[G.R. No. 145998. January 29, 2001]

TOP SERVICE, INC. vs. REP OF THE PHILS., et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 29 2001.

G.R. No. 145998 (Top Service Inc. vs. Republic of the Philippines represented by the Land Registration Authority.)

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals, which annulled and set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas for having been rendered with lack of jurisdiction. Disposed thus the Court of Appeals:

Consequently, the decision dated June 25, 1999 and the order dated April 4, 2000 which were issued by respondent Judge Florentino M. Alumbres of Branch 255 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas in LRC Case No. 98-0303, entitled “In Re: PETITION TO AMEND ENTRIES AS APPEARING IN ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 3036 PURSUANT TO SEC. 50, PD 1529,” are both hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, let an injunction issue permanently enjoining the respondent judge and/or his sheriffs or other agents acting for an in his behalf, from enforcing an/or implementing the said decision and order issued in said LRC Case No. 98-0303.

(p. 35, Rollo.)

Sometime in July 1998, petitioner filed a petition to amend entries appearing in Original Certificate of Title No. 3036 registered in its name, covering a subdivided land located in Talon, Las Piñas. Petitioner sought the amendment of annotations on the subject title concerning the designation of “open spaces” for a subdivision established and approved pursuant to the provisions of then Republic Act No. 440 which law was superseded by Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree. Simply put, petitioner sought the cancellation of the designation of Lot II, Block 1 and Block 4 as “open space” so that said parcels of land may be subjected to the disposition of petitioner.

The Land Registration Authority, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed, contending that the applicable law should be Presidential Decree No. 957 and that petitioner failed to comply with said law.

In its reply petitioner argued that the subject subdivision Psd 66876 was established in 1963, hence the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 957 are not applicable but the governing law should be Presidential Decree No. 1529 which superseded Republic Act No. 440.

The trial court decided in favor of petitioner.

In its motion for reconsideration filed on September 27, 1999, the OSG insisted on the applicability of Section 22 of Presidential Decree No. 957 which required the approval of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) of any re-survey plan intending to reduce the area of open spaces in any subdivision. The motion was denied on April 4, 2000.

On April 25, 2000, the OSG filed a motion for clarification and notice of appeal ad cautelum and requested the proper service of the said order of April 4, 2000 and/or grant petitioner’s notice of appeal. But this too was denied by the trial court in its order dated June 29, 2000 thusly:

As further alleged by the OSG, the copy of the decision in this case dated June 25, 1999, was received by it on September 13, 1999, and it filed a motion for reconsideration on September 27, 1999 or fourteen (14) days thereafter. It has therefore but one (1) day left from receipt of the order dated April 7, 2000 [should be April 4] within which to perfect its appeal. It appears in the record that it filed the Notice of Appeal only on April 28, 2000, or twenty-one (21) days from its receipt of the order denying its motion for reconsideration. Thus, for all legal intents and purposes, the decision of June 25, 1999 has already become final and executory.

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Notice of Appeal filed by the Office of the Solicitor General is hereby DENIED due course or dismissed it being filed out of time.

(p. 87, Rollo.)

Thereafter, the OSG filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals seeking to annul and set aside the decision dated June 25, 1999 and the order dated April 4, 2000 and the same was granted thus, enjoining the trial court and/or its sheriffs or agents from enforcing the decision dated June 25, 1999 and the Order dated April 4, 2000.

Hence, the instant petition which we find to be unavailing.

The Court finds no reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals when it ruled that the trial court had no authority to hear and decide LRC Case No. 98-0303, on the ground that the matter of altering/changing an “open space” in a subdivision plan is not cognizable by the regional trial courts since jurisdiction is vested in the HLURB, the quasi-judicial agency mandated by Presidential Decree No. 957 to review and determine the matter. Sections 3 and 12 of Presidential Decree No. 957 explicitly state:

Sec. 3 National Housing Authority. – the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business in accordance with the provisions of this Decree.

Sec. 22. Alteration of Plans. – No owner or developer shall change or alter the roads, open spaces, infrastructures, facilities for public use and/or other form of subdivision development as contained in the approved subdivision plan and/or represented in its advertisements, without the permission of the Authority and the written conformity or consent of the duly organized homeowners association, or in the absence of the latter, by the majority of the lot buyers in the subdivision.

(pp. 33-34, Rollo.)

Moreover, it is worthy to note that while petitioner challenges the applicability of Presidential Decree No. 957 it, however, invoked the same law to enable it to reduce the designed open space in survey plan Psd 66976 into 3% gross area of the subdivision property. More importantly, the trial court itself applied the aforesaid law in rendering its assailed decision pertinent portion of said decision stated:

However, neither Act No. 496, as amended by RA 440, and PD 1529 provides for the required area for open spaces which are to be used for playgrounds, parks and recreational areas within a subdivision. On the other hand, PD 957, as amended, provides that the area such kind of open spaces should be 3.5% of the total gross area of the subdivision. As testified by petitioner’s witness, said 3.5% ratio was the customary requirement for subdivisions even prior to the enactment of PD 957, and such ratio or percentage was merely adopted by PD 957.

(p. 105, Rollo.)

Anent the issue that respondent OSG lost its appeal and may no longer seek recourse by way of a petition for certiorari, the Court has consistently ruled that a decision of a court or tribunal which had no lawful jurisdiction over the subject matter is a total nullity. A void judgment never acquires finality and any action to declare its nullity does not prescribed (Heirs of Mayor Nemencio Galvez vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 672 [1996]).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y CARREON

Clerk of Court