The Quieting of Title Case

(G.R. Nos. 178779 and 178894)

Demetria Vidal (Vidal) and AZIMUTH filed on November 18, 1998, a Petition32 for Quieting of
Title against Teofilo, Atty. Cabildo, and the Register of Deeds of Iligan City, which was
docketed as Civil Case No. 4452 and raffled to RTC-Branch 3.

In the Petition, Vidal claimed that she, and not Teofilo, was the late Doña Demetria’s sole
surviving heir, entitled to the parcels of land covered by OCT Nos. 0-1200 (a.f.) and 0-1201
(a.f.). She averred that she is the daughter of Francisco Cacho Vidal (Francisco) and Fidela
Arellano Confesor. Francisco was the only child of Don Dionisio Vidal and Doña Demetria.

AZIMUTH, for its part, filed the Petition as Vidal’s successor-in-interest with respect to a 23-
hectare portion of the subject parcels of land pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement dated
April 2, 1998 and Deed of Conditional Conveyance dated August 13, 2004, which Vidal
executed in favor of AZIMUTH.

Teofilo opposed the Petition contending that it stated no cause of action because there was no
title being disturbed or in danger of being lost due to the claim of a third party, and Vidal had
neither legal nor beneficial ownership of the parcels of land in question; that the matter and
issues raised in the Petition had already been tried, heard, and decided by the RTC of Iligan City
and affirmed with finality by this Court in the 1997 Cacho case; and that the Petition was barred
by the Statute of Limitations and laches.

LANDTRADE, among other parties, was allowed by the RTC-Branch 3 to intervene in Civil
Case No. 4452. LANDTRADE alleged that it is the owner of a portion of the subject parcels of
land, measuring 270,255 square meters or about 27.03 hectares, which it purportedly acquired
through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 1, 1996 from Teofilo, represented by Atty.
Cabildo. LANDTRADE essentially argued that Vidal's right as heir should be adjudicated upon
in a separate and independent proceeding and not in the instant Quieting of Title Case.

During the pre-trial conference, the parties manifested that there was no possibility of any
amicable settlement among them.

Vidal and AZIMUTH submitted testimonial and documentary evidence during the trial before
the RTC-Branch 3. Teofilo and Atty. Cabildo failed to present any evidence as they did not
appear at all during the trial, while LANDTRADE was declared by the RTC-Branch 3 to have
waived its right to present evidence on its defense and counterclaim.

On July 17, 2004, the RTC-Branch 3 rendered its Decision33 in Civil Case No. 4452 in favor of
Vidal and AZIMUTH, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioners and against the
respondents and intervenors:

1) DECLARING:
a.) Petitioner Demetria C. Vidal the sole surviving heir of the late Doña Demetria Cacho;

b.) Petitioner Demetria C. Vidal alone has the hereditary right to and interest in the
Subject Property;

c.) Petitioner Azimuth International Development Corporation is the successor-in-interest

of petitioner Demetria C. Vidal to a portion of the Subject Property to the extent provided
in their 2 April 1998 Memorandum of Agreement and 13 August 1998 Deed of
Conditional Conveyance;

d.) Respondent Teofilo Cacho is not a son or heir of the late Dona Demetria Cacho; and

e.) Respondent Teofilo Cacho, Godofredo Cabildo and any of their transferees/assignees
have no valid right to or interest in the Subject Property.

2) ORDERING:

a.) Respondent Register of Deeds of Iligan City, and any other person acting in his
behalf, stop, cease and desist:

i) From accepting or registering any affidavit of self- adjudication or any other

document executed by respondents Teofilo Cacho, Godofredo Cabildo and/or any
other person which in any way transfers the title to the Subject Property from
Dona Demetria Cacho to respondent Teofilo Cacho, Godofredo Cabildo and/or
any of their transferees/assignees, including the intervenors.

ii) From cancelling the OCTs or any certificate of title over the Subject Property
in the name of Demetria Cacho or any successor certificate of title, and from
issuing new certificates of title in the name of respondents Teofilo Cacho,
Godofredo Cabildo their transferees/assignees, including the intervenors.

b) Respondents Teofilo Cacho, Godofredo Cabildo, their transferees/assignees, and any

other person acting in their behalf, to stop, cease and desist:

i) From executing, submitting to any Register of Deeds, or registering or causing

to be registered therein, any affidavit of self-adjudication or any other document
which in any way transfers title to the Subject Property from Demetria Cacho to
respondents Teofilo Cacho, Godofredo Cabildo and/or any of their
transferees/assignees, including the intervenors.

ii) From canceling or causing the cancellation of OCTs or any certificate of title
over the Subject Property in the name of Demetria Cacho or any successor
certificate of title, and from issuing new certificates of title in the name of
respondent Teofilo Cacho, Godofredo Cabildo and/or any of their
transferees/assignees, including the intervenors.
iii) From claiming or representing in any manner that respondent Teofilo Cacho is
the son or heir of Demetria Cacho or has rights to or interest in the Subject
Property.

3) ORDERING respondents Teofilo Cacho and Atty. Godofredo Cabildo to pay petitioners,
jointly and severally, the following:

a) For temperate damages - P 80,000.00

b) For nominal damages - P 60,000.00

c) For moral damages - P500,000.00

d) For exemplary damages - P 500,000.00

e) For attorney's fees (ACCRA Law)-P1,000,000.00

f) For Attorney's fees - P500,000.00

(Atty. Voltaire Rovira)

g) For litigation expenses - P300,000.00

For lack of factual and legal basis, the counterclaim of Teofilo Cacho and Atty. Godofredo
Cabildo is hereby dismissed.

Likewise, the counterclaim of intervenor IDD/Investa is dismissed for lack of basis as the
petitioners succeeded in proving their cause of action.

On the cross-claim of intervenor IDD/Investa, respondents Teofilo Cacho and Atty. Godofredo
Cabildo are ORDERED to pay IDD/Investa, jointly and severally, the principal sum of
P5,433,036 with 15% interest per annum.

For lack of legal basis, the counterclaim of Intervenor Landtrade Realty Development
Corporation is dismissed.

Likewise, Intervenor Manguera's counterclaim is dismissed for lack of legal basis.34

The joint appeal filed by LANDTRADE, Teofilo, and Atty. Cabildo with the Court of Appeals
was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 00456. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision35 of January 19,
2007, affirmed in toto the Decision dated July 17, 2004 of the RTC-Branch 3.

According to the Court of Appeals, the RTC-Branch 3 did not err in resolving the issue on
Vidal’s status, filiation, and hereditary rights as it is determinative of the issue on ownership of
the subject properties. It was indubitable that the RTC-Branch 3 had jurisdiction over the person
of Teofilo and juridical personality of LANDTRADE as they both filed their Answers to the
Petition for Quieting of Title thereby voluntarily submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of said
trial court. Likewise, the Petition for Quieting of Title is in itself within the jurisdiction of the
RTC-Branch 3. Hence, where there is jurisdiction over the person and subject matter, the
resolution of all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise by the court of its
jurisdiction. Moreover, Teofilo and LANDTRADE were guilty of estoppel by laches for failing
to assail the jurisdiction of the RTC-Branch 3 at the first opportunity and even actively
participating in the trial of the case and seeking affirmative reliefs.

In addition, the Court of Appeals held that the 1997 Cacho case only determined the validity and
efficacy of the Affidavit of Adjudication that Teofilo executed before the Philippine Consulate
General in the U.S.A. The decision of this Court in the 1997 Cacho case, which had become final
and executory, did not vest upon Teofilo ownership of the parcels of land as it merely ordered
the re-issuance of a lost duplicate certificate of title in its original form and condition.

The Court of Appeals agreed in the finding of the RTC-Branch 3 that the evidence on record
preponderantly supports Vidal’s claim of being the granddaughter and sole heiress of the late
Doña Demetria. The appellate court further adjudged that Vidal did not delay in asserting her
rights over the subject parcels of land. The prescriptive period for real actions over immovables
is 30 years. Vidal’s rights as Doña Demetria’s successor-in-interest accrued upon the latter’s
death in 1974, and only 24 years thereafter, in 1998, Vidal already filed the present Petition for
Quieting of Title. Thus, Vidal’s cause of action had not yet prescribed. And, where the action
was filed within the prescriptive period provided by law, the doctrine of laches was also
inapplicable.

LANDTRADE, Teofilo, and Atty. Cabildo filed separate Motions for Reconsideration of the
January 19, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals, which were denied in the July 4, 2007
Resolution36 of the same court.

On August 24, 2007, LANDTRADE filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which was docketed as G.R. No. 178779. On September 6,
2007, Teofilo and Atty. Cabildo filed their own Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court, which was docketed as G.R. No. 178894.