Page 529 530 330 332 Mactan Cebu vs. Heirs of Miñoza 64

#64. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority vs.
Heirs of Miñoza, 641 SCRA 520,

pages 529-530, pages 330-332
G.R. No. 186045 February 2, 2011
MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Petitioner,

vs.
Heirs of ESTANISLAO MIñOZA, namely: The Heirs of FILOMENO T. MIñOZA, represented
by LAUREANO M. MIñOZA; The Heirs of PEDRO T. MIñOZA; and The HEIRS of
FLORENCIA T. MIñOZA, represented by ANTONIO M. URBIZTONDO, Respondents.
Facts:
On July 6, 1998, a Complaint for Reconveyance was filed by Leila M. Hermosisima for
herself and on behalf of the other heirs of the late Estanislao Miñoza that they were exercising
the buy-back option of the agreement of the expropriated property, Cadastral Lot Nos. 986 and
991-A, located at Banilad Estate, Cebu City, of the deceased by the Mactan-Cebu International
Airport Authority (MCIAA), but the MCIAA refused to allow the repurchase on the ground that the
sale was in fact unconditional.
On November 16, 1999, before the MCIAA could present evidence in support of its case,
a Motion for Intervention, with an attached Complainant-in-Intervention, was filed before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 22, by the respondents, who claimed to be the
true, legal, and legitimate heirs of the late Estanislao Miñoza and the plaintiff in the main case are
not related to the late spouses, executed in fraud of the intervenors the Extrajudicial Settlement
and fraudulently, deceitfully, and in bad faith sold Lot Nos. 986 and 991-A to the NAC.
On February 18, 2000, the RTC, issued an Order denying the Motion for Intervention
because the ownership of the subject lots was merely a collateral issue in the action. The principal
issue to be resolved was whether or not the heirs of the late Estanislao Miñoza – whoever they
may be – have a right to repurchase the said lots from the MCIAA. Consequently, the rights being
claimed by the intervenors should be asserted in and would be fully protected by a separate
proceeding. Moreover, if the motion was granted, it would unduly delay the proceedings in the
instant case. Finally, the complaint-in-intervention was flawed, considering that it was not verified
and does not contain the requisite certification of non-forum shopping.
The intervenors filed a Motion for Reconsideration, to which was attached a Complaint-in-
Intervention with the required Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. However, the
RTC denied the motion in its Order dated July 25, 2000. Aggrieved, the intervenors sought
recourse before the CA. On March 25, 2008, the CA rendered the assailed Decision in reversed
and set aside. The RTC of Cebu City is directed to resolve with deliberate dispatch Civil Case No.
22290 and to admit the complaint-in-intervention filed by the intervenors-appellants. In ruling for
the intervenors, the CA ratiocinated that contrary to the findings of the trial court, the determination
of the true heirs of the late Estanislao Miñoza is not only a collateral, but the focal issue of the
case, for if the intervenors can prove that they are indeed the true heirs of Estanislao Miñoza,
there would be no more need to determine whether the right to buy back the subject lots exists or
not as the MCIAA would not have acquired rights to the subject lots in the first place. In addition,
to grant the motion for intervention would avoid multiplicity of suits. As to the lack of verification
and certification on non-forum shopping, the CA opined that the filing of the motion for
reconsideration with an appended complaint-in-intervention containing the required verification
and certificate of non-forum shopping amounted to substantial compliance of the Rules.
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in the Resolution dated
January 8, 2009. Hence, a petition for review on certiorari was filed by the Petitioner.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondents are allowed to intervene in the main case, Civil Case No.
CEB-22290, considering that the to allow the intervenors to intervene in the proceedings before
the trial court would not only unduly prolong and delay the resolution of the case, it would make
the proceedings unnecessarily complicated and change the nature of the proceedings.
Ruling:
No, the respondents are not allowed to intervene in the main case.
Section 1 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides that, “Who may intervene. - A person
who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an
interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other
disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court,
be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not
the intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.”
In this case, in resolving who the true and legitimate heirs of Estanislao Miñoza and
Inocencia Togono are, the parties would also present additional evidence in support of this new
allegation of fraud, deceit, and bad faith and resolve issues of conflicting claims of ownership,
authenticity of certificates of titles, and regularity in their acquisition. Verily, this would definitely
cause unjust delay in the adjudication of the rights claimed by the original parties, which primarily
hinges only on the issue of whether or not the heirs represented by Leila have a right to
repurchase the subject properties from the MCIAA. Verily, the allegation of fraud and deceit is an
independent controversy between the original parties and the intervenors. In general, an
independent controversy cannot be injected into a suit by intervention, hence, such intervention
will not be allowed where it would enlarge the issues in the action and expand the scope of the
remedies. It is not proper where there are certain facts giving the intervenor’s case an aspect
peculiar to himself and differentiating it clearly from that of the original parties; the proper course
is for the would-be intervenor to litigate his claim in a separate suit. Thus, the denial of the motion
to intervene by the RTC was but just and proper. The conclusion of the RTC is not bereft of
rational bases. It denied the motion to intervene in the exercise of its sound discretion and after
taking into consideration the particular circumstances of the case.

Page 529 530 330 332 Mactan Cebu vs. Heirs of Miñoza 64

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 529 530 330 332 Mactan Cebu vs. Heirs of Miñoza 64

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Page 529 530 330 332 Mactan Cebu vs. Heirs of Miñoza 64

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

#64. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority vs.

Heirs of Miñoza, 641 SCRA 520,

G.R. No. 186045 February 2, 2011

MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Petitioner,

You might also like