G.R. No. 188471 - FRANCISCO ALONSO, SUBSTITUTED BY MERCEDES V. ALONSO, TOMAS V. ALONSO AND ASUNCION V. ALONSO, VS. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC., REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, PUBLIC.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review. However, we SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and that of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Branch 08. IN LIEU THEREOF, we DISMISS the complaint and counterclaim of the parties in Civil Cases No. CEB 12926 of the trial court. We declare that Lot No. 727 D-2 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate covered by Original Certificate of Title Nos. 251, 232, and 253 legally belongs to the Government of the Philippines. [9] The petitioners sought a reconsideration . On December 5, 2003, however, the Court denied their motion for reconsideration . [10] Hence, the decision in G.R. No. 130876 became final and executory. In late 2004, the Government, through the OSG, filed in the RTC a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution . [11] Cebu Country Club opposed the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution in due course. Later on, the proceedings on the OSG's motion for the issuance of a writ of execution at the instance of Cebu Country Club in deference to the on-going hearings being conducted by the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives on a proposed bill to confirm the TCTs and reconstituted titles covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate in Cebu City. [12] The Congress ultimately enacted a law to validate the TCTs and reconstituted titles covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate in Cebu City. This was Republic Act No. 9443, [13] effective on July 27, 2007. Thereafter, both Cebu Country Club and the OSG brought the passage of R.A. No. 9443 to the attention of the RTC for its consideration in resolving the OSG's motion for the issuance of a writ of execution . [14] On December 28, 2007, therefore, the RTC denied the OSG's motion for the issuance of a writ of execution through the first appealed order. [15] The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration dated February 1, 2008, questioning the denial of the OSG's motion for the issuance of a writ of execution . [16] Upon being directed by the RTC to comment on the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, the OSG manifested in writing that the Government was no longer seeking the execution of the decision in G.R. No. 130876, subject to its reservation to contest any other titles within the Banilad Friar Lands Estate should clear evidence show such titles as having been obtained through fraud. [17] After the filing of the OSG's comment, the RTC issued the second appealed order, denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, giving the following reasons: The party who had a direct interest in the execution of the decision and the reconsideration of the denial of the motion for execution was the Government, represented only by the OSG; hence, the petitioners had no legal standing to file the motion for reconsideration, especially that they were not authorized by the OSG for that purpose; R.A. No. 9443 "confirms and declares as valid" all "existing" TCTs and reconstituted titles; thereby, the State in effect waived and