Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 153666 -

G.R. No. 153666 - DIONISIO L. TORRES AND ENRICO M. ALVAREZ, VS. HON. FRANCIS F. GARCHITORENA, HON. CATALINO R. CASTANEDA AND HON. GREGORY S. ONG (IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY OF THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN) SUSANA REALTY, INC. AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Cited Laws

RA 332,RA 145RA 3019RA 7160RA 255RA 493RA 3019,RA 561RA 511RA 455
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that, after trial, this Honorable Court render judgment: Declaring the reversion of the subject parcels of land into mass of inalienable public domain; Ordering the Register of Deeds to cancel any existing title over the said properties; Enjoining the Register of Deeds from issuing any title over the subject properties. Such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that, after trial, this Honorable Court render judgment: Declaring the reversion of the subject parcels of land into mass of inalienable public domain; Ordering the Register of Deeds to cancel any existing title over the said properties; Enjoining the Register of Deeds from issuing any title over the subject properties. Such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. [11] In the meantime, negotiations for an amicable settlement ensued. Torres wrote a letter to SRI dated March 3, 1999 offering to acquire a portion of the reclaimed area with an area of 350 square meters at the price of P100.00 per square meter, excluding the 260-square meter portion of the property developed as a road right of way, without prejudice to the outcome of the prohibition case filed by SRI. [12] However, no settlement materialized between the parties. Torres and Alvarez filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a motion for reinvestigation of Criminal Case No. 24864 but the Ombudsman issued a Resolution dated January 5, 2001 denying said motion. Earlier, Torres and Alvarez filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion dated December 23, 2000 for the suspension of the proceedings in said criminal case on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question in Civil Case No. 7160. On January 15, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying the motion for suspension of the proceedings. Upon receipt of said resolution, Torres and Alvarez filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion for a reconsideration thereof. However, on March 9, 2001, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denying their motion for reconsideration. Torres and Alvarez forthwith filed a petition for certiorari on April 25, 2001 with this Court for the nullification of the March 9, 2001 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan. The case was docketed as G.R. No. 147726. On May 16, 2001, the Court issued a Resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari . On June 1, 2001, Torres and Alvarez filed with the Sandiganbayan another motion to suspend the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 24864 on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question, namely, the pendency of Civil Case No. 7160, but the court denied said motion in open court on August 1, 2001. The Sandiganbayan proceeded with the arraignment of Torres and Alvarez. Both entered a plea of not guilty. The prosecution in Criminal Case No. 24864 filed a motion with the Sandiganbayan for the mandatory suspension pendente lite of Torres and Alvarez. On September 13, 2001, the two filed an omnibus motion for the quashal of the information on the ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute the offense of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 and hence, there was no legal basis for their suspension from office pendente lite . They further prayed that should their motion to quash the information be denied, the criminal proceedings be suspended on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial questi