G.R. Nos. 229164

Ruling

accordingly filed a petition for its annulment, enforcement of agreement of partition, reconveyance with damages, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary mandatory injunction against the heirs of Ramon. [9] Petitioners contended that the land covered by TCT No. 3153 is co-owned by them as heirs of spouses Tolentino and that said co-ownership was terminated by the execution of an Agreement of Partition. The latter sprung from a confrontation which happened among the siblings when TCT No. 3153 was issued in the name of Ramon alone. As Ramon assured them that their shares in the property shall be fully protected despite the issuance of the title in his name, said Agreement, which gave each sibling a particular portion of the property, was executed. [10] However, as the land was solely in the name of Ramon, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed a portion of the same under the Operation Land Transfer pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 and distributed the same to farmer-beneficiaries. Only Ramon received just compensation corresponding to the value of the expropriated land. Even then, petitioners' possession of their respective portions was never disturbed. [11] Not soon thereafter, one of Ramon's heir, began claiming the land as exclusively belonging to his father and refused to acknowledge the Agreement among the siblings. [12] Only Remigio Manchus (Remigio) and Antonio Tolentino (Antonio) filed their Answer. [13] In their Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses, Remigio and Antonio, as heirs of Ramon, insisted in their right as Ramon's lawful heirs. They asserted that Ramon has the exclusive ownership and possession of the property upon the demise of the spouses Tolentino because his other siblings were given their respective properties elsewhere. [14] In an Order [15] dated February 22, 2013, the Regional Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 33 (RTC) resolved the defenses laid down by the heirs of Ramon. It explicitly ruled on the invalidity of the CFI Order insofar as the issuance of a title in favor of Ramon is concerned for want of jurisdiction. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Remigio and Antonio was denied in an Order [16] dated April 15, 2013. These Orders of the RTC were assailed in a Petition for Certiorari , docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 130055, before the CA. [17] On June 10, 2013, petitioners filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, praying that a judgment be rendered on the validity of the Order dated January 20, 1978, relative to the reconstitution and cancellation of OCT No. RO 259 (263) and the issuance of TCT No. 3153. [18] In an Order [19] dated May 9, 2014 (RTC Order), the RTC declared the January 20, 1978 Order as valid only insofar as the reconstitution of the title is concerned. Accordingly, the issuance of TCT No. 3154 was declared void, thus: WHEREFORE , foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that (a) the Order of January 20, 1978 rela