NEMESIO GOCO, LYDIA G. FABIAN, NATALIA BROTONEL, FLORA GAYOSO, BLEMIE SORIANO, ELPIDIA NAVALES, SERGIO ROMASANTA, CATALINA NAMIS AND NANCY PAMATIGA, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT, LYDIA G. FABIAN, ELPIDIA NAVALES AND NATALIA BROTONEL, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ATTY. HICOBLINO CATLY, L

Ruling

accordingly cancelled. To determine the extent of Alveyra and the Municipality of Calapan's interest over Lot No. 2042, an action to quiet title [2] was instituted, which case eventually reached the Court of Appeals ( CA ). [3] The CA, in a decision dated October 28, 1974, subdivided Lot No. 2042 into two lots: one-half or Lot No. 2042-A (referring to the northern portion) was declared as the property of the heirs of Alveyra who had since died, while the other half, Lot No. 2042-B (referring to the southern portion), was declared owned by the Municipality of Calapan . We affirmed the CA's decision on February 23, 1976 in G.R. No. 40820. The petitioners' title over Lot No. 2042-A was registered as TCT No. T-46154 and that of the Municipality of Calapan as TCT No. T-46155. Meanwhile, while the heirs of Alveyra and the Municipality of Calapan were litigating their conflicting rights over Lot No. 2042, the heirs sold their one-half interest over the land (Lot No. 2042-A) to respondent spouses Hicoblino and Lourdes Catly ( respondent Catlys ). Respondent Catlys then filed a petition for judicial approval of the subdivision plan of Lot No. 2042-A. [4] On July 31, 1996, the trial court approved the petition and ordered the subdivision of Lot No. 2042-A to into four lots and the registration of four new titles under the name of the respondents. [5] In 1999, respondent Catlys alleged that a portion of their Lot No. 2042-A was being occupied by the petitioners and sought to recover possession of the lot, initially, by instituting an ejectment case against the petitioners. [6] When the ejectment case was dismissed, [7] respondent Catlys then filed a complaint for recovery of possession [8] against the petitioners; the case is still pending decision before the Regional Trial Court ( RTC ) of Calapan City, Branch 39. Allegedly to defend themselves against the cases filed by respondent Catlys and to protect their vested rights as lawful occupants of the land, the petitioners filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of the four certificates of title issued in respondent Caltys' names. [9] The petitioners claimed they are occupants of the original Lot No. 2042 since 1946 and anchored their continued right to occupy as lessees of the Municipality of Calapan. They also alleged that the titles issued in respondent Catlys' names (covering Lot No. 2042-A which were subdivided into four lots) included portions that they claimed were part of Lot No. 2042-B which belonged to the Municipality of Calapan. The petitioners consider the inclusion of these portions of Lot No. 2042-B prejudicial to their interest as its actual occupants, hence, they questioned respondent Catlys' titles. Respondent Catlys, in turn, moved for the dismissal of the complaint asserting that it failed to state a cause of action and that the petitioners (plaintiffs below) were not the real parties in interest. In its September 7, 1999 Order, [10] the Regional Trial Court ( RTC ) of Oriental Mindo