Civil Law,  Legally Yours

Heirs of Orosa vs. Migrino

Heirs of Orosa vs. Migrino

G.R. Nos. 99338-40; February 1, 1993

FACTS:

In an earlier land registration case, the Court confimed ownership over 53 hectares of land in Las Pinas, Rizal to one Dominador Mayuga. The Court also extended the benefit of such confirmation to Mayuga’s successor-in-interest, the late Nicolas Orosa. Seeking execution of judgment, the Heirs of Orosa was granted this motion by the lower court and directed the LRA to submit the property’s amended technical description for approval. However, LRA did not comply with the order because, it alleged that the property had previously been decreed in favour of one Jose T. Velasquez. Herein private respondent filed a motion to intervene, alleging an interest in the land registration case.

It appears that in 1977 Goldenrod, during the pendency of this case before the Court in G.R. No. L-30859, Delta Motors Corporation (Delta) acquired for value the contingent rights of Nicolas Orosa over the property, as well as the conflicting claims thereto of one Jose Velasquez. Meanwhile, Delta somehow managed to obtain transfer certificates of titles over the land and sold this acquisition to Goldenrod in 1987. The latter then succeeded in obtaining issuance in its favor of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 4893 and 4901, whose technical descriptions overlapped “big portions” of the land. In February 1989, Goldenrod sold the land covered by said transfer certificates of title to a consortium. The contract of sale contained an undertaking on Goldenrod’s part to “defend the title of the VENDEES to the property against claims of any third person whatsoever.” Goldenrod’s intervention was grounded on this express warranty.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Goldenrod has a legal interest in the case at bar to warrant intervention in the proceedings

HELD:

Taking Goldenrod’s own admissions at their face value, it is quite apparent that whatever direct and actual legal interest it may have had over the land had been disposed of by it for value in favor of the consortium in 1989 and that whatever residual legal interest in the property can be premised on Goldenrod’s contractual undertaking, actually an express warranty against eviction, is expectant or contingent in nature. Presently, Goldenrod has no legal interest in the property and its warranty can only be enforced by the consortium if the latter is dispossessed of the land by virtue of a proper action instituted by the Orosa heirs as registered owners thereof

But, the legal interest which entitles a person to intervene in a suit must be actual and material, direct and immediate. A party seeking to intervene in a pending case must show that he will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of a judgment. Goldenrod cannot also avail of the action provided for in Sec. 32 of P.D. 1529 since Goldenrod had not shown any actual interest in the land of which it could have been deprived, on the basis of an actual or extrinsic fraud perpetrated by petitioners in the course of procuring their decree of confirmation.

Given the remote and contingent nature of Goldenrod’s legal interest over the real property which is the subject the Court believes that Goldenrod can and should protect such interest in a separate proceeding.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: