G.R. No. 170750 - HEIRS OF TOMAS DOLLETON, HERACLIO ORCULLO, REMEDIOS SAN PEDRO, HEIRS OF BERNARDO MILLAMA, HEIRS OF AGAPITO VILLANUEVA, HEIRS OF HILARION GARCIA, SERAFINA SP ARGANA, AND HEIRS OF MARIANO VILLANUEVA, VS. FIL-ESTATE MANAGEMENT INC., ET AL. AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PIÑAS CITY.D

Ruling

Accordingly, the prayer for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is DENIED. This, however, is without prejudice to the complaint-in-intervention filed by intervenors over the disputed properties, their undivided interests being intertwined and attached to the disputed properties wherever it goes and whoever is in possession of the same, their right to bring action to pursue the same being imprescriptible. [28] On 12 August 2002, respondents filed a Motion for Clarification [29] asking the RTC whether the order of dismissal of Civil Case No. LP-97-0228, included Civil Cases No. LP-97-0229, No. LP-97-0230, No. LP-97-0231, No. LP-97-0236, No. LP-97-0237, No. LP-97-0238, and No. LP-97-0239. In a Resolution [30] dated 30 June 2003, the RTC reiterated its Resolution dated 8 September 2000 dismissing the Complaint of petitioners Heirs of Tomas Dolleton in Civil Case No. LP-97-0228; and declared that the other cases - Civil Cases No. LP-97-0229, No. LP-97-0230, No. LP-97-0231, No. LP-97-0236, No. LP-97-0237, No. LP-97-0238, and No. LP-97-0239 - were similarly dismissed since they involved the same causes of action as Civil Case No. LP-97-0228. On 9 July 2003, petitioners filed a consolidated Notice of Appeal questioning the 30 June 2003 Resolution of the RTC. [31] They accordingly filed an appeal of the said Resolution of the trial court with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 80927. In its Decision dated 16 September 2005 in CA-G.R. CV No. 80927, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners' appeal and affirmed the RTC Resolutions dated 8 September 2000 and 30 June 2003. The appellate court found that respondents' titles to the subject properties were indefeasible because they were registered under the Torrens system. Thus, petitioners could not say that any claim on the subject properties casts a cloud on their title when they failed to demonstrate a legal or an equitable title to the same. The Court of Appeals also ruled that petitioners' actions had already prescribed. Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 requires that an action assailing a certificate of title should be filed within one year after its issuance. Moreover, actions assailing fraudulent titles should be filed within 10 years after the said titles were issued. The appellate court further decreed that the cases for quieting of title should be dismissed based on the allegation of petitioners themselves that the parcels of land covered by respondents' certificates of title were not the subject properties which petitioners claimed as their own. [32] Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the afore-mentioned Decision, [33] which the Court of Appeals denied in a Resolution dated 9 December 2005. [34] Hence, the present Petition, where petitioners made the following assignment of errors: I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE RESOLUTION OF THE COURT A QUO, DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 2000 AND THE RESOLUTION DATED JUNE 30, 2003, B