FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 198647, November 20, 2017
SN ABOITIZ POWER-MAGAT, INC., Petitioner, v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF ALFONSO LISTA, IFUGAO, REPRESENTED BY THE MUNICIPAL MAYOR, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
TIJAM, J.:
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45, which seeks to assail the Decision dated April 6, 20112 and Resolution dated September 15, 20113 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 113111.
On September 17, 2008, respondent Municipality of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao filed an Amended Complaint4, alleging that the National Power Corporation (NPC) fraudulently secured Special Patent No. 3723 by making it appear in the survey plans that certain parcels of land were located in Barangay General Aguinaldo, Ramon, Isabela when these parcels of land were actually located in Barangay Sto. Domingo in Alfonso Lista, Ifugao.5
Respondent alleged that on the strength of such survey plans, NPC succeeded in having the Special Patent No. 3723 entered in the registry of books of the Register of Deeds of Santiago City in 2004. Consequently, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-1 was issued.6
Later on, NPC alienated such parcels of land in favor of Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM), a government owned and controlled corporation, which in turn transferred the same to petitioner SN Aboitiz Power Magat, Inc.7 (SNAP).8
In its amended complaint, respondent municipality prayed for the declaration of nullity of Special Patent No. 3723 and OCT No. 0-1 because the same were void for failure to reflect the true location of the subject parcels of land. To bolster its allegation, respondent municipality averred that the Register of Deeds of Isabela, which registered the subject patent, did not have the authority to do so because it had no jurisdiction over the parcels of land covered by the same.9
In the alternative, respondent municipality prayed that the wordings of Special Patent No. 3723 and the subsequent titles derived therefrom be amended to reflect the true location of the subject parcels of land, which is Brgy. Sto. Domingo in Alfonso Lista, Ifugao.10
Respondent municipality emphasized that it was asserting its right of jurisdiction, not ownership, over the land, which was violated by the issuance of said patent.11
Instead of filing an Answer, SNAP, as successor-in-interest of NPC, filed a Motion to Dismiss12 dated November 19, 2008 on the grounds of prescription and failure to state a cause of action. Moreover, petitioner maintained that it had a valid title, i.e. TCT No. TSC-16666, to the subject property.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court hereby DENIES for lack of merit the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant SN Aboitiz Power, Inc. (SNAP). This Court finds no need to discuss and evaluate the arguments raised by the plaintiff in their Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and the Reply submitted by defendant SN Aboitiz Power, Inc. (SNAP), as well as the Counter Reply also submitted by the plaintiff.SNAP filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was subsequently denied in a Resolution dated December 8, 2009.15
Defendant SN Aboitiz Power, Inc. (SNAP) is hereby ordered to file its Answer to the Complaint within a period of ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Furnish copies of this Resolution to the parties concerned and their respective counsels.
SO ORDERED.14
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Resolutions dated December 8, 2009 and May 7, 2009 are AFFIRMED.SNAP filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution dated September 15, 2011.18
SO ORDERED.17
22. In obtaining a Special Patent and OCT 0-1, defendant National Corporation did not only alter legally established Provincial boundaries between the Province of Ifugao and Isabela in general and the Municipalities of Ramon, Isabela and Alfonso Lista, Ifugao I particular (sic). Clearly, it also unduly deprived the Province of Ifugao and the Municipality of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao, of a substantial portion of lands within its territorial jurisdiction and substantial tax revenues over parcels of land which are clearly within its territorial jurisdiction; x x x22It must be considered that the main thrust of respondent municipality's claim rests on its allegations that fraud attended the securing of the subject patents and certificates of title and that such fraud had the effect of depriving it of its territorial jurisdiction. Such deprivation hinges on respondent municipality's claim that the subject property is actually situated within its territorial jurisdiction, and not in the Province of Isabela. On the other hand, SNAP strongly denied the allegations of respondent municipality and underlined the validity of its title over the subject property. As it is, the respondent municipality is claiming its territorial jurisdiction over the property and its corollary right to collect taxes.
Section 108. Amendment and Alteration of Certificates. - No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same by the Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance. A registered owner or other person having interest in the registered property, and, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the ground that the registered interest of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated and ceased, or that new interest not appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been created, or that an omission or error was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or on any duplicate certificate or that the same or any person on the certificate has been terminated and no right or interests of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; or that a corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved has not conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court may hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such te1ms and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may consider proper; Provided, however, That this section shall not be construed to give the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court which shall impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs and assigns, without his or their written consent. Where the owner's duplicate certificate is not presented, a similar petition may be filed as provided in the preceding section.Under the aforequoted provision, the proceeding for the erasure, alteration, or amendment of a certificate of title may be resorted to in seven instances: (1.) when registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; (2.) when new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate; (3.) when any error, omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate of any memorandum thereon or on any duplicate certificate; (4.) when the name of any person on the certificate has been changed; (5.) when the registered owner has been married, or, registered as married, the marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; (6.) when a corporation, which owned registered land and has been dissolved, has not conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution; and (7.) when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of title.25
All petitions or motions filed under this Section as well as under any other provision of this Decree after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered.
SECTION 118. Jurisdictional Responsibility for Settlement of Boundary Dispute. - Boundary disputes between and among local government units shall, as much as possible, be settled amicably. To this end:Evidently, the boundary dispute is between the Municipality of Alfonso Lista in the Province of Ifugao and the Municipality of Ramon in the Province of Isabela. Such issue and its corollary incidents cannot be resolved in the complaint and the subsequent amended complaint filed by the respondent municipality. In other words, respondent municipality's territorial claim can neither be resolved in an action for nullification of title nor in an action to amend title.
(a) Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more Barangays in the same city or municipality shall be referred for settlement to the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan concerned.
(b) Boundary disputes involving two (2) or more municipalities within the same province shall be referred for settlement to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan concerned.
(c) Boundary disputes involving municipalities or component cities of different provinces shall be jointly referred for settlement to the Sanggunians of the provinces concerned.
(d) Boundary disputes involving a component city or municipality on the one hand and a highly urbanized city on the other, or two (2) or more highly urbanized cities, shall be jointly referred for settlement to the respective Sanggunians of the parties.
(e) In the event the Sanggunian fails to effect an amicable settlement within sixty (60) days from the date the dispute was referred thereto, it shall issue a certification to that effect. Thereafter, the dispute shall be formally tried by the Sanggunian concerned which shall decide the issue within sixty (60) days from the date of the certification referred to above. (Emphasis ours)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-40.
2 Id. at 46-60, penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Leoncia R. Dimagiba.
3 Id. at 63-65.
4 Id. at 146-156.
5 Id. at 47-48.
6 Id. at 152-153.
7 Also called SN Aboitiz Power, Inc. in other parts of the rollo.
8 Id. at 155.
9 Id. at 152-153
10 Id. at 156.
11 Id. at 152-153.
12 Id. at 163-180.
13 Id. at 238-244.
14 Id. at 243-244.
15 Id. at 111-114.
16 Id. at 46-60.
17 Id. at 59.
18 Id. at 63-65.
19"J" Marketing Corp. v. Taran, 607 Phil. 414, 428 (2009) citing Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Baustista, 497 Phil. 863 (2005).
20Katon v. Palanca, Jr., 481 Phil. 168, 184 (2004).
21Rural Bank ofCalinog (Iloilo), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 501 Phil. 387 (2005).
22Rollo, p. 152-153.
23Zuniga-Santos v. Santos-Gran, 745 Phil. 171, 177 (2014).
24Rollo, p. 156.
25Banguis-Tambuyat v. Balcom-Tambuyat, 756 Phil. 586, 602 (2015).
26Cabañez v. Solano, G.R. No. 200180, June 6, 2016, 792 SCRA 268.
27 Id.
28 524 Phil. 483 (2006).