10/30/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 755

G.R. No. 196592. April 6, 2015.*

SPOUSES JUVY MARAO and MARIA LUISA G.
MARAO, petitioners, vs. PRYCE GASES,
INCORPORATED, respondent.

Actions; Three (3) Kinds of Actions to Recover Possession of

Real Property.In this jurisdiction, there are three kinds of
actions to recover possession of real property, namely: (1) actions
for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, also denominated as accion
interdictal, which are summary in nature and seek to recover only
physical possession (possession de facto) of the property, (2) an
accion publiciana, which is a plenary action to recover the right to
possess the property, without claim of title, and (3) an accion
reivindicatoria (or accion de reivindicacion) or a reivindicatory
action, which is a plenary action to recover not only possession
of, but also ownership of the real property.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Consolidation of Cases;
Consolidation is proper when two (2) or more actions pending, not
necessarily, before the same court involve a common question of
law or fact.Instead of ordering the dismissal of the respondents
complaint for cancellation of certificate of title, we find that the
consolidation of the reivindicatory action and the
cancellation of certificate of title case to be the
appropriate remedy in the present situation. Consolidation
is proper when two or more actions pending, not necessarily,
before the same court involve a common question of law or fact. In
such cases, the court may: order a joint hearing or trial of any or
all the matters in issue in the actions, order all the actions
consolidated, and make such orders concerning the proceedings
therein for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary costs and delay.
Civil Law; Land Titles; Certificate of Title; Collateral Attack;
Section 48 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529 clearly provides
that a certificate of title can never be the subject of a collateral
attack; it cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a
direct proceeding instituted in accordance with law.We note
that the respondents complaint for cancellation of certificate of
title cannot simply be

_______________

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bdff310d99f16f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
10/30/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 755

* SECOND DIVISION.

57

VOL. 755, APRIL 6, 2015 57

Marao vs. Pryce Gases, Incorporated

dismissed. Wellsettled is the rule that the issue of validity of

a Torrens title, whether fraudulently issued or not, may be posed
only in an action brought to impugn or annul it. Section 48 of
Presidential Decree No. 1529 clearly provides that a certificate of
title can never be the subject of a collateral attack; it cannot be
altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding
instituted in accordance with law. Thus, the present respondent
has, in fact, resorted to proper procedure in filing a direct action
to attack or impugn the petitioners certificate of title. But to
allow the pendency of the reivindicatory action and the
cancellation of certificate of title case in two different
courts would not subserve the orderly administration of
justice as the subject cases involve a common question of fact,
i.e., the issue of validity of the petitioners certificate of title. In
this situation, consolidation is the proper procedure to prevent
confusion, avoid multiplicity of suits, and save the parties, as well
as the courts, time and from incurring unnecessary cost and
expense.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Danilo L. Pilapil for petitioners.
Francisco H. Escao, Jr. for respondent.

BRION, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the
December 14, 2010 decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in C.A.G.R. CEB S.P. No. 02025, and its March 18, 2011
resolution3 in the same case that denied the petitioners
motion for reconsideration.

_______________

1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; Rollo, pp. 415.

2 Id., at pp. 6573; penned by CA Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting,
with CA Associate Justices Portia A. Hormachuelos and Edwin D.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bdff310d99f16f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
10/30/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 755

Sorongon, concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 9495.

58

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Marao vs. Pryce Gases, Incorporated

Facts of the Case

On August 1, 1998, spouses Juvy and Maria Luisa
Marao (petitioners) filed a free patent application for a
9,074squaremeter parcel of land in Damulaan, Albuera,
Leyte, denominated as Lot No. 4299.4 The free patent
application was subsequently granted, and, on December
17, 1998, Original Certificate of Title No. P43553 was
issued to the petitioners over the subject lot.5
On December 29, 1998, the petitioners filed an
ejectment complaint6 against Pryce Gases, Incorporated
(respondent) alleging that the latter illegally entered the
subject lot and constructed a building thereon sometime in
March 1998.7 The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Albuera,
Leyte granted the petitioners complaint,8 but the Regional
Trial Court (RTC)9 reversed the MTC decision on appeal.
On further appeal, the CA, in a decision10 dated January
11, 2002 remanded the case to the MTC for trial as a
reivindicatory action under the ordinary rules of civil
procedure. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 158
with the MTC.
In the interim, the respondent, on April 17, 1999, filed a
protest on the free patent application filed by the
petitioners in August 1998.11 On December 29, 2000, the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) rendered a decision recommending the filing of
reversion proceedings against the petitioners, which
decision became final and

_______________

4 Id., at pp. 6667.

5 Id.
6 Id., at pp. 1618.
7 Id.
8 In a decision dated June 4, 1999; id., at p. 23.
9 In a decision dated August 30, 1999; id., at pp. 1926.
10 Id., at pp. 2732.
11 Id., at p. 67.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bdff310d99f16f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
10/30/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 755

59

VOL. 755, APRIL 6, 2015 59

Marao vs. Pryce Gases, Incorporated

executory. However, no reversion proceedings were

instituted against the petitioners.12
On October 28, 2002, the petitioners filed an action13 to
quiet title against the respondent with the RTC, 8th
Judicial Region, Branch 14, Baybay City, Leyte.14 A month
later, the respondent filed a complaint15 for reconveyance
against the petitioners before the same RTC. The
petitioners moved to dismiss the respondents complaint,
but the RTC denied their motion.16
The respondent later moved to amend its complaint from
reconveyance to the cancellation of the petitioners
certificate of title. The petitioners again moved to dismiss
the respondents amended complaint on the ground of litis
pendentia in view of the then pending reivindicatory action
with the MTC.17 The RTC, in a resolution18 dated March 6,
2006, dismissed the petitioners motion. The petitioners
moved for reconsideration but their motion was likewise
denied by the RTC.19 The petitioners questioned the RTCs
March 6, 2006 resolution in a petition for certiorari with
the CA. The case was docketed as C.A.G.R. CEB S.P. No.
02025.
In the reivindicatory action at the MTC, the latter court
rendered a decision20 on June 18, 2010 ruling in the
respondents favour; it declared the respondent as the
owner of the subject lot and, thus, entitled to the possession
thereof. The petitioners appealed the MTCs decision to the
RTC.21 In the same year, the CA, acting on the petition for
certiorari filed by

_______________

12 Id.
13 Docketed as Civil Case No. B20021031.
14 Rollo, p. 67.
15 Docketed as Civil Case No. B20021132.
16 Rollo, p. 67.
17 Ibid.
18 Id., at pp. 4748.
19 In an order dated June 8, 2006; id., at p. 53.
20 Id., at pp. 8091.
21 Id., at p. 13.

60

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bdff310d99f16f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
10/30/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 755

60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Marao vs. Pryce Gases, Incorporated

the petitioners, rendered a decision22 dated December

14, 2010 affirming the RTCs resolution that dismissed the
petitioners motion to dismiss. The CA held that no litis
pendentia exists between the reivindicatory action (then
pending before the MTC) and the amended complaint for
cancellation of certificate of title filed by the respondent
with the RTC. The petitioners moved to reconsider the CAs
decision but their motion was denied,23 hence, the filing of
the present petition for review on certiorari with this
Court.

The Petition

The petitioners mainly argue that the respondents
complaint for cancellation of title should be dismissed
because the question of validity of the certificate of title
issued in their names over the subject lot is already being
litigated in the reivindicatory action case that is pending
appeal before the RTC.
Our Ruling

We find merit in the present petition and resolve
to reverse and set aside the assailed decision of the
CA.
In this jurisdiction, there are three kinds of actions to
recover possession of real property, namely: (1) actions for
forcible entry or unlawful detainer, also denominated as
accion interdictal, which are summary in nature and seek
to recover only physical possession (possession de facto) of
the property, (2) an accion publiciana, which is a plenary
action to recover the right to possess the property, without
claim of title, and (3) an accion reivindicatoria (or accion de
reivindicacion) or a reivindicatory action, which is a
plenary action to recover not only possession of, but
also ownership of the real property.24

_______________

22 Supra note 2.
23 Rollo, pp. 9495.
24 See Valdez, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 523 Phil. 39; 489 SCRA 369
(2006).

61

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bdff310d99f16f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
10/30/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 755

VOL. 755, APRIL 6, 2015 61

Marao vs. Pryce Gases, Incorporated

Since a reivindicatory action includes a claim of title or

ownership, the court must necessarily inquire into the
circumstances surrounding the plaintiffs acquisition of his
or her title to the real property sought to be recovered.25
The petitioners point out that the MTC in the subject
reivindicatory case already conducted a fullblown trial on
the issue of validity of their claim of ownership and had, in
fact, ruled that their certificate of title is inoperative and
has no binding effect. They argue that for the RTC to
conduct another fullblown trial in the cancellation of title
case on the same issue would, in effect, nullify the MTCs
decision in the reivindicatory case.26
Instead of ordering the dismissal of the respondents
complaint for cancellation of certificate of title, we find
that the consolidation of the reivindicatory action
and the cancellation of certificate of title case to be
the appropriate remedy in the present situation.
Consolidation is proper when two or more actions pending,
not necessarily, before the same court involve a common
question of law or fact.27 In such cases, the court may:
order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in
issue in the actions, order all the actions consolidated, and
make such orders concerning the proceedings therein for
the purpose of avoiding unnecessary costs and delay.28
Considering that the validity of the petitioners
certificate of title is the crucial issue in both the
reivindicatory action pending appeal before the RTC and
the cancellation of certificate of title case filed by the
respondent, these two cases should be consolidated in order
to avoid the possibility of rendering conflicting decisions
and for the orderly admini

_______________

25 See Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, 507 Phil. 101; 470 SCRA 99

(2005).
26 Rollo, pp. 1213.
27 See Active Wood Products, Inc v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86603,
February 5, 1990, 181 SCRA 774.
28 Section 1, Rule 31, Rules of Court.

62

62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Marao vs. Pryce Gases, Incorporated
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bdff310d99f16f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
10/30/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 755

stration of justice.29 And since the issue of validity of the

petitioners certificate of title has been subjected to a full
blown trial before the MTC and is now the subject of appeal
before the RTC, allowing the cancellation of certificate of
title case to proceed independently and separately would be
needlessly circuitous and would necessarily delay the
resolution of the present issue.30
Also, we note that the respondents complaint for
cancellation of certificate of title cannot simply be
dismissed. Wellsettled is the rule that the issue of validity
of a Torrens title, whether fraudulently issued or not, may
be posed only in an action brought to impugn or annul it.31
Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 152932 clearly
provides that a certificate of title can never be the subject
of a collateral attack; it cannot be altered, modified, or
cancelled except in a direct proceeding instituted in
accordance with law. Thus, the present respondent has, in
fact, resorted to proper procedure in filing a direct action to
attack or impugn the petitioners certificate of title. But to
allow the pendency of the reivindicatory action and
the cancellation of certificate of title case in two
different courts would not subserve the orderly
administration of justice as the subject cases involve a
common question of fact, i.e., the issue of validity of the
petitioners certificate of title. In this situation,
consolidation is the proper procedure to prevent confusion,
avoid multiplicity

_______________

29 Also see Syndicated Media Access Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.

No. 106982, March 11, 1993, 219 SCRA 794; Philippine Savings Bank v.
Maalac, 496 Phil. 671; 457 SCRA 203 (2005).
30 See Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, No. L62089, March 9, 1988, 158
SCRA 508, cited in Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, supra note 25.
31 Ladignon v. Court of Appeals, 390 Phil. 1161; 336 SCRA 42 (2000).
32 Amending and Codifying the Laws Relative to Registration of
Property and for Other Purposes, Also Known as the Property Registration
Decree, approved June 11, 1978.

63

VOL. 755, APRIL 6, 2015 63

Marao vs. Pryce Gases, Incorporated

of suits, and save the parties, as well as the courts, time

and from incurring unnecessary cost and expense.33
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bdff310d99f16f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
10/30/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 755

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby

REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated December
14, 2010 and resolution dated March 18, 2011 of the Court
of Appeals in C.A.G.R. CEB S.P. No. 02025.
In the interest of orderly dispensation of justice, we
order that the action for the cancellation of the petitioners
certificate of title in Civil Case No. B20021132 be
CONSOLIDATED with the reivindicatory action in Civil
Case No. 158.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Mendoza and

Leonen, JJ., concur.

Judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.

Notes.Under the Rules of Court, the consolidation of

cases for trial is permissive and a matter of judicial
discretion; But the permissiveness of consolidation does not
carry over to the appellate stage where the primary
objective is less the avoidance of unnecessary expenses and
undue vexation than it is the ideal realization of the dual
function of all appellate adjudications. (Re: Letter
Complaint of Merlita B. Fabiana Against Presiding Justice
Andres B. Reyes, Jr., et al., 700 SCRA 348 [2013])
In the appellate stage, the rigid policy is to make the
consolidation of all cases and proceedings resting on the
same set of facts, or involving identical claims or interests
or parties mandatory. (Id.)
o0o

_______________

33 See Vallacar Transit, Inc. v. Yap, No. L61308, December 29, 1983,
126 SCRA 500.

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015814bdff310d99f16f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8