VS. COURT OF APPEALS, LORENZO J. GANA, PATROCINIO E. MARGOLLES, ALICE E.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, THE PETITION IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT. THE MOTION FOR INTERVENTION OF FIRESTONE CERAMICS, INC., ET AL. AND THE COMPLAINT FOR INTERVENTION OF ALEJANDRO REY, ARE LIKEWISE DENIED. NO PRONOUCEMENT AS TO COSTS. Motions for reconsideration were filed by petitioner, movant-intervenor Firestone Ceramics, et al. and movant-intervenor Alejandro Q. Rey, however, the respondent Court denied for lack of merit all the motions in a Resolution dated October 28, 1996. [4] Petitioners Firestone Ceramics, Inc., et al., and petitioner-intervenor Alejandro Q. Rey, filed their respective petitions for review from the decision of the respondent Court which were docketed as G.R. No. 127022. Petitioner Republic also filed its petition for review with this Court which was docketed as G. R. No. 127245. Petitioner Republics motion for the consolidation of these two (2) cases on the ground that the two cases involve interrelated issues and a common set of facts was granted in our Resolution dated July 9, 1997. G. R. No. 127022: In G.R. No. 127022, Petitioners Firestone Ceramics, Inc., et al., filed their petition for review assailing the decision of the respondent Court dated June 28, 1976 in CA-G.R. CV No. 36280 denying petitioners motion for leave to intervene and the resolution dated October 28, 1996, denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. Petitioners Firestone Ceramics, Inc., et al., support the petition filed by the government through the Office of the Solicitor General for the annulment of OCT No. 4216, recovery of possession and reversion alleging that it is reasonable and logical to defend the governments case because it is upon the success thereof where their fate and fortune depended; that although petitioners as defeated parties in G.R. No. 109490 (Margolles case) are bound to comply with the said decision, they should be allowed to intervene because they still have a direct and material interest in the outcome of the instant case since in the event that the government succeeds in annulling the title of the respondents, petitioners titles, which emanated from OCT A-S-47 issued by virtue of the decision in Land Registration Case No. 6625, after the declassification of subject land from its category as forest land and its declaration as alienable and disposable land, would be valid, and their titles become the only titles to the extent of 188,424 square meters portion of the subject land which should be excluded from the total portion of the property to be reverted to the government. Alejandro Q. Rey also filed his petition for review in intervention from the respondent Courts decision denying his complaint for intervention. Alejandro Rey alleges that he has a legal interest in the instant case filed by the government against private respondents because the cancellation of the latters titles would pave the way for his free patent application, thus he has to intervene and join the government in seeking the cancellation of private res