1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41.

June 14, 2021 ]

FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]
RMFPU HOLDINGS, INC., RAYMOND M. MORENO, AND RMFPU
PROPERTIES, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. FORBES PARK ASSOCIATION,
INC., RESPONDENT.
[G.R. Nos. 220682-84]
QUICK SILVER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS.
FORBES PARK ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENT.
DECISION

CAGUIOA, J:

Before the Court are consolidated Petitions for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
(Rules) filed by petitioners RMFPU Holdings, Inc., Raymond Moreno and RMFPU Properties,
Inc. (collectively, RMFPU), which was docketed as G.R. Nos. 220340-41 (RMFPU Petition[1]),
and by petitioner Quick Silver Development Corporation (Quick Silver), which was docketed as
G.R. Nos. 220682-84 (Quick Silver Petition[2]). Both Petitions assail the Decision[3] dated
March 6, 2015 (CA Decision) and Resolution[4] dated September 2, 2015 (CA Resolution) of
the Court of Appeals[5] (CA) in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 123877, 123878 and 123879. The CA
Decision granted the petitions for annulment of judgment filed by respondent Forbes Park
Association, Inc. (FPA) and annulled and set aside the Order[6] dated July 29, 2004 of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City (RTC), Branch 59 in LRC Case No. M-4570; Order[7]
dated March 26, 2010 of the RTC, Branch 59 in LRC Case No. M-5359; and Order[8] dated
February 23, 2001 of the RTC, Branch 58 in LRC Case No. M-4133. The CA Resolution denied
the motions for reconsideration filed by RMFPU and Quick Silver.

The Facts

The CA Decision narrates the antecedents as follows:

Before [the CA] are three (3) consolidated cases for Annulment of Judgment under
Rule 47 of the Rules of Court filed by [FPA]. The first case is docketed as CA-G.R.
SP No. 123877 which seeks to annul the Order dated July 29, 2004 of the [RTC],
Branch 59 x x x in LRC Case No. M-4570 ordering the cancellation of the Deed of
Restrictions annotated in Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. S-93867 and S-
93868 registered [in] the name of x x x Raymond M. Moreno [(Moreno)] and
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b8… 1/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

subsequently in TCT Nos. 006-2011000937 and 006-2011000938 registered under

the name of x x x RMFPU Holdings, Inc. [(RFII)]. The second case is docketed as
CA-G.R. SP No. 123878 which seeks to annul the Order dated March 26, 2010 of
the RTC, Branch 59 x x x in LRC Case No. M-5359 ordering the cancellation of the
Deed of Restrictions annotated in TCT No. 226850 registered under the name of x x
x RMFPU Properties, Inc. [(RPI)]. The third case is docketed as CA-G.R. SP No[.]
123879 which seeks to annul the Order dated February 23, 2001 of the RTC, Branch
58 x x x in LRC Case No. M-4133 ordering the cancellation of the Deed of
Restrictions annotated in TCT No. 156723 registered under the name of x x x [Quick
Silver].

xxxx

[First Case]

x x x [Moreno] is the registered owner of a property located at No. 31 McKinley

Road, Forbes Park Village, Makati City covered by TCT Nos. S-93867 and S-93868
issued by the Registry of Deeds of Makati City [(RD)]. Annotated on the said TCTs
is a Deed of Restrictions with Entry No. 46370 File T-28534 for TCT No. S-93867
and Entry No. 32499 File T-22445 for TCT No. S-93868, which states:

1. The property is subject to an easement of two meters within the lot and
adjacent to the rear and two sides the afore [sic] for the purpose of
drainage, sewage, water and other facilities as may be necessary and
desirable.

2. Subject to such amendments and additional restrictions, reservations,

servitudes[,] etc., as the Forbes Park Association may from time to time
adopt and prescribe the land described in this cert, of title is for a period
of 50 years from January 1, 1949, subject to the restrictions enumerated
in "Annex A" of the deed of sale executed by Ayala Securities
Corporation in favor of the registered owner, among which are the
following:

xxxx

All plans for buildings and landscaping must be approved by

the Forbes Park Association.

3. Other restrictions are set forth in Doc. No. 394, page no. 80, Bk. XVI,
s. of 1952 of Notary Public for Manila, Sofronio S. Pasola. x x x

On July 21, 2004, [Moreno] filed an ex-parte petition for the cancellation of the
Deed of Restrictions on TCT Nos. S-93867 and S-93868. The case was docketed as
LRC Case No. M-4570 and was assigned to x x x RTC, Branch 59 x x x. It was
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b8… 2/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

alleged therein that the Deed of Restrictions annotated on the titles had expired as of
midnight of December 31, 1998 and must then be removed and canceled from the
titles.

In the assailed Order dated July 29, 2004, x x x RTC, Branch 59 x x x ordered the
cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions on TCT Nos. S-93867 and S-93868. The
dispositive portion of the Order reads:

WHEREFORE, finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, the

Court hereby GRANTS the same. Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of
Makati City is hereby ordered to CANCEL, REMOVE or DELETE
Primary Entry No. 46870 File T-28534 covering the Deed of
Restriction annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title No. S-93867
and Primary Entry No. 32499 File [T-22445] covering the Deed of
Restriction[s] annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title No. S-93868,
both registered in the names of herein petitioners RAYMOND M.
MORENO AND MARY ROSE L. MORENO, upon payment of the
corresponding fees required therefor.

SO ORDERED.

On October 26, 2006, x x x RTC[, Branch 59] issued a Certification stating that a
copy of the assailed Order dated July 29, 2004 was received by the [RD] on July 29,
2004.

On March 22, 2012, [FPA] filed before [the CA a] Petition for Annulment of the
Order dated July 29, 2004 docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 123877. x x x FPA
contended that the assailed Order should be annulled on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction for failure of x x x Moreno to implead x x x FPA in LRC Case No. M-
4570 for cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions. x x x FPA is an indispensable party
or a party-in-interest in the proceedings and its interest can be legally determined by
merely looking at the titles and the Deed of Restrictions annotated therein.

In a Resolution dated June 1, 2012, [the CA], finding prima facie merit, gave due
course to the x x x petition. Summons was then issued requiring x x x Moreno to file
an answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.

In his Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim Ex Abu[n]dant[i] Ad Cautelam filed

on August 22, 2012, x x x Moreno contended that while the name of x x x FPA is
mentioned in the Deed of Restrictions inscribed at the back of the TCTs, the said
restrictions[,which were] for fifty (50) years[,] had expired on December 31, 1998.
There being no resolution of extension of the said restrictions, there is no legal basis
to implead x x x FPA as party to the petition for cancellation of the Deed of
Restrictions. x x x FPA cannot then be considered as an indispensable party or a
party-in-interest. x x x Moreno further contended that the x x x petition should be
dismissed outright due to lack of authority on the part of x x x FPA's counsel to
institute the same. Based on the authority given by x x x FPA's Board of Directors,
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b8… 3/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

its counsel is only authorized to file an action for the purpose of re-annotating the
Deed of Restrictions and not to file the xxx petition for annulment of judgment.

Meanwhile, in an Amended Petition for Annulment of the Order dated July 29, 2004,
x x x FPA contended that the subject lots covered by TCT Nos. S-93867 and S-
93868 were already transferred to [RHI] under TCT Nos. 006-2011000937 and 006-
2011000938.

In a Resolution dated April 29, 2013, [the CA] ordered the issuance of summons
upon [RHI]. Summons was subsequently issued requiring [RHI] to file an answer
within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.

In an Amended Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim Ex Abu[n]dant[i] Ad

Cautelam filed on August 14, 2014, [RHI] contended that x x x FPA has no interest
in the subject lot considering that the Deed of Restrictions on its certificates of title
had already expired. Even assuming that the Deed of Restrictions is extended, there
is no allegation in the x x x petition for annulment of judgment that [RHI] has
knowledge, either directly or indirectly, of the said extension of the restrictions. It
further contended that the filing of the xxx petition is not within the authority given
to x x x FPA's counsel based on the Board Resolution attached to the petition.

[Second Case]

[RPI] is the registered owner of a lot located at No. 7 Palm Avenue, Forbes Park
Village, Makati City covered by TCT No. 226850 issued by the [RD]. Annotated on
the said TCT is a Deed of Restrictions with Entry No. 31140/49041, which states:

1. The property is subject to an easement of two meters within the lot and
adjacent to the rear and two sides the afore [sic] for the purpose of
drainage, sewage, water and other facilities as may be necessary and
desirable.

2. Subject to such amendments and additional restrictions, reservations,

servitudes[,] etc., as the Forbes Park Association may from time to time
adopt and prescribe the land described in this cert, of title is for a period
of 50 years from Jan[uary] 1, 1949 subject to the restrictions enumerated
in Annex A of the deed of sale executed by Ayala Securities Corp. in
favor of the registered owner, among which are the following:

The owner of this lot or his successor in interest is required to

be and is automatically a member of the FORBES PARK
ASSOCIATION.

xxxx

x x x All plans for building and landscaping must be approved

by the Forbes Park Association.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b8… 4/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

3. Other restrictions are set forth in Doc. 184, page 38, BK. XXJX, s. of
1957 of Not. Pub. of Manila, Sofronio S. Pasola. x x x

On March 18, 2010, [RPI] filed an ex-parte Petition for the Cancellation of Primary
Entry No. 31140/49041 annotated on TCT No. 226850. The case was docketed as
LRC Case No. M-5359 and was assigned to x x x RTC, Branch 59 x x x. It was
alleged in the petition that the Deed of Restrictions annotated on the title was for a
period of fifty (50) years beginning on January 1, 1949. Upon its expiration on
December 31, 1998, no resolution of extension of the Deed of Restrictions has been
registered by x x x FPA, hence, the annotations must be removed and canceled from
the [title].

In the assailed Order dated March 26, 2010, x x x RTC, Branch 59 x x x ordered the
cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions on TCT No. 226850. The dispositive portion
of the Order reads:

WHEREFORE, finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, the

Court hereby GRANTS the same. Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of
Makati City is hereby ordered to CANCEL, REMOVE or DELETE
Primary Entry No. 31140[/]49041 covering the Deed of Restrictions]
annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 226850 registered in the
name of herein petitioner [RPI] upon payment of the corresponding fees
required therefor.

SO ORDERED.

A Certificate of Finality of the above Order was thereafter issued by [RTC, Branch
59] on April 26, 2010.

On March 22, 2012, x x x FPA filed before [the CA a] Petition for Annulment of the
Order dated March 26, 2010 docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 123878. [FPA] contended
that the assailed Order should be annulled on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for
failure of [RPI] to implead x x x FPA, an indispensable party in the petition for
cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions. There is also extrinsic fraud committed by
[RPI] when it deprived x x x FPA of the opportunity to prove the extension of the
Deed of Restrictions.

In a Resolution dated June 15, 2012, [the CA], finding prima facie merit, gave due
course to the x x x petition. Summons was then issued requiring [RPI] to file an
answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.

In its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, [RPI] contended that x x x FPA has
no interest in the subject property after the Deed of Restrictions expired on
December 31, 1998. Since [FPA] is not an indispensable party, there is no legal
obligation on the part of [RPI] to implead [FPA] in the petition for cancellation of
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b8… 5/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

the Deed of Restrictions. It further contended that x x x FPA's counsel lacked

authority to file the x x x petition.

[Third Case]

[Quick Silver] is the registered owner of a lot located at No. 50 Mc[K]inley Road,
Forbes Park Village, Makati City covered by TCT No. 156723 issued by the [RD],
Annotated on the said TCT is a Deed of Restrictions with Entry No. 3577/T-No.
37873, which states:

1. The property is subject to an easement of two meters within the lot and
adjacent to the rear and two sides thereof for the purpose of drainage,
sewage, water and other public facilities as maybe necessary and
desirable.

2. Subject to such amendments and additional restrictions, reservations,

servitudes[,] etc., as the Forbes Park Association may from time to time
adopt and prescribe for the land described in this certificate of title or for
a period of 50 years from Jan[uary] 1, 1949 subject to the restrictions
enumerated in Annex A of the deed of sale executed by San Lorenzo
Company, in favor of the registered owner, among which are the
following:

The owner of this lot or his successor in interest is required to

be and is automatically a member of the Forbes Park
Association.

xxxx

x x x All plans for building and landscaping must be approved

by the Forbes Park Association.

3. Other restrictions are set forth in Doc. No. 445, page 90, Bk. 22, s. of
1955 of Not. Pub. of Manila. Sofronio S. Pasola. x x x

On February 15, 2001, x x x Quick Silver x x x filed an ex-parte Petition for the
Cancellation of Primary Entry No. 3577/[T-No. 37873] annotated on TCT No.
156723. The case was docketed as LRC Case No. M-4133 and was assigned to x x x
RTC, Branch 58 x x x. It was alleged in the petition that the Deed of Restrictions
annotated on the title was for a period of fifty (50) years beginning January 1, 1949.
Upon its expiration on December 31, 1998, no resolution of extension of the Deed of
Restrictions has been registered by x x x FPA, hence, the annotations must be
removed and canceled from the [title].

In the assailed Order dated February 23, 2001, x x x RTC, Branch 58 x x x ordered
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b8… 6/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

the cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions on TCT No. 156723. The pertinent
portions of the Order read:

Acting on the report of the Branch Clerk of Court commissioned to

receive the ex-parte evidence of petitioner [Quick Silver], and finding the
facts stated therein in accord with the allegations in the Petition, the same
is hereby GRANTED.

AS PRAYED FOR, primary entry No. 3577/T-No. 37873 covering the

restrictions on the lot located at No. 50 McKinley Road, Forbes Park
Village, Makati City, is hereby ordered cancelled and/or deleted from
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 156723 registered in the name of
petitioner [Quick Silver].

Consequently, the Register of Deeds for and in Makati City is henceforth

directed to effect the cancellation and/or deletion upon petitioner's
payment of the required fees therefor.

SO ORDERED.

A Certificate of Finality of the above Order was thereafter issued by [RTC, Branch
58] on March 12, 2001.

On March 22, 2012, x x x FPA filed before [the CA a] Petition for Annulment of the
Order dated February 23, 2001 docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 123879. x x x FPA
contended that the assailed Order should be annulled on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction for failure of x x x Quick Silver to implead x x x FPA, an indispensable
party in the petition for cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions. There is also
extrinsic or collateral fraud committed by x x x Quick Silver when it deprived x x x
FPA of the opportunity to prove the extension of the Deed of Restrictions.

In a Resolution dated April 3, 2012, [the CA], finding prima facie merit, gave due
course to the x x x petition. Summons was then issued requiring x x x Quick Silver
to file an answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.

In its Answer filed on May 24, 2012, x x x Quick Silver x x x alleged that the
assailed Order of the RTC was not tainted with lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic
fraud because x x x FPA is not an indispensable party. The effectivity of the power
and interest of xxx FPA had already lapsed in view of the expiration of the Deed of
Restrictions annotated on the title. At the time of the filing of the petition for
cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions, x x x Quick Silver was in possession of
documents, such as a certification from [FPA's] secretary and a circular issued by
[FPA's] Board of Governors, to prove that there was no valid resolution for the
extension of the Deed of Restrictions beyond December 31, 1998. x x x Quick Silver
further contended that the x x x petition for annulment of judgment is barred by
prescription and estoppel by laches.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b8… 7/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

xxxx

Thereafter, in a Resolution dated February 6, 2015, [the CA] declared the

consolidated cases submitted for decision on the merits.[9]

Ruling of the CA

The CA in its Decision[10] dated March 6, 2015 granted FPA's petitions for annulment of
judgment. The dispositive portion thereof states:

WHEREFORE, the instant petitions docketed as CA-G.R. SP Nos. 123877,

123878, and 123879 are hereby GRANTED. The assailed Order dated July 29, 2004
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Makati City[,] in LRC Case No. M-4570;
Order dated March 26, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Makati City[,]
in LRC Case No. M-5359; and, Order dated February 23, 2001 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 58, Makati City[,] in LRC Case No. M-4133 are ANNULLED and
SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of Makati City is ORDERED to
restore the Deed of Restrictions annotated on private respondents RMFPU Holdings,
Inc. and/or Raymond M. Moreno, RMFPU Properties, Inc., and Quick Silver
Development Corporation's certificates of title which had been canceled by virtue of
the assailed Orders of the courts a quo.

SO ORDERED.[11]

RMFPU and Quick Silver filed their motions for reconsideration, which the CA denied in its
Resolution[12] dated September 2, 2015.

Hence the present RMFPU[13] Petition and Quick Silver Petition. FPA filed a Consolidated
Comment on the Petitions for Review[14] dated December 2, 2016. RMFPU filed a Reply[15]
dated May 24, 2017 while Quick Silver filed a Reply[16] dated March 24, 2017.

The Issues

The RMFPU Petition raises the issue: whether the CA erred in annulling and setting aside the
assailed Order of the RTC pertinent to RMFPU and ordering the RD to restore the Deed of
Restrictions annotated on their titles. Specifically, it questions the correctness of the CA's ruling
that FPA is an indispensable party to the proceedings before the RTC, the CA's application of
PAGREL, Inc. v. Forbes Park Association, Inc.[17] (PAGREL) in the RMFPU's cases (first and
second cases), the CA's non-observance of the applicable provisions of the Rules, like pre-trial
and submission of memorandum, and the CA's order to restore the annotation of the Deed of
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b8… 8/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

Restrictions on RMFPU's certificates of title. Additionally, it raises the question as to whether

RMFPU's rights to due process and equal protection of the law were violated.

On the other hand, the Quick Silver Petition raises these specific issues: (i) whether the CA
erred in ruling that FPA is an indispensable party in the action for cancellation of the Deed of
Restrictions and its application of PAGREL in Quick Silver's case; (ii) whether the CA erred in
rendering a judgment on the merits based on the pleadings and without giving the parties the
opportunity to present evidence; (iii) whether the CA erred when it rendered judgment in favor
of FPA despite the latter's failure to justify the 11 years delay in the filing of the action for
annulment of judgment; and (iv) whether the CA erred in denying its request to remove the
name of Jaime Gonzalez in the title of the case.

The Court's Ruling

The Petitions fail to persuade. Petitioners raise essentially the same issues that they raised
before the CA, which were correctly rejected by the CA.

The common issues raised in the RMFPU and Quick Silver Petitions are discussed jointly.

FPA being an indispensable party and

applicability of PAGREL

The applicable provision of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529,[18] or the Property Registration
Decree, relative to cancellation, removal or deletion of any annotation on a certificate of title is:

SEC. 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 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 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 changed; or that
the registered owner has married, or, if registered as married, that the marriage 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 convened 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 terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if
necessary, as it may consider proper; Provided, however, That this section shall not

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b8… 9/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

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.

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 or registration was entered. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules provides the definition of a real party in interest, to wit:

SEC 2. Parties in interest. – A real party in interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of
the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. (2a)

Petitioners insist that FPA is not an indispensable party or a party in interest who must be
notified in the petitions for cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions annotated on their
certificates of title because the effectivity of the Deed of Restrictions had lapsed on the midnight
of December 31, 1998, or 50 years from January 1, 1947, without the Deed of Restrictions
having been validly extended. If there was any extension, petitioners should have been notified
and such extension should have been annotated on their certificates of title to bind them.

The CA correctly ruled that FPA is an indispensable party or a party in interest who must be
duly notified in the petitions for cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions annotated on
petitioners' certificates of title. The Court totally agrees with the following disquisition of the
CA:

At the outset, x x x FPA, an indispensable party, was not duly notified of the
petitions for cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions annotated on [petitioners'
certificates of title]. A plain reading of the Deed of Restrictions clearly show[s] that
the same are imposed by x x x [the sellers San Lorenzo Corporation and Ayala
Securities Corporation] as part of the conditions in the purchase of the subject lots
which amounts to an agreement between the latter and [petitioners]. The said Deed
of Restrictions also show[s] that [petitioners] as registered owners of properties in
Forbes Park Village are automatic members of the Forbes Park Association and that
they agree to abide by the terms and conditions set forth therein. Even x x x FPA's
Articles of Incorporation and By[-]Laws state that it is the function of the association
to enforce the said restrictions [appearing] on the [certificates of title].

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 10/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

Clearly, x x x FPA's interest on the subject lots is undisputed as it stands to be

affected by the cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions annotated on the subject
[certificates of title], Hence, the lack of notice to it placed in serious question the
validity of the assailed Orders of the [RTCs].

Moreover, Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 expressly requires that all
interested parties must be duly notified of the proceedings with regard to an
application for amendment or alteration of the certificates of title x x x[.]

xxxx

Gleaned from the foregoing provision, an amendment or alteration of the certificates

of title effected without notice to the affected parties-in-interest would not be in
compliance with law or the requirements of due process. Unless all possible
indispensable parties were duly notified of the proceedings, the same shall be
considered insufficient compliance with the requirements of the law, thereby
rendering the assailed [RTC] Orders null and void.

Then too, despite x x x FPA's unmistakable interest in the cancellation of the Deed of
Restrictions, [petitioners] deliberately failed to notify the former about the case[s]
thereby depriving it of an opportunity to present its side of the controversy. In other
words, x x x FPA never had knowledge of the suits filed below and was prevented
from exhibiting fully its case by [petitioners'] act of keeping it away from the court.
This clearly constitutes extrinsic fraud which affects the very jurisdiction of the
[RTCs] to hear and decide the [cases filed before them].[19]

The petitions for cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions annotated on petitioners' certificates of
title were, using the words of PD 1529, "upon the ground that the registered interests of any
description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or inchoate appearing on the certificate,
have terminated and ceased." Whose vested and registered interests appearing on the
certificates of title, which have purportedly terminated and ceased according to petitioners, did
they seek to cancel in their said petitions? Clearly, it was FPA's and no other. Being the only one
whose registered interests are affected by said petitions, FPA is the party in interest, an
indispensable party, that should have been notified. Without the required notice to all parties in
interest, as required in Section 108 of PD 1529, the jurisdiction of the RTCs to entertain said
petitions is questionable, notice in land registration cases being a basic requirement and
jurisdictional.

Also, as registered owners of properties within the Forbes Park Village, petitioners know that
FPA is the entity which ensures the implementation of the Deed of Restrictions annotated on
their certificates of title. If such annotation is cancelled, removed or deleted, FPA would have no
more authority to impose any restriction on said properties and the affected certificate of title
would appear as being free of such charge or burden and any person subsequently dealing with
it may claim to be innocent of the Deed of Restrictions and FPA's authority to impose the
restrictions. Clearly, FPA stands to be injured by a judgment ordering the cancellation of the
subject Deed of Restrictions.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b8… 11/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

The Court noted in the consolidated cases of Chua, et al. v. B.E. San Diego, Inc.[20] and
Lorenzana Food Corp. v. B.E. San Diego, Inc.[21] that:

Jimmy and Albert manifested that they filed a petition for the correction of entries in
their respective titles before the then CFI of Cavite and that the said court granted
their petition. The records, however, failed to show sufficient proof that Jimmy and
Albert faithfully complied with the basic notice requirement under Section 108 of
P.D. No. 1529 x x x[.]

xxxx

The above provision requires that all interested parties must be duly notified of the
petitioner's application for amendment or alteration of the certificate of title. Relief
under the said legal provision can only be granted if there is unanimity among the
parties, or that there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part of any party
in interest.

Without doubt, San Diego, a party-in-interest with an adverse claim, was not duly
notified of the said petition. The records reveal that despite their knowledge about its
adverse claim over the subject properties, Jimmy and Albert never notified San
Diego about their application or petition for amendment or alteration of title. This
Court agrees with the CA that the lack of notice to San Diego placed in serious
question the validity of the CFI judgment or its enforceability against it. An
amendment/alteration effected without notice to the affected owners would not be in
compliance with law or the requirements of due process.[22]

in Orbeta v. Sendiong,[23] the Court noted:

Respondent's petition for annulment is grounded on lack of jurisdiction, owing to the

failure to implead the indispensable parties. The cited ground is ample basis for
annulment of judgment. We have long held that the joinder of all indispensable
parties is a condition sine qua non of the exercise of judicial power. 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 as to those present.
[24]

On the other hand, there is extrinsic fraud:

x x x where it is one the effect of which prevents a party from hearing a trial, or real
contest, or from presenting all of his case to the court, or where it operates upon
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 12/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

matters, not pertaining to the judgment itself, but to the manner in which it was
procured so that there is not a fair submission of the controversy. In other words,
extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation
which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party has
been prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception
practiced on him by his opponent. Fraud is extrinsic where the unsuccessful party
has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on
him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a
compromise; or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in
ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without
authority connives at his defeat; these and similar cases which show that there has
never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case are reasons for which a
new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment and open the
case for a new and fair hearing.[25]

Given these considerations and those observed by the CA, FPA's interest in the cancellation of
the Deed of Restrictions annotated on petitioners' certificates of title is unmistakable. Without
due notice to FPA, a party in interest, the RTC Orders for cancellation, removal or deletion of
the Deed of Restrictions annotated on petitioners' certificates of title are void for lack of
jurisdiction. That petitioners deliberately excluded FPA from the RTC proceedings is evident
from the ex-parte nature of their petitions for cancellation and their presumed knowledge that
FPA's authority to impose and implement the Deed of Restrictions would be cut off once the
annotation thereof on their certificates of title is canceled, removed or deleted — an effect
evidently injurious to FPA. In preventing FPA to participate in the RTC proceedings, petitioners
can be said to have committed extrinsic fraud, which likewise affected the very jurisdiction of
the RTCs to hear and decide the cases before them.

Undoubtedly, the CA did not err in granting FPA's petitions for annulment of judgment based on
lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud pursuant to Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules, which
provides:

SEC. 2. Grounds for annulment. — The annulment may be based only on the
grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been
availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. (n)

Regarding PAGREL, the issue which the Court resolved therein is whether FPA is an
indispensable party in petitions for cancellation of the same Deed of Restrictions as in these
cases, which is annotated on the certificates of title of the registered owners whose properties
are located within the Forbes Park Village. As the CA Decision noted:

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 13/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

Equally telling is the fact that the issue on whether or not x x x FPA is an
indispensable party in a petition for cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions
annotated on the certificates of title of the registered owners had been laid to rest in
the recent case docketed as G.R. No. 194532 entitled [PAGREL, Inc.] v. Forbes Park
Association and promulgated on December 10, 2012. In this case, the Supreme Court
affirmed the Court of Appeals when it ruled that x x x FPA is an indispensable party
in the consolidated petitions for cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions filed before
the RTC by PAGREL, Inc., et al., who were registered owners of properties located
in Forbes Park Village. Such failure by petitioners therein to implead FPA as an
indispensable party amounts to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud rendering the
proceedings below null and void. x x x

xxxx

The above ruling confirming the status of x x x FPA as an indispensable party in a

petition for cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions has become final and executory
when the Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated February 20, 2013, denied with
finality the motion for reconsideration filed therein by PAGREL. Inc., et al.[26]

PAGREL was resolved by the Court through an unsigned Resolution. Being an unsigned
Resolution, similar to a minute Resolution, the disposition therein is binding only as between
the parties.[27] The doctrine of stare decisis cannot be invoked in a subsequent case to bind non-
parties thereto, who may be similarly situated as the original parties to the case. Thus, the CA
erred when it justified its invocation of PAGREL in the present cases by applying the doctrine of
stare decisis.

The similarities of the parties and the cause of action in PAGREL and in these cases are
undeniable. In the instant three cases, the same question (whether FPA is an indispensable party
or party in interest) relating to the same event (cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions
annotation proceedings) is brought by parties similarly situated as in PAGREL (registered
owners of properties within the Forbes Park Village). The factual parallelism of these cases with
PAGREL is unmistakable, viz.:

The titles of all lot owners in Forbes Park Village are subjected to a Deed of
Restrictions which sets forth the conditions and regulations which the lot owners
must observe in the construction and maintenance of their respective properties. The
said deed of restrictions is annotated in each title and valid for a period of fifty (50)
years from January 1, 1949 or until December 31, 1998. Among the stipulations
contained therein is the automatic membership of each lot owner inside the Forbes
Park Village in the FPAI.

On March 29, 2001, petitioners filed separate ex-parte petitions before the Regional
Trial Court of Makati seeking the cancellation of the said deed of restrictions on
their respective [TCTs], In their petitions, they alleged that the said deed of
restrictions may be extended by means of a resolution approved by 2/3 vote of the
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 14/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

members of the FPAI which should be registered with the [RD]. They averred,
however, that no such resolution for extension had been registered. Thus, they
argued that the deed of restrictions expired as of midnight of December 31, 1998,
thereby entitling them to the cancellation, removal or deletion of the same from their
respective TCTs.

Their ex-parte petitions were consolidated before Branch 145 of the [RTC]. In an
Order, dated April 10, 2001, the RTC granted the said ex-parte petitions and ordered
the cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions annotated on their TCTs. The said order
attained finality and was duly executed.

This prompted FPAI to file a petition for annulment of the said order under Rule 47
of the Rules of Court on the ground of extrinsic fraud with the [CA]. In its Decision,
dated May 13, 2010, the CA granted the petition and declared null and void the
Order, dated April 10, 2001, on the ground of extrinsic fraud. The CA ruled that
FPAI is an indispensable party having an interest in the petitions for cancellation of
the deed of restrictions annotated on the titles of petitioners. x x x

Petitioners argue that FPAI is not an indispensable party in the Pagrel case before the
RTC as it has already lost its interest over them and their lots when the deed of
restrictions expired. They claim that failure to implead FPAI did not amount to
extrinsic fraud because they believed in good faith that the deed of restrictions in
favor of FPAI had already expired. x x x[28]

Given these similar circumstances, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from its ruling in
PAGREL, viz.:

The petition has no merit.

The CA was correct in holding that FPAI is an indispensable party in the case and
that the RTC could not have ruled against the latter in its absence.

In point is the case of Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Alejo, where the
Court held thus:

An indispensable party is a party who has an interest in the controversy

or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence,
without injuring or affecting that interest, a party who has not only an
interest in the subject matter of the controversy, but also has an interest of
such nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting his
interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final
determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good
conscience. x x x Further, an indispensable party is one who must be
included in an action before it may properly [move] forward.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 15/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

The joinder of indispensable parties to an action is mandated by Section

7, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Civil [Procedure], which we quote:

"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."

Aside from the above provision, jurisprudence requires such joinder, as

the following excerpts indicate:

xxxx

Thus, petitioners' failure to implead FPAI, as an indispensable party, constituted

extrinsic fraud. As correctly concluded by the CA:

In the case before Us, it is evident that [FPAI] was not informed of the
proceedings below despite respondents' knowledge that [FPAI] would be
affected by the cancellation of the deed of restrictions. Thus, [FPAI] was
clearly kept away from [the] court – an act which constitutes extrinsic
fraud based on the aforecited jurisprudence. In view of this, the assailed
order must be annulled pursuant to Rule 47 of the Rules of Court x x x.
[29]

The Court reiterates that FPA is an indispensable party and a party in interest in a petition for
cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions annotated on the certificates of title covering properties
within the Forbes Park Village. Being a party in interest, FPA must be notified of such petition
pursuant to Section 108 of PD 1529. Absent the required notice, the judgment of the trial court
granting the petition for cancellation of annotation is a nullity for want of jurisdiction and for
lack of due process.

Not only was the issue of whether FPA is an indispensable party, which must be notified, in a
petition for cancellation of the Deed of Restrictions annotated on certificates of title embracing
properties within the Forbes Park Village previously passed upon by the Court, the issue on the
validity of the extension of said Deed of Restrictions and of the extension of the corporate life
of FPA had also reached the Court. This is clear from the following pronouncements of the
Court in Forbes Park Association, Inc. v. PAGREL, Inc., et al.[30] (Forbes Park), viz.:

Forbes Park is an exclusive, plush subdivision in Makati City. The members of

petitioner Forbes Park Association, Inc. (FPA) agreed to have a deed of restrictions
annotated on their Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs), the pertinent portions of
which read:

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 16/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

DEED OF RESTRICTIONS
Annotated on all Transfer [Certificates of Title]

I. The owner of this lot or his successor in interest is required to be and is

automatically a member of the Forbes Park Association and must abide
by the rules and restrictions laid down by the Association covering the
use and occupancy of the lot.

II. Subject to such amendments and additional restrictions, reservations,

servitudes, etc., as the Forbes Park Association may from time to time
adopt and prescribe, this lot is subject to the following restrictions:

xxxx

III. The term of the foregoing restrictions is for fifty (50) years from
January 1, 1949 and may be extended, amended or cancelled by means of
a resolution approved by 2/3 vote of the Forbes Park Association and
registered with the Register of Deeds of Rizal.

For a better understanding of the petition before us, we find it necessary to recall the
events that transpired prior to December 31, 1998, the expiration date of the
restrictions.

On March 25, 1996, FPA, during its annual general meeting, deliberated on the
extension of the corporate life of the Association, the extension of the Deed of
Restrictions, and the date of the meeting when these matters would be voted on.
Consequently, then incumbent FPA President Enrique Lagdameo, herein respondent,
called a Special General Meeting on November 26, 1996 and the two items – the
extension of the corporate life of FPA and the Deed of Restrictions – were put to a
vote. Since the quorum was questioned, another meeting was set for December 8,
1996. With the secretary's certification that there was no quorum during the
November 26 meeting, the Board of Governors sent a circular that the matters
discussed then were invalid and had no binding effect, including the setting of a
meeting for December 8, 1996.

Just the same, on December 8, 1996, Jose Concepcion presided as chairperson of the
meeting. The designated commission on elections reported on the attendance and the
votes cast during the November 26 and December 8, 1996 meetings.

As a reaction, some FPA members filed separate cases before the Home Insurance
Guaranty Corporation (HIGC). In HIGC Case No. HOA-97-003 entitled Arturo V.
Rocha v. Forbes Park Association, Inc., Arturo Rocha sought the annulment of the
FPA resolutions passed during the November 26 and December 8, 1996 meetings,
extending the corporate life of FPA and the Deed of Restrictions, on the ground of
no- quorum. In HIGC Case No. HOA-97-010) entitled Jose Concepcion. Jr.,
Federico V. Borromeo and Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala II v. Rosa Caram, on the
other hand, the three (3) complaining homeowners asked HIGC to enjoin Rosa
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 17/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

Caram, the FPA secretary, from misrepresenting that the resolutions passed
extending the corporate life of FPA and the Deed of Restrictions were vitiated for
lack of quorum. The two cases were consolidated.

Meantime, the Board of Governors of the FPA, chaired by Lagdameo, issued several
circulars on the guidelines for the nominations and qualifications of candidates, and
validation of proxies for the general assembly and election set for March 30, 1997.
The Hearing Panel then canceled the scheduled election and directed the holding of
one on June 30, 1997. During the June 30. 1997 election, the FPA members voted for
the 25-year extension of FPA's corporate life.

Subsequently, Lagdameo instituted another case before the HIGC docketed as HIGC
Case No. HOA-98-111 and entitled Enrique D. Lagdameo, Jose M. Cabarrus,
Antonio C. Cuyegkeng II. et al. v. Forbes Park Association, Inc., Leonardo Siguion-
Reyna and the Register of Deeds of Makati City that was consolidated with HIGC
Case Nos. HOA-97-003 and HOA-97-010. Since, however, the latter two cases had
already been submitted for resolution, HIGC Case No. HOA-98-111 was separately
heard.

On November 5, 1999, the Hearing Panel, in the consolidated cases, HIGC Case
Nos. HOA-97-003, HOA-97-010, and HOA-98-111, ruled that the Deed of
Restrictions had not been validly extended because only 407 of the 424 members
present, or less than the required two-third (2/3) votes of the members, voted
affirmatively. It also declared that the proceedings during the December 8, 1996
meeting and the decision to allow additional members to register and vote were not
capable of ratification because the meeting was improperly held. But, the Hearing
Panel went on to state, however, that it is essential to ascertain the real will of the
members considering that based on the November 26 and December 8, 1996
meetings, albeit held under improper circumstances, more than 2/3 of the general
membership, 464 out of 489, including the votes of those who were allowed to
register and vote during the December 8 meeting, expressed approval for the
extension of the Deed of Restrictions. The panel ordered a referendum within 30
days.

On appeal to the HIGC Appeals Board which was docketed as HIGC AB Case No.
99-012, the Board reversed the panel's decision, thus:

"WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Decision of the

Hearing Panel dated November 5, 1999 is hereby REVERSED except
insofar as it declared the December 8, 1996 meeting as illegally and
improperly held which we hereby affirm.

Therefore, judgment is hereby rendered [declaring as] VALID AND

EFFECTIVE the Resolution of the general membership of the Forbes
Park Association, Inc. dated June 30, 1997 extending the corporate term
of the Association and the Deed of Restrictions of the Forbes Park
Subdivision, for another twenty-five (25) years from expiry date."

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 18/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

Unhappy with the outcome, Rocha filed a petition before the Court of Appeals (CA),
the recourse docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 59359. In a Decision dated August 29,
2003, the CA declared the extension of the deed of restrictions and FPA's corporate
life for another 25 years to be valid.

Rocha then challenged the CA Decision before this Court in G.R. No. 163869 that
was subsequently closed and terminated after his death. The Rocha heirs, on July 8,
2004, manifested that they were no longer interested in pursuing the case.

On August 29, 2003, the Decision of the CA upholding the extension of the Deed of
Restrictions and FPA's corporate life became final and executory. Judgment was
entered on September 22, 2004.[31]

Interestingly, Forbes Park is the precursor of PAGREL. The Court narrates in Forbes Park, to
wit:

Forbes Park Association, Inc. v. Register of Deeds of Makati City

(Lis Pendens Case), CA-G.R. SP No. 61245
and subsequently G.R. No. 148733

On January 27, 1999, FPA filed an application with the Register of Deeds of Makati
City for the registration by FPA of notices of lis pendens over certain Forbes Park
lots in connection with HIGC Case Nos. HOA-97-003, HOA-97-010, and HOA-98-
111. The issue in the above HIGC cases was the extension of the Deed of
Restrictions.

On February 5, 1999, the Register of Deeds denied FPA's application on the ground
that a notice of lis pendens may only be sought in actions to recover possession of
real estate, or to quiet title thereto, or to remove clouds upon the title thereof, or to
partition the property, and in any other proceedings of any kind in court directly
affecting the title to the land or the use or occupation thereof on the building thereon.

This denial compelled FPA to appeal via a consulta with the Land Registration
Authority (LRA). This was entitled as Forbes Park Association, Inc. v. Register of
Deeds of Makati City and docketed as Consulta No. 3038. The principal issue FPA
raised before the LRA was whether or not a notice of lis pendens can be registered
given the circumstances of FPA's application. On August 21, 2000, the LRA issued a
resolution denying the appeal filed by FPA and essentially adopting the reasoning of
the Register of Deeds.

The denial of the appeal by the LRA prompted FPA to File a petition for review with
the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 61245. x x x

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 19/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

On November 28, 2000, the CA. in a single page resolution, dismissed FPA's
petition for review on the sole ground that the person who signed the subject
verification and certification was not a duly authorized representative of FPA. FPA's
motion for reconsideration was denied in the CA's June 25, 2001 Resolution.

On April 25, 2005, FPA filed before the Court a petition for review, docketed as
G.R. No. 148733, assailing the above resolutions of the CA and praying that the CA
be directed to give due course to FPA's Petition for Review on the issue of
registration of the notices of lis pendens on certain Forbes Park lots. In this recourse,
FPA faulted the CA for ruling against the validity of the verification and certification
signed by Rigor.

Subsequently, FPA filed a Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw the Petition dated
March 15, 2005, contending that the lis pendens issue in question has been rendered
moot by the development in Arturo V. Rocha v. FPA, G.R. No. 163869.

In the Rocha case, as may be recalled, the CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 59359,
which upheld the extension of the Deed of Restrictions and the corporate life of
FPA, became final and executory because of the withdrawal by the Rocha heirs of
their appeal in G.R. No. 163869. Thus, according to FPA, the issue in G.R. No.
148733, specifically the registration of notices of lis pendens, had essentially
become moot and academic.

Acting on FPA's manifestation and motion to withdraw the petition, this Court issued
a Resolution dated April 25, 2005, stating that G.R. No. 148733 dismissing the
petition was deemed closed and terminated. The entry of judgment in G.R. No.
148733 was made on June 14, 2005.

The PAGREL Cases

(LRC Case Nos. M-4150, M-4151 and M-4152 /CA-G.R. SP No. 67263]) are the
subject matters of instant G.R. No. 153821

Earlier, on March 29, 2001, respondent PAGREL, Inc., represented by Gregorio

Araneta III, respondent Pilar R. De Lagdameo, and respondent Lagdameo,
separately filed ex parte petitions with the Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC)
to cancel the restrictions over their respective lot titles. These were docketed as LRC
Case Nos. M-4150, M-4151, and M-4152, respectively (PAGREL cases). They
claimed that the Deed of Restrictions had expired and remained so until the time of
the filing of their petitions without any extensions or new restrictions registered with
the Registry of Deeds of Makati City as of midnight of December 31, 1998.
Significantly, FPA was not impleaded as a party in any of the above cases filed with
the RTC.

The RTC granted the relief in its April 10, 2001 Order, the fallo of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court rules to:

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 20/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

1.] Give due course and GRANTS the petition filed by Pagrel
Inc. as represented herein by Gregorio Araneta III, through
counsel in LRC Case No. M-4150. And as prayed for, the
Register of Deeds of Makati City is ordered to cancel, remove
or delete from Transfer Certificate of Title No. (63307) S-
30612 the restriction inscribed therein as primary no. 2655
File T-37356, at the expense of petitioner-Pagrel Inc.;

2.] Give due course and GRANTS the petition filed by Pilar
R. De Lagdameo, through counsel, in LRC Case No. M-4151.
And as prayed for the Register of Deeds of Makati City, is
ordered to cancel, remove or delete from: [2.a] Transfer
Certificate of Title No. (27039) S-80092, the restriction
inscribed therein as primary no. 42535, and [2.b] Transfer
Certificate of Title No. (252548), the restriction inscribed
therein as primary no. 38638 File T-25258, at the expense of
the petitioner Pilar R. De Lagdameo; and

3.] Give due course and GRANTS the petition filed by

Petitioner Enrique B. Lagdameo, through counsel, in LRC
Case No. M-4152. And as prayed for the Register of Deeds of
Makati City is ordered to cancel, remove or delete from
Transfer Certificate of Title No. (389324) the primary no.
being 25469, at the expense of the petitioner Enrique B.
Lagdameo.

SO ORDERED."

The order became final and executory on May 3, 2001.

Displeased with the RTC Order, FPA filed on October 19, 2001 with the CA a
Petition for Annulment of Final Order with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) and Writ of Injunction docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67263. According to
FPA, PAGREL, Inc., et al., as private respondents, committed extrinsic fraud when
they did not implead FPA as party-in-interest in the three petitions for cancellation of
the restrictions on their respective titles. FPA claimed further that: (1) private
respondents, as Forbes Park lot owners and FPA members, are bound by the terms
and conditions contained in the Deed of Restrictions; (2) they were aware that at
least 2/3 of the members of FPA approved the extension of the corporate life of FPA,
and the extension in toto of the Deed of Restrictions in question; (3) the Deed of
Restrictions was designed to maintain the exclusive residential nature of the village,
and to protect the residents and lot owners from the ravages of noise and pollution
which commercialization of the lots within Forbes Park would consequently bring;
and (4) FPA had successfully defended the extension of its corporate life and the
extension of the deed of restrictions before the HIGC.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 21/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

xxxx

In its March 7, 2002 Resolution, the CA denied FPA's petition for annulment of the
final order of the RTC. The CA found that between the PAGREL cases and G.R. No.
148733, the elements of litis pendentia existed.

FPA's motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied.[32]

Given this backdrop, the Court ruled that the CA erred because the elements of litis pendentia
did not exist in the said cases and noted that:

Lest it be overlooked, this Court, acting on FPA's manifestation and motion to

withdraw petition dated March 15, 2005, issued on April 25, 2005 a resolution
dismissing the petition in G.R. No. 148733 and considered the case closed and
terminated. Thus, there no longer exists any other case that can be used as a bar to
CA-G.R. SP No. 67263 (PAGREL cases) on the ground of litis pendentia.
Necessarily, such obstacle has now been removed and the aforementioned CA
petition for annulment can now proceed.[33]

Thus, the Court, in Forbes Park, granted the petition of FPA and set aside the assailed
Resolutions of the CA. FPA's Petition for Annulment of Final Order therein was given due
course and the case was remanded to the CA to commence proceedings therein and resolve the
petition with dispatch.[34] Based on PAGREL, FPA's Petition for Annulment of Final Order was
granted by the CA and when PAGREL, Inc., et al. elevated the matter before the Court, the CA
was affirmed in the Court's Resolution dated December 10 , 20 1 2.[35] Said Resolution became
final on February 20, 2013.[36]

While Rocha v. Forbes Park Association, Inc.[37] (Rocha), based on the Court's pronouncements
in Forbes Park, was resolved through a minute Resolution, thus non-binding to non-parties
thereto, the Court continues to recognize the matters resolved therein — the validity of the
extension of the Deed of Restrictions and of FPA's corporate life — in the absence of
subsequent contrary ruling by the Court.

From the foregoing, the duty of petitioners to notify FPA of the petitions for cancellation of the
Deed of Restrictions annotated on their certificates of title is mandated by Section 108 of PD
1529, the Rules and jurisprudence. That FPA did not inform them of the extension of the Deed
of Restrictions or that FPA did not annotate such extension on their certificates of title is of no
moment. While FPA might have been remiss in that respect, the notice requirement in Section
108 is jurisdictional. Petitioners have to comply therewith to vest jurisdiction over their
petitions for cancellation in the RTCs. Since they failed to do so, the assailed Orders of the
RTCs are void, as correctly ruled by the CA.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 22/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

Proper proceedings before the CA

Petitioners question the proceedings adopted by the CA in the resolution of FPA's petitions for
annulment of the assailed RTC Orders in that the CA's Decision was merely based on the
pleadings as it did not conduct pre-trial and trial, nor did it require the submission of
memoranda.

On this point the CA correctly observed:

Section 1. Rule 47 of the Rules of Court clearly provides that the [CA] has exclusive
original jurisdiction over actions for the annulment of judgments, final orders or
resolutions in civil actions of [the RTCs], Verily, [the CA] is vested with jurisdiction
to annul the assailed Orders issued by the RTC[s] in relation to the petitions filed
thereat by no less than [petitioners] themselves. x x x

With regard to [petitioners'] claim that [the CA] failed to proceed to pre-trial and
trial of the case[s] after the issues have been joined, suffice it to state that Section 6,
Rule 47 x x x does not make mandatory the conduct of pre-trial and trial in petitions
for annulment of judgments. The said provision states:

Sec. 6. Procedure. – The procedure in ordinary civil cases shall be

observed. Should a trial be necessary, the reception of the evidence may
be referred to a member of the court or a judge of a Regional Trial Court.

Verily, [the CA] has the discretion to submit the instant consolidated cases for
decision on the merits without the necessity of a trial if it finds that the pleadings
filed by the parties [are] sufficient to make a determination of the issues raised.
Section 1, Rule 51 x x x does not likewise make the submission of a memorandum a
prerequisite before a judgment can be rendered, thus:

Sec. 1. When case deemed submitted for judgment. – A case shall be

deemed submitted for judgment: x x x

B. In original actions and petitions for review. – x x x

2) Where no hearing is held, upon the filing of the last pleading required
or permitted to be tiled by the court, or the expiration of the period for its
filing. x x x[38]

Consequently, the CA properly observed the Rules, contrary to petitioners' untenable assertions.

Prescription of action and laches

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 23/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

Petitioners argue that FPA's petitions for annulment of the assailed Orders of the RTCs were
filed beyond the period provided in Section 3, Rule 47 of the Rules, which states:

SEC. 3. Period for filing action. – If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be
filed within four (4) years from its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction,
before it is barred by laches or estoppel. (n)

The CA, after ruling that the RTCs lacked jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Orders and that
petitioners employed extrinsic fraud, found that there was no undue delay on the part of FPA in
asserting its rights:

[Petitioners] also invoke laches on the part of [FPA], However, a review of the
records of the case[s] reveal[s] that no undue delay in the assertion of its rights can
be attributed to [FPA].[39]

This is a factual finding of the CA, which as a general rule, cannot be raised in a Rule 45
petition for review on certiorari and, in the absence of a clear showing that any of the
exceptions thereto obtains in these cases, the Court is bound by such finding.

Additionally, the Court notes that FPA has previously instituted and participated in actions
(Rocha, PAGREL and Forbes Park), which involved the very same Deed of Restrictions as
herein and have a direct impact on the present cases. FPA pursued those cases until it obtained
rulings in its favor. These moves of FPA show vigilance in asserting its rights, negating estoppel
by laches on its part.

Restoration of the Deed of Restrictions

Furthermore, petitioners question the restoration of the annotation of the Deed of Restrictions
on their certificates of title.

The restoration of the annotation of the Deed of Restrictions on petitioners' certificates of title is
understandably the logical consequence of the nullification of the Orders of the RTCs, which
ordered the cancellation of the annotation of the Deed of Restrictions on their certificates of
title. If the annotation of the Deed of Restrictions remained cancelled, then that would be
tantamount to said Orders not being nullified.

Other Matters

The Court finds it unnecessary to discuss the merits of the remaining matters raised by
petitioners. The outcome of the present cases, as discussed above, will not in any way be
affected. Besides, they are irrelevant.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 24/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

The Court notes that RMFPU lament that the "exclusivity and privacy" of Forbes Park Village
and the "basic services of the FPA such as, but not limited to, the security guards, garbage
disposal, landscaping, and other benefits otherwise enjoyed by those living within the gated
confines of Forbes Park" were never enjoyed by them.[40] Imposing the same restrictions to
those living outside the gated walls of Forbes Park Village and to those living inside would,
according to RMFPU, violate petitioners' right to equal protection of laws.[41] Quick Silver, for
its part, wants the Court to scrutinize whether the Deed of Restrictions serves a public purpose
and whether restrictions imposed by posh communities further the social responsibility that land
ownership entails in the light of the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Hugo Gutierrez in Cariday
Investment Corp. v. Court of Appeals, et al.[42]

Petitioners will just have to find the proper forum for these matters.

WHEREFORE, the consolidated Petitions are DENIED. The Decision dated March 6, 2015
and Resolution dated September 2, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 123877,
123878 and 123879 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Gesmundo, C.J., (Chairperson), Carandang, Zalameda, and Rosario,* JJ., concur.

* Designated additional Member per Raffle dated December 14, 2020 vice Associate Justice
Samuel H. Gaerlan.

[1] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 220340-41), Vol. I, pp. 3-35, excluding Annexes.

[2] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 220682-84), pp. 11-67, excluding Annexes.

[3]Rollo (G.R. Nos. 220340-41). Vol. I. pp. 38-59; rollo (G.R. Nos. 220682-84), pp. 68-89.
Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-
Padilla (a retired Member of the Court) and Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of the Court)
concurring.

[4] Id. at 61-65; id. at 91-95.

[5] Former Special Fifth Division.

[6]
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 220340-41), Vol. I, pp. 92-93. Penned by Presiding Judge Winlove M.
Dumayas.

[7] See id. at 40. Penned by Presiding Judge Winlove M. Dumayas.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 25/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

[8] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 220682-84), p. 113. Penned by Presiding Judge Escolastico U. Cruz, Jr.

[9] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 220340-41), Vol. I, pp. 39-52; rollo (G.R. Nos. 220682-84) pp. 69-82.

[10] Supra note 3.

[11] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 220340-41), Vol. I, pp. 58-59; rollo (G.R. Nos. 220682-84), pp. 88-89.

[12] Supra note 4.

[13] Collectively, RHI, Moreno and RPI are referred to as RMFPU.

[14] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 220682-84), pp. 465-504.

[15] Id. at 581-596.

[16] Id. at 511-538.

[17]G.R. No. 194523, December 10, 2012 (Unsigned Resolution), see rollo (G.R. No. 194532),
pp. 308-311.

[18]
AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS RELATIVE TO REGISTRATION OF
PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, June 11, 1978.

[19] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 220340-41), Vol. I, pp. 54-56; rollo (G.R. Nos. 220682-84), pp. 84-86.

[20] G.R. No. 165863, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 408.

[21] G.R. No. 165875, April 10, 2013. id.

[22] Id. at 441-442. Citations omitted.

[23] G.R. No. 155236, July 8, 2005, 463 SCRA 180.

[24] Id. at 192. Citations omitted.

[25]Cosmic Lumber Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114311, November 29, 1996,
265 SCRA 168, 179-180 Citations omitted.

[26] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 220340-41), Vol. I. pp. 56-57; rollo (G.R. Nos. 220682-84), pp. 86-87.

[27]See Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
188550, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 216, where the Court stated:
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 26/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

A minute resolution is not a binding

precedent

xxxx
It is true that, although contained in a minute resolution, our dismissal of
the petition was a disposition of the merits of the case. When we
dismissed the petition, we effectively affirmed the CA ruling being
questioned. As a result, our ruling in that case has already become final.
When a minute resolution denies or dismisses a petition for failure to
comply with formal and substantive requirements, the challenged
decision, together with its findings of fact and legal conclusions, are
deemed sustained. But what is its effect on other cases?
With respect to the same subject matter and the same issues concerning
the same parties, it constitutes res judicata. However, it other parties or
another subject matter (even with the same parties and issues) is
involved, the minute resolution is not binding precedent. x x x (Id. at
225-226. Emphasis omitted)

[28]PAGREL, Inc. v. Forbes Park Association Inc., supra note 17, at 308-309. FPAI and FPA are
the same entity.

[29] Id. at 309-310.

[30] G.R. No. 153821, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 39.

[31] Id. at 40-44.

[32] Id. at 44-48 Citations omitted.

[33] Id. at 51.

[34] Id. at 52.

[35] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 220340-41), Vol. I, p. 56; rollo (G.R. Nos. 220682-84), p. 86.

[36] Id. at 57; id. at 87.

[37] G.R. No. 163869.

[38] Rollo (G.R. Nos. 220340-41), Vol. I, pp. 63-64; rollo (G.R. Nos. 220682-84), pp. 93-94.

[39] Id. at 65; id. at 95.

[40] Id. at 25-26.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 27/28
1/26/23, 9:07 AM [ G.R. Nos. 220340-41. June 14, 2021 ]

[41] Id. at 26.

[42]Rollo (G.R. Nos. 220682-84), pp. 58-59, citing J. Gutierrez, Jr., Dissenting Opinion in
Cariday Investment Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83358, August 2, 1989, 176 SCRA 31.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: March 10, 2022

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67432&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b… 28/28