G.R. No. L-64731October 26, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. the Presiding Judge Rtc G.R. Nos. L-60549, 60553 to 60555October 26, 1983 Heirs of Juancho Ardona, et al. vs. Hon. Juan Y. Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-61105October 25, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Untalasco, Jr. A.C. No. 1354October 24, 1983 Cosme Rosell vs. Jose E. Fantonial G.R. No. L-49101October 24, 1983 Raoul S.V. Bonnevie vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-50143October 24, 1983 Maria Teves vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-51906October 24, 1983 Plaridel C. Jose vs. Cham Samco & Sons, Inc. G.R. No. L-61078October 24, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Bartolome Jabuego G.R. No. L-63761October 24, 1983 Yolanda H. Gordula, et al. vs. Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, et al. G.R. No. L-33459October 20, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Honorable Onofre A. Villaluz G.R. No. L-27602October 15, 1983 Vicente Caoile vs. Martiniano P. Vivo G.R. No. L-60706October 15, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Andres Grefiel G.R. No. L-65162October 15, 1983 Monico B. Biglaen vs. Josephus Ramas G.R. No. L-57259October 13, 1983 Angel P. Peran vs. Presiding Judge, Branch II G.R. No. L-49044October 12, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Lao Wan Sing G.R. No. L-61408October 12, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Isidro Clores, et Al G.R. No. L-60577October 11, 1983 Josefa Legaspi-Santos vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-61684October 11, 1983 Rolando Roxas Surveying Co. vs. National Labor Relation Commission G.R. No. L-64397October 11, 1983 Carnation Philippines Employees Labor Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-39683October 10, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Perio-Perio G.R. No. L-58595October 10, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo M. Ilarde The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Republic of the Philippines vs. Irineo V. Mendoza The People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo S. Broqueza Valley Golf Club, Inc. vs. Emilio Salas University of Santo Tomas vs. National Labor Relations Commission Ninfa F. Cua vs. Judge Eulalio D. Rosete Salvacion E. Marcayda vs. Justiniano P. Naz The People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Calimquim Lingner & Fisher Gmbh vs. Intermediate Appellate Court Vicente Lim vs. Atty. Francisco G. Antonio Jesus V. Merritt vs. Herminio H. Cacanindin Wenceslao Sumapig vs. Macario Esmas, Jr. Herminio R. Noriega vs. Atty. Emmanuel R. Sison Wenceslao Vlnzons Tan vs. Director of Forestry Justo Alcaraz vs. Ricardo Racimo Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration vs. Hon. Antonio G. Lucero, et al. Amalia Vda. De Suan, et al. vs. the Honorable Vicente N. Cusi, Jr., et al Rogelia Perartilla, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Phil. Veterans Affairs Office vs. Lino L. Añover Pedro S. Ravelo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Sison Eduardo M. Lesaca vs. Hon. Serafin R. Cuevas Phil. Apparel Workers Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission. Spouses Francisco K. Redor, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Board of Transportation vs. Honorable Jose P. Castro, et al. Diosa De Leon vs. Employees' Compensation Commission. Eusebio Bernabe vs. Abelardo M. Dayrit Angel V. Caguioa vs. Court of Appeals Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. the Honorable Court of Appeals Agusan Del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Hon. Fortunato A. Vailoces First Integrated Bonding & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Judge Mario M. Dizon Spouses Morata vs. Spouses Go Maria Velasquez vs. William George Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Corp. vs. Manuel M. Lazaro The People of the Philippines vs. Ulpiano Yarcia People of the Philippines vs. Ildefonso Brecinio The People of the Philippines vs. Ludovico Cervantes, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Eleuterio Torres The People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Yap, et al. The People of the Philippines vs. Cirilo Flores People of the Philippines vs. Ponciano Oydoc People of the Philippines vs. the Presiding Judge Rtc Heirs of Juancho Ardona, et al. vs. Hon. Juan Y. Reyes, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Untalasco, Jr. Cosme Rosell vs. Jose E. Fantonial Raoul S.V. Bonnevie vs. Court of Appeals Maria Teves vs. Court of Appeals Plaridel C. Jose vs. Cham Samco & Sons, Inc. The People of the Philippines vs. Bartolome Jabuego Yolanda H. Gordula, et al. vs. Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Honorable Onofre A. Villaluz Vicente Caoile vs. Martiniano P. Vivo People of the Philippines vs. Andres Grefiel Monico B. Biglaen vs. Josephus Ramas Angel P. Peran vs. Presiding Judge, Branch II People of the Philippines vs. Lao Wan Sing The People of the Philippines vs. Isidro Clores, et Al Josefa Legaspi-Santos vs. Court of Appeals Rolando Roxas Surveying Co. vs. National Labor Relation Commission Carnation Philippines Employees Labor Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission The People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Perio-Perio People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo M. Ilarde The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.


Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-49891 October 31, 1983

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,petitioner,
vs.
HON. IRINEO V. MENDOZA, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH III, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MASBATE, The LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL.,respondents.

The Solicitor General for petitioner.

Rodolfo A. Manlapaz for private respondents.


GUTIERREZ, JR.,J.:

This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus to annul — (1) the order issued on January 17, 1979 by respondent Judge Irineo V. Mendoza of the Court of First Instance of Masbate, Branch 111, dismissing the petitioner's appeal in LRC Case No. 301-III entitled Robert Arevalo, Applicant versus Republic of the Philippines, Oppositor, (2) the decree of registration issued by the respondent Land Registration Commissioner in the same case and (3) the Certificate of Title issued by the respondent Registrar of Deeds of Masbate pursuant to the decree of registration and to compel the respondent judge to give due course to petitioner's appeal in the LRC Case No. 301-III.

On January 28, 1978, private respondent Robert Arevalo filed with the Court of First Instance of Masbate an application for registration of title to six (6) parcels of land, designated as Lots Nos. 1 to 6 in Plan Psu -05-001980. The lots have an aggregate area of 121.5599 hectares.

On May 2, 1978, the Solicitor General filed by man his notice of appearance. Said notice of appearance reads:

"G r e e t i n g s

"Please enter the appearance of the Solicitor General as counsel for the Government in the above-entitled case,and cause all notices of hearings, orders, resolutions, decisions and other processes to be served upon him at the Office of the Solicitor General Department of Justice, Manila.

"The Provincial Fiscal of Masbate has been authorized to appear in the case and therefore should also be furnished notices of hearings, orders, resolutions, decisions, processes.However, as the Solicitor General retains supervision and control of the representation in this case and has to approve withdrawal of the case, nonappear or other actions which appear to compromise the interests of the Government, only notices of orders, resolutions, and decisions served on him will bind the party represented.

"Adverse parties are likewise requested to furnish both the Solicitor General and the Fiscal with copies of their pleadings and motions. (Original Record, p. 38. Emphasis supplied)

On July 5, 1978, the Director of Lands and the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development represented by the Solicitor General through the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Masbate filed by mail oppositions to the application for registration.

On July 20, 1978, a general order of default was declared by respondent judge against the whole world with the exception of the Director of Lands and the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development.

On September 4, 1978, the respondent judge rendered a decision confirming private respondent Robert Arevalo's imperfect title to the six parcels of land and ordering the registration thereof. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, a decision is hereby rendered that the parcels of land, Lots Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, described, bounded and plotted on Plan Psu-05- 001980 (Exhibit 'F') and its accompanying technical descriptions (Exhibits 'G', 'G-l', 'G-2', 'G-3', 'G-4', and 'G-5'), respectively, be REGISTERED and the title CONFIRMED, pursuant to Section 38 of Act No. 496 in the name of the applicant, Robert Arevalo, of legal age, Filipino, married to Josephine Bayot and resident of 24 Alphine St., Merville Park, Paranaque, Metro Manila, subject to such encumbrances as are stated under Section 39 of the same Act as maybe subsisting and that should the need arises, the applicant shag cede in favor of the government so much portion as may be needed for a road right-of-way purposes.

On September 8, 1978, the Provincial Fiscal of Masbate received a copy of the decision but did not furnish a copy thereof to the Solicitor General. It was only on November 6, 1978 that the Solicitor General received a copy of the decision.

On October 13, 1978, private respondent Robert Arevalo filed a motion for the issuance of a decree on the ground that the decision had already become final and executory, thirty (30) days having elapsed from the service of the decision to the parties and no appeal having been interposed by any one. The motion was granted by the respondent judge on October 18, 1978.

On December 5, 1978, petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General filed by mail its notice of appeal and record of appeal, setting the latter for hearing on December 15, 1978.

On January 9, 1979, private respondent Robert Arevalo filed a motion to dismiss appeal on the ground that the decision in this case has already become final and that said decision has already been executed with the issuance of the decree in favor of the applicant. Arevalo added that title was already issued in his name, and registered with the Registrar of Deeds of Masbate as of November 29, 1978.

On January 17, 1979, the respondent judge issued an order dismissing the Republic's appeal for having been filed out of time. The lower court stated that while it is true that the power and/or right to withdraw opposition, to appeal or not to appeal, and other actions which appear to compromise the interests of the government remained with the Solicitor General, yet the said right should be exercised within the period prescribed by law from the time the authorized representative received the order and/or decision being appealed.

The only issue before us is whether the thirty-day period to appeal should be counted from the service of the decision upon the fiscal or from the time it was received by the Solicitor General.

The petitioner relies on our ruling inRepublic v. Hon. Wenceslao M. Polo(89 SCRA 33), where we held that the thirty-day appeal period should be counted from the time the Solicitor General received a copy of the decision because the service of the decision upon the City Fiscal did not operate as a service upon the Solicitor General.

On the other hand, the private respondent relies on our ruling inRepublic v. Director of Lands(71 SCRA 426) where we held that service upon the provincial fiscal is binding upon the Republic.

We agree with the petitioner.

Republic v. Polo(89 SCRA 33) states categorically that the thirty-day period should be counted from the date the Solicitor General received a copy of the decision because the service of the decision upon the city fiscal did not operate as a service upon the Solicitor General. We stated:

The issue is whether the thirty-day period should be reckoned from the service of the decision upon the fiscal or from the time it was served upon the Solicitor General.

We hold that the thirty-day period should be counted from the date when the Solicitor General received a copy of the decision because the service of the decision upon the city fiscal did not operate as a service upon the Solicitor General.ℒαwρhi৷

It should be clarified that, although the Solicitor General requested the city fiscal to represent him in the trial court, he, nevertheless, made his own separate appearance as counsel for the State. In that 'notice of appearance' he expressly requested that he should be served in Manila with 'all notices of hearings, orders, resolutions, decisions and other processes' and that such service is distinct from the service of notices and other papers on the city fiscal.

The Solicitor General also indicated in his 'notice of appearance' that he 'retains supervision and control of the representation in this case and has to approve withdrawal of the case, nonappear or other actions which appear to compromise the interests of the Government and that'only notices of orders, resolutions and decisions served on him will bind'the Government.

The Solicitor General in requesting the city fiscal to represent him at the hearings called the attention of that official to Circular No. 41 of the Secretary of Justice dated November 28, 1973 wherein provincial and city fiscals were advised that, in cases where they represent the Solicitor General,'service on the Solicitor General shall be the basis "for the purpose of finality of the decision'.

In this case, it is obvious that, strictly speaking, the city fiscal did not directly represent the Government. He was merely a surrogate of the Solicitor General whose office, 'as the law office of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines', is the entity that is empowered to 'represent the Government in all land registration and related proceedings' (Sec. l[e], Presidential Decree No. 478).

The trial court in disallowing the Government's appeal relied on the ruling that the service of the decision in a land registration case on the fiscal is necessarily a service on the Solicitor General (Republic v. Reyes,L-35545, June 18, 1976, 71 SCRA 426, 436-437).

That ruling is not applicable to this case because in theReyescase the fiscal, as representative of the Solicitor General, was authorized not only to attend hearings but also to file pleadings for the Government. In the instant case, the city fiscal's authority was confined to attending the hearings. The Office of the Solicitor General was the one that filed the pleadings and motions in the lower court.

The Solicitor General in his petition herein observed that it was the ruling in theReyescase that prompted his office 'to revise completely the letter of authority to fiscals representing' him by making it clear that it is the service of the decision on the Solicitor General that would bind the Government.

TheReyescase is no longer the law on the issue before us apart from the fact that it is not applicable to the instant

A petition because it has a different factual setting. The appeal was perfected on time and should be given due course.

WHEREFORE,the trial court's order disallowing the petitioner's appeal is reversed and set aside. The respondent court is directed to certify the appeal and transmit the records to the appellate court (the record on appeal having been eliminated under Section 18 of the Court's Interim Rules And Guidelines dated January 11, 1983). The decree of registration and the certificate of title issued in this case are ordered cancelled for having been prematurely issued. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana and Relova, JJ., concur.