Jesus G. Crisologo and Nanette B. Crisologo, Petitioners, Jewm Agro-Industrial CORPORATION, Respondent

8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 717
G.R. No. 196894.March 3, 2014.*

JESUS G. CRISOLOGO and NANETTE B. CRISOLOGO,
petitioners, vs. JEWM AGRO-INDUSTRIAL
CORPORATION, respondent.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Parties; Indispensable

Parties; In an action for the cancellation of memorandum
annotated at the
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
645
back of a certificate of title, the persons considered as

indispensable include those whose liens appear as annotations
pursuant to Section 108 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529.In
an action for the cancellation of memorandum annotated at the
back of a certificate of title, the persons considered as
indispensable include those whose liens appear as annotations
pursuant to Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, to wit: 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 an interest in registered property, or, 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 interests of any
description, whether vested, contingent, expectant inchoate
appearing on the certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that
new interest not appearing upon the certificates have arisen or
been created; or that an omission or error was made in entering a
certificate or memorandum thereon, or on any duplicate
certificate; x x x 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 terms and
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e1f944623cbfdce01003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17
conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may

consider proper.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The reason behind this compulsory
joinder of indispensable parties is the complete determination of
all possible issues, not only between the parties themselves but also
as regards other persons who may be affected by the judgment.
The reason behind this compulsory joinder of indispensable
parties is the complete determination of all possible issues, not
only between the parties themselves but also as regards other
persons who may be affected by the judgment. In this case, RTC-
Br. 14, despite repeated pleas by Spouses Crisologo to be
recognized as indispensable parties, failed to implement the
mandatory import of the aforecited rule. In fact, in Sps. Crisologo
v. Judge George E. Omelio, 682 SCRA 154 (2012), a related
administrative case, the Court found the trial judge guilty of gross
ignorance of the law when it disregarded the claims of Spouses
Crisologo to participate.
646
Same; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; Interlocutory Orders;

The remedy against an interlocutory order, not subject of an
appeal, is an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65,
provided that the interlocutory order is rendered without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.At any
rate, the remedy against an interlocutory order, not subject of an
appeal, is an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65,
provided that the interlocutory order is rendered without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Only then
is certiorari under Rule 65 allowed to be resorted to.
Procedural Rules and Technicalities; The Supreme Court has
ruled that technical rules of procedures should be used to promote,
not frustrate the cause of justice.In many instances, the Court
has ruled that technical rules of procedures should be used to
promote, not frustrate the cause of justice. Rules of procedure are
tools designed not to thwart but to facilitate the attainment of
justice; thus, their strict and rigid application may, for good and
deserving reasons, have to give way to, and be subordinated by,
the need to aptly dispense substantial justice in the normal cause.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Parties; Indispensable
Parties; Time and again, the Supreme Court has ruled that the
absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of
the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to
the absent parties but even to those present.Be it noted that the
effect of their non-participation as indispensable parties is to
preclude the judgment, orders and the proceedings from attaining
finality. Time and again, the Court has ruled that the absence of
an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court

null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the
absent parties but even to those present. Consequently, the
proceedings before RTC-Br. 14 were null and void including the
assailed orders, which may be ignored wherever and whenever it
exhibits its head.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
R.A.V. Saguisag & Associates for petitioners.
647
Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for respondent.

MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court challenging the May 6, 2011
Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No.
03896-MIN, which affirmed the September 27, 2010,[2]
October 7, 2010[3] and November 9, 2010[4] Orders of the
Regional Trial Court, Davao City, Branch 14 (RTC-Br. 14),
in Civil Case No. 33,551-2010, an action for Cancellation of
Lien. It is entitled JEWM AgroIndustrial Corporation v.
The Registry of Deeds for the City of Davao, Sheriff Robert
Medialdea, John & Jane Does, and all persons acting under
their directions.
This controversy stemmed from various cases of
collection for sum of money filed against So Keng Kok, the
owner of various properties including two (2) parcels of
land covered by TCT Nos. 292597 and 292600 (subject
properties), which were attached by various creditors
including the petitioners in this case. As a result, the levies
were annotated on the back of the said titles.
Petitioners Jesus G. Crisologo and Nanette B. Crisologo
(Spouses Crisologo) were the plaintiffs in two (2) collection
cases before RTC, Branch 15, Davao City (RTC-Br. 15),
docketed as Civil Case Nos. 26,810-98 and 26,811-98,
against Robert Limso, So Keng Kok, et. al. Respondent
JEWM Agro-Industrial Corporation (JEWM) was the
successor-in-interest of one Sy Sen Ben, the plaintiff in
another collection case before RTC, Branch 8, Davao City
(RTC-Br. 8), docketed as Civil Case No. 26,513-98, against
the same defendants.
_______________
[1] Rollo, pp. 26-36. Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.,
with Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Associate Justice
Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring.
[2] Id., at pp. 133-137.
[3] Id., at p. 141.
[4] Id., at pp. 142-143.
648
On October 19, 1998, RTC-Br. 8 rendered its decision

based on a compromise agreement, dated October 15, 1998,
between the parties wherein the defendants in said case
were directed to transfer the subject properties in favor of
Sy Sen Ben. The latter subsequently sold the subject
properties to one Nilda Lam who, in turn, sold the same to
JEWM on June 1, 2000. Thereafter, TCT Nos. 325675 and
325676 were eventually issued in the name of JEWM, both
of which still bearing the same annotations as well as the
notice of lis pendens in connection with the other pending
cases filed against So Keng Kok.
A year thereafter, Spouses Crisologo prevailed in the
separate collection case filed before RTC-Br. 15 against
Robert Lim So and So Keng Koc (defendants). Thus, on
July 1, 1999, the said defendants were ordered to solidarily
pay the Spouses Crisologo. When this decision attained
finality, they moved for execution. On June 15, 2010, a writ
was eventually issued. Acting on the same, the Branch
Sheriff issued a notice of sale scheduling an auction on
August 26, 2010. The notice of sale included, among others,
the subject properties covered by TCT Nos. 325675 and
325676, now, in the name of JEWM.
In the same proceedings, JEWM immediately filed its
Affidavit of Third Party Claim and the Urgent Motion Ad
Cautelam. It prayed for the exclusion of the subject
properties from the notice of sale. In an order, dated
August 26, 2010, however, the motion was denied. In turn,
the Spouses Crisologo posted a bond in order to proceed
with the execution.
To protect its interest, JEWM filed a separate action for
cancellation of lien with prayer for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction before RTC-Br. 14, docketed as Civil
Case No. 33,551-2010. It prayed for the issuance of a writ
of preliminary injunction to prevent the public sale of the
subject properties covered in the writ of execution issued
pursuant to the ruling of RTC-Br. 15; the cancellation of all
the annotations on the back of the pertinent TCTs; and the
issuance of a permanent injunction order after trial on the
merits. The Regis-
649
ter of Deeds of Davao City, Sheriff Robert Medialdea, John

and Jane Does and all persons acting under their
directions were impleaded as defendants.
At the scheduled hearing before RTC-Br. 14 on
September 22, 2010, Spouses Crisologos counsel appeared
and filed in open court their Very Urgent Manifestation
questioning the authority of the said court to restrain the
execution proceedings in RTC-Br. 15. JEWM opposed it on
the ground that Spouses Crisologo were not parties in the
case.
On September 24, 2010, Spouses Crisologo filed an
Omnibus Motion praying for the denial of the application
for writ or preliminary injuction filed by JEWM and asking
for their recognition as parties. No motion to intervene
was, however, filed as the Spouses Crisologo believed that
it was unnecessary since they were already the John and
Jane Does named in the complaint.
In the Order, dated September 27, 2010, RTC-Br. 14
denied Spouses Crisologos Omnibus Motion and granted
JEWMs application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
On October 1, 2010, Spouses Crisologo filed a Very
Urgent Omnibus Motion before RTC-Br. 14 praying for
reconsideration and the setting aside of its September 27,
2010 Order. This was denied in the RTC-Br. 14s October 7,
2010 Order for lack of legal standing in court considering
that their counsel failed to make the written formal notice
of appearance. The copy of this order was received by
Spouses Crisologo on October 22, 2010. It must be noted,
however, that on October 27, 2010, they received another
order, likewise dated October 7, 2010, giving JEWM time to
comment on their Very Urgent Omnibus Motion filed on
October 1, 2010. In its Order, dated November 9, 2010,
however, RTC-Br. 14 again denied the Very Urgent Motion
previously filed by Spouses Crisologo.
On November 12, 2010, JEWM moved to declare the
defendants in default which was granted in an order
given in open court on November 19, 2010.
650
Spouses Crisologo then filed their Very Urgent

Manifestation, dated November 30, 2010, arguing that they
could not be deemed as defaulting parties because they
were not referred to in the pertinent motion and order of
default.
On November 19, 2010, Spouses Crisologo filed with the

CA a petition for certiorari[5] under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court assailing the RTC-Br. 14 orders, dated September
27, 2010, October 7, 2010 and November 9, 2010, all of
which denied their motion to be recognized as parties. They
also prayed for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining
Order (TRO) and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
In its Resolution, dated January 6, 2011, the CA denied
the application for a TRO, but directed Spouses Crisologo
to amend their petition. On January 19, 2011, the Spouses
Crisologo filed their Amended Petition[6] with prayers for
the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary
injunction, the annulment of the aforementioned orders of
RTC-Br. 14, and the issuance of an order dissolving the
writ of preliminary injunction issued in favor of JEWM.
Pending disposition of the Amended Petition by the CA,
JEWM filed a motion on December 6, 2010 before RTC-Br.
14 asking for the resolution of the case on the merits.
On January 10, 2011, RTC-Br. 14 ruled in favor of
JEWM, with the dispositive portion of its Decision[7]
stating as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby

rendered in favor of the plaintiff as follows:
1. the preliminary writ of injunction issued on October 5, 2010 is
hereby made permanent;
2. directing herein defendant Registry of Deeds of Davao City
where the subject lands are located, to
_______________
[5] Dated November 15, 2010.
[6] Rollo, pp. 146-159.
[7] Id., at pp. 175-177. Penned by Judge George E. Omelio.
651
cancel all existing liens and encumbrances on TCT Nos. T-325675

and T-325676 registered in the name of the plaintiff, and pay
the
3. cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.[8]

Spouses Crisologo then filed their Omnibus Motion Ex
Abudanti ad Cautelam, asking RTC-Br. 14 to reconsider
the above decision. Because no motion for intervention was
filed prior to the rendition of the judgment, a certificate,
dated March 17, 2011, was issued declaring the January
10, 2011 decision final and executory.
On May 6, 2011, the CA eventually denied the Amended

Petition filed by Spouses Crisologo for lack of merit. It
ruled that the writ of preliminary injunction subject of the
petition was already fait accompli and, as such, the issue of
grave abuse of discretion attributed to RTC-Br. 14 in
granting the relief had become moot and academic. It
further held that the failure of Spouses Crisologo to file
their motion to intervene under Rule 19 rendered Rule 65
inapplicable as a vehicle to ventilate their supposed right
in the case.[9]
Hence, this petition.

ISSUES
I. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the action

for Cancellation of Annotations may proceed even
without notice to and impleading the party/ies who
caused the annotations, in clear contravention of the
rule on joinder of parties and basic due process.
II. The Court of Appeals erred in applying a very

constrictive interpretation of the rules in
_______________
[8] Id., at p. 177.
[9] Id., at p. 36.
652
holding that a motion to intervene is the only way an

otherwise real party in interest could participate.
III. The Court of Appeals erred in denying our application

for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
and/or a writ of preliminary injunction.
IV. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the issues

raised by petitioners before it [had] been mooted by
the January 10, 2011 decision of RTC Branch 14.[10]
Spouses Crisologo submit as error the CA affirmation of

the RTC-Br. 14 ruling that the action for cancellation may
proceed without them being impleaded. They allege
deprivation of their right to due process when they were
not impleaded in the case before RTC-Br. 14 despite the
claim that they stand, as indispensable parties, to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the action for the
cancellation of annotations covering the subject properties.
They cite Gonzales v. Judge Bersamin,[11] among others, as
authority. In that case, the Court ruled that pursuant to
Section 108 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, notice

must be given to all parties in interest before the court may
hear and determine the petition for the cancellation of
annotations on the certificates of title.
The Spouses Crisologo also question the statement of
the CA that their failure to file the motion to intervene
under Rule 19 before RTC-Br. 14 barred their participation
in the cancellation proceedings. They put emphasis on the
courts duty to, at the very least, suspend the proceedings
before it and have such indispensable parties impleaded.
_______________
[10] Id., at p. 11.
[11] 325 Phil. 120; 254 SCRA 652 (1996).
653
As to the ruling on the denial of their application for the

issuance of a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction,
Spouses Crisologo claim that their adverse interest,
evinced by the annotations at the back of the certificates of
title, warranted the issuance of a TRO or writ of
preliminary injunction against JEWMs attempt to cancel
the said annotations in violation of their fundamental right
to due process.
Lastly, Spouses Crisologo cast doubt on the CA ruling
that the issues presented in their petition were mooted by
the RTC-Br. 14 Decision, dated January 10, 2011. Having
been rendered without impleading indispensable parties,
the said decision was void and could not have mooted their
petition.
In their Comment,[12] JEWM asserts that Spouses
Crisologos failure to file a motion to intervene, pleadings-
in-intervention, appeal or annulment of judgment, which
were plain, speedy and adequate remedies then available to
them, rendered recourse to Rule 65 as improper; that
Spouses Crisologo lacked the legal standing to file a Rule
65 petition since they were not impleaded in the
proceedings before RTC-Br. 14; and that Spouses Crisologo
were not indispensable parties since their rights over the
properties had been rendered ineffective by the final and
executory October 19, 1998 Decision of RTC-Br. 8 which
disposed unconditionally and absolutely the subject
properties in favor of its predecessor-in-interest. JEWM
further argues that, on the assumption that Section 108 of
P.D. No. 1529 applies, no notice to Spouses Crisologo was
required because they were not real parties-in-interest in
the case before RTC-Br. 14, or even if they were, their non-
participation in the proceedings was because of their

failure to properly intervene pursuant to Rule 19; and,
lastly, that the case before RTC-Br. 14 became final and
executory because Spouses Crisologo did not perfect an
appeal therefrom, thus, rendering the issues in the CA
petition moot and academic.
_______________
[12] Rollo, pp. 241-262.
654
In their Reply,[13] Spouses Crisologo restate the

applicability of Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 to the effect
that any cancellation of annotation of certificates of title
must be carried out by giving notice to all parties-in-
interest. This they forward despite their recognition of the
mootness of their assertion over the subject properties, to
wit:
Again, we respect JAICs position that the claims of

subsequent attaching creditors (including petitioners) have been
rendered moot and academic, and hence the entries in favor of
said creditors have no more legal basis and therefore must be
cancelled. But we likewise at least ask a modicum of respect by
at least being notified and heard.[14]

The Ruling of the Court
The crux of this controversy is whether the CA correctly
ruled that RTC-Br. 14 acted without grave abuse of
discretion in failing to recognize Spouses Crisologo as
indispensable parties in the case for cancellation of lien.
In this respect, the Court agrees with Spouses Crisologo.
In an action for the cancellation of memorandum
annotated at the back of a certificate of title, the persons
considered as indispensable include those whose liens
appear as annotations pursuant to Section 108 of P.D. No.
1529,[15] to wit:
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
_______________
[13] Id., at pp. 335-340.
[14] Id., at p. 338.

[15]Entitled as Amending and Codifying the Laws relative to Registration of
Property and for other purposes.
655
owner or other person having an interest in registered property,

or, 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 interests of any
description, whether vested, contingent, expectant inchoate
appearing on the certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that
new interest not appearing upon the certificates have arisen or
been created; or that an omission or error was made in entering a
certificate or memorandum thereon, or on any duplicate
certificate; x x x 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 terms and
conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may
consider proper.

In Southwestern University v. Laurente,[16] the Court
held that the cancellation of the annotation of an
encumbrance cannot be ordered without giving notice to
the parties annotated in the certificate of title itself. It
would, thus, be an error for a judge to contend that no
notice is required to be given to all the persons whose liens
were annotated at the back of a certificate of title.
Here, undisputed is the fact that Spouses Crisologos
liens were indeed annotated at the back of TCT Nos.
325675 and 325676. Thus, as persons with their liens
annotated, they stand to be benefited or injured by any
order relative to the cancellation of annotations in the
pertinent TCTs. In other words, they are as indispensable
as JEWM itself in the final disposition of the case for
cancellation, being one of the many lien holders.
_______________
[16] 135 Phil. 44; 26 SCRA 52 (1968).
656
As indispensable parties, Spouses Crisologo should have

been joined as defendants in the case pursuant to Section
7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
SEC. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.

Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be
had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
[17]

The reason behind this compulsory joinder of
indispensable parties is the complete determination of all
possible issues, not only between the parties themselves
but also as regards other persons who may be affected by
the judgment. [18]
In this case, RTC-Br. 14, despite repeated pleas by
Spouses Crisologo to be recognized as indispensable
parties, failed to implement the mandatory import of the
aforecited rule.
In fact, in Sps. Crisologo v. Judge George E. Omelio,[19]
a related administrative case, the Court found the trial
judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law when it
disregarded the claims of Spouses Crisologo to participate.
In part, the Court stated:

This is not the first time Judge Omelio has rendered a decision
affecting third parties interests, without even notifying the
indispensable parties. In the first disputed case, JEWM Agro-
Industrial Corporation v. Register of Deeds, Sheriff Medialdea,
John & Jane Does and all persons acting under their directions,
Judge Omelio failed to cause the service of proper summons upon
the John and Jane Does impleaded in the complaint. Even when
Sps. Crisologo voluntarily appeared in court to be recognized as
the John and Jane Does, Judge Omelio refused to acknowledge
their appearance and ordered the striking out of Sps. Crisologos
pleadings. For this reason,
_______________
[17] Rule 3, Rules of Court.
[18] Moldes v. Villanueva, 505 Phil. 767; 468 SCRA 697 (2005).
[19] A.M. No. RTJ-12-2321, October 3, 2012, 682 SCRA 154.
657
the Investigating Justice recommended admonishing Judge

Omelio for failing to recognize the Sps. Crisologo as indispensable
parties in that case.
xxx xxx xxx
Clearly, the cancellation of the annotation of the sale without
notifying the buyers, Sps. Crisologo, is a violation of the latters
right to due process. Since this is the second time that Judge
Omelio has issued an order which fails to notify or summon the

indispensable parties, we find Judge Omelio guilty of gross
ignorance of the law, with a warning that repetition of the same
or similar act will merit a stiffer penalty in the future.
xxx
WHEREFORE, We find Judge George E. Omelio GUILTY
of four counts of the serious charge of gross ignorance of the law
for the following acts: (a) refusing to recognize Spouses Jesus G.
Crisologo and Nanette B. Crisologo as indispensable parties; in
violation of the latters right to due process. Accordingly, we
impose upon Judge George E. Omelio the penalty of fine of Forty
Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00), with a warning that repetition of
the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.[20]

The trial court should have exercised prudence in
denying Spouses Crisologos pleas to be recognized as
indispensable parties. In the words of the Court, Judge
Omelio should be penalized for failing to recognize Sps.
Crisologo as indispensable parties and for requiring them
to file a motion to intervene, considering that a simple
perusal of the certificates of title would show Sps.
Crisologos adverse rights because their liens are annotated
at the back of the titles.[21]
_______________
[20] A.M. No. RTJ-12-2321, October 3, 2012, 682 SCRA 192-193.
[21] Crisologo v. Omelio, supra note 19, at p. 182.
658
This manifest disregard of the basic rules and

procedures constitutes a grave abuse of discretion.
In State Prosecutors II Comilang and Lagman v. Judge
Medel Belen,[22] the Court held as inexcusable abuse of
authority the trial judges obstinate disregard of basic and
established rule of law or procedure. Such level of
ignorance is not a mere error of judgment. It amounts to
evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform
a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of
law,[23] or in essence, grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of jurisdiction.
Needless to say, judges are expected to exhibit more
than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and
procedural laws. They must know the laws and apply them
properly in good faith as judicial competence requires no

less.[24]
Despite the clear existence of grave abuse of discretion
on the part of RTC-Br. 14, JEWM asserts technical grounds
on why the CA did not err in dismissing the petition via
Rule 65. It states that:
a) The Crisologos could have used other available remedies such

as intervention under Rule 19, an appeal of the judgment, or
even an annulment of judgment, which are, by all means,
plain, speedy and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of
law;
b) The Crisologos lack legal standing to file the Rule 65 petition
since they were not impleaded in the Branch 14 case.
_______________
[22] A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216, June 26, 2012, 674 SCRA 477.
[23] Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
580 Phil. 135, 140; 558 SCRA 148, 153 (2008).
[24] Enriquez v. Judge Caminade, 519 Phil. 781; 485 SCRA 98 (2006),
citing Abbariao v. Beltran, 505 Phil. 510; 468 SCRA 419 (2005).
659
The rule is that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is

proper only if there is no appeal, or any plain speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
In this case, no adequate recourse, at that time, was
available to Spouses Crisologo, except resorting to Rule 65.
Although Intervention under Rule 19 could have been
availed of, failing to use this remedy should not prejudice
Spouses Crisologo. It is the duty of RTC-Br. 14, following
the rule on joinder of indispensable parties, to simply
recognize them, with or without any motion to intervene.
Through a cursory reading of the titles, the Court would
have noticed the adverse rights of Spouses Crisologo over
the cancellation of any annotations in the subject TCTs.
Neither will appeal prove adequate as a remedy since
only the original parties to an action can appeal.[25] Here,
Spouses Crisologo were never impleaded. Hence, they could
not have utilized appeal as they never possessed the
required legal standing in the first place.
And even if the Court assumes the existence of the legal
standing to appeal, it must be remembered that the
questioned orders were interlocutory in character and, as
such, Spouses Crisologo would have to wait, for the review
by appeal, until the rendition of the judgment on the
merits, which at that time may not be coming as speedy as
practicable. While waiting, Spouses Crisologo would have

to endure the denial of their right, as indispensable parties,
to participate in a proceeding in which their
indispensability was obvious. Indeed, appeal cannot
constitute an adequate, speedy and plain remedy.
The same is also true if recourse to Annulment of
Judgment under Rule 47 is made since this remedy
presupposes a final judgment already rendered by a trial
court.
_______________
[25] Spouses Leynes v. Former Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals, et.
al., G.R. No. 154462, January 19, 2011, 640 SCRA 25, 40.
660
At any rate, the remedy against an interlocutory order,

not subject of an appeal, is an appropriate special civil
action under Rule 65, provided that the interlocutory order
is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion. Only then is certiorari under
Rule 65 allowed to be resorted to.[26]
This takes particular relevance in this case where, as
previously discussed, RTC-Br. 14 acted with grave abuse of
discretion in not recognizing Spouses Crisologo as
indispensable parties to the pertinent action.
Based on the above, recourse to the CA via Rule 65
would have already been proper, except for one last issue,
that is, Spouses Crisologos legal standing to file the same.
JEWM cites DBP v. COA[27] where the Court held:
The petition for certiorari under Rule 65, however, is not

available to any person who feels injured by the decision of a
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions. The person aggrieved under Section 1 of Rule 65 who
can avail of the special civil action of certiorari pertains only to
one who was a party in the proceedings before the court a quo, or
in this case before the COA. To hold otherwise would open the
courts to numerous and endless litigations.

Under normal circumstances, JEWM would be correct in
their averment that the lack of legal standing on the part of
Spouses Crisologo in the case before RTC-Br. 14 prevents
the latters recourse via Rule 65.
This case, however, is an exception. In many instances,
the Court has ruled that technical rules of procedures
should be used to promote, not frustrate the cause of

justice. Rules of
_______________
[26] Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, G.R. No. 156358, August 17, 2011, 655
SCRA 553, 567-568, citing F. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium 540
(8th revised ed.).
[27] 467 Phil. 62; 422 SCRA 459 (2004).
661
procedure are tools designed not to thwart but to facilitate

the attainment of justice; thus, their strict and rigid
application may, for good and deserving reasons, have to
give way to, and be subordinated by, the need to aptly
dispense substantial justice in the normal cause.[28]
Be it noted that the effect of their non-participation as
indispensable parties is to preclude the judgment, orders
and the proceedings from attaining finality. Time and
again, the Court has ruled that the absence of an
indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the
court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as
to the absent parties but even to those present.
Consequently, the proceedings before RTC-Br. 14 were null
and void including the assailed orders, which may be
ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.[29]
To turn a blind eye to the said nullity and, in turn, rule
as improper the recourse to Rule 65 by the lack of legal
standing is to prolong the denial of due process to the
persons whose interests are indispensable to the final
disposition of the case. It will only result in a protracted
litigation as Spouses Crisologo will be forced to rely on a
petition for the annulment of judgment before the CA (as
the last remaining remedy), which may again reach this
Court. To prevent multiplicity of suits and to expedite the
swift administration of justice, the CA should have applied
liberality by striking down the assailed orders despite the
lack of legal standing on the part of Spouses Crisologo to
file the Rule 65 petition before it. Besides, this lacking
requirement, of which Spouses Crisologo were not even at
fault, is precisely the reason why this controversy arose.
_______________
[28] Santos v. Litton Mills, Incorporated, G.R. No. 170646, June 22,
2011, 652 SCRA 510, citing Fiel v. Kris Security Systems, Inc., 448 Phil.
657, 662; 400 SCRA 533, 536 (2003).
[29] Buena v. Sapnay, 116 Phil. 1023; 6 SCRA 706 (1962), citing Banco
Espaol-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921 (1918); Lipana v. Court of First
Instance of Cavite, 74 Phil. 18 (1942).
662
All told, the CA erred in dismissing the amended

petition filed before it and in not finding grave abuse of
discretion on the part of RTC-Br. 14.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The May 6,
2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals is NULLIFIED and
SET ASIDE. The September 27, 2010, October 7, 2010 and
November 9, 2010 Orders of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 14, Davao City, are likewise NULLIFIED and
SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 33,551-2010 is hereby
REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.
The respondent is ordered to implead all parties whose
annotations appear at the back of Transfer Certificate of
Title Nos. 325675 and 325676.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Bersamin** and

Leonen, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment nullified and set aside.
Notes.Joinder of indispensable parties is compulsory

being a sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power. (Guy
vs. Guy, 680 SCRA 214 [2012])
An indispensable party is one who has such an interest
in the controversy or subject matter of a case that a final
adjudication cannot be made in his or her absence, without
injuring or affecting that interest. (Boston Equity
Resources, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 699 SCRA 16 [2013])
o0o
_______________
** Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Roberto A.
Abad, per Special Order No. 1640 dated February 19, 2014.
Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Jesus G. Crisologo and Nanette B. Crisologo, Petitioners, Jewm Agro-Industrial CORPORATION, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jesus G. Crisologo and Nanette B. Crisologo, Petitioners, Jewm Agro-Industrial CORPORATION, Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jesus G. Crisologo and Nanette B. Crisologo, Petitioners, Jewm Agro-Industrial CORPORATION, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/27/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 717

G.R. No. 196894.March 3, 2014.*

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Parties; Indispensable

back of a certificate of title, the persons considered as

conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may

Same; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; Interlocutory Orders;

an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for respondent.

On October 19, 1998, RTC-Br. 8 rendered its decision

ter of Deeds of Davao City, Sheriff Robert Medialdea, John

Spouses Crisologo then filed their Very Urgent

On November 19, 2010, Spouses Crisologo filed with the

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby

cancel all existing liens and encumbrances on TCT Nos. T-325675

On May 6, 2011, the CA eventually denied the Amended

I. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the action

II. The Court of Appeals erred in applying a very

holding that a motion to intervene is the only way an

III. The Court of Appeals erred in denying our application

IV. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the issues

Spouses Crisologo submit as error the CA affirmation of

Section 108 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, notice

As to the ruling on the denial of their application for the

participation in the proceedings was because of their

In their Reply,[13] Spouses Crisologo restate the

Again, we respect JAICs position that the claims of

Section 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates.No

[14] Id., at p. 338.

owner or other person having an interest in registered property,

As indispensable parties, Spouses Crisologo should have

SEC. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.

the Investigating Justice recommended admonishing Judge

Omelio has issued an order which fails to notify or summon the

This manifest disregard of the basic rules and

properly in good faith as judicial competence requires no

a) The Crisologos could have used other available remedies such

The rule is that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is

practicable. While waiting, Spouses Crisologo would have

At any rate, the remedy against an interlocutory order,

The petition for certiorari under Rule 65, however, is not

should be used to promote, not frustrate the cause of

procedure are tools designed not to thwart but to facilitate

All told, the CA erred in dismissing the amended

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Bersamin** and

Petition granted, judgment nullified and set aside.

Notes.Joinder of indispensable parties is compulsory

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like