G.R. No. 117029 - PELTAN DEVELOPMENT, INC., PATROCINIO E. MARGOLLES, EDGARDO C. ESPINOSA, VIRGINIA E. VILLONGCO, LUCIA E. LAPERAL, NORMA C.[1]ESPINOSA, TERESITA E. CASAL AND ALICE E.SOTTO, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ALEJANDRO Q. REY AND JUAN B.ARAUJO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the appealed order dated August 22, 1989 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The trial court is ordered to try the case on plaintiffs (herein private respondents) complaint/amended complaint against all defendants (herein petitioners). Let the original record of the case be returned to the court of origin. In a Resolution [5] promulgated on September 2, 1994, Respondent Court denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. The order reversed by public respondent had been issued by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 112, in Civil Case No. LP-8852-P. The order in part ruled: [6] Considering the arguments and counter-arguments urged by the parties in this case, particularly on the nature and effect of the action filed by plaintiffs, the Court is inclined to grant the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant Peltan Development Corporation on the basis of the Supreme Court ruling in Gabila vs. Barriga, 41 SCRA 131. The ultimate result of the cancellation prayed for by the plaintiffs, if granted by this Court, would be to revert the property in question to the public domain. Therefore, the ultimate beneficiary of such cancellation would be the Government. Since the Government can only be represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, which has repeatedly refused to institute or join an action for cancellation of defendants titles, then, the real party in interest cannot be said to have instituted the present action. It is the Government, not the plaintiffs which is the real party in interest. Plaintiffs not being the real party in interest, they have no cause of action against the defendants. WHEREFORE, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted and this case is hereby dismissed, without prejudice to plaintiffs pursuing administrative relief in the proper government agencies concerned. The Facts The facts, as found by public respondent, are undisputed by the parties, to wit: [7] On February 20, 1981 plaintiffs (herein private respondents) filed against eleven (11) defendants (herein petitioners) a complaint captioned for Cancellation of Titles and Damages. On December 15, 1981, the complaint was amended by including or impleading as the twelfth defendant the City Townhouse Development Corporation. Omitting the jurisdictional facts, the allegations in the amended complaint are quoted hereunder: II Plaintiffs are applicants for a free patent over a parcel of land comprising an area of 197,527 square meters, more or less, situated in Barrio Tindig na Manga, Las Piñas, Metro Manila. III Prior to the filing of their petition for free patent, plaintiffs had for many years been occupying and cultivating the aforestated piece of land until their crops, houses and other improvements they introduced thereon were illegally bulldozed and destroyed by persons led by defendant Edgardo Espinosa x x x Thereafter, the same persons forcibly and physically drove out plaintiffs therefrom. IV Plaintiffs filed their petition for issuance of free patent