Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 400 views

    Rule19Sec1 - Ongco Vs Dalisay

    Uploaded by

    Vance Ceballos
    This case involves a dispute over land registration. Lorenza Ongco sought to intervene in an appeal regarding Valeriana Dalisay's application to register a parcel of land. The Court denied Ongco's motion to intervene for two reasons: 1) Ongco did not demonstrate a direct legal interest in the land, as she had only applied for but not been granted a free patent, so her interest was inchoate and indirect. 2) Ongco's motion to intervene was filed with the appellate court after judgment had already been rendered by the trial court, constituting inexcusable delay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rule19Sec1 - Ongco Vs Dalisay

    Uploaded by

    Vance Ceballos
    400 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over land registration. Lorenza Ongco sought to intervene in an appeal regarding Valeriana Dalisay's application to register a parcel of land. The Court denied Ongco's motion to intervene for two reasons: 1) Ongco did not demonstrate a direct legal interest in the land, as she had only applied for but not been granted a free patent, so her interest was inchoate and indirect. 2) Ongco's motion to intervene was filed with the appellate court after judgment had already been rendered by the trial court, constituting inexcusable delay.

    Original Description:

    CivPro Rule 19

    Original Title

    Rule19Sec1- Ongco vs Dalisay

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over land registration. Lorenza Ongco sought to intervene in an appeal regarding Valeriana Dalisay's application to register a parcel of land. The Court denied Ongco's motion to intervene for two reasons: 1) Ongco did not demonstrate a direct legal interest in the land, as she had only applied for but not been granted a free patent, so her interest was inchoate and indirect. 2) Ongco's motion to intervene was filed with the appellate court after judgment had already been rendered by the trial court, constituting inexcusable delay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    400 views2 pages

    Rule19Sec1 - Ongco Vs Dalisay

    Uploaded by

    Vance Ceballos
    This case involves a dispute over land registration. Lorenza Ongco sought to intervene in an appeal regarding Valeriana Dalisay's application to register a parcel of land. The Court denied Ongco's motion to intervene for two reasons: 1) Ongco did not demonstrate a direct legal interest in the land, as she had only applied for but not been granted a free patent, so her interest was inchoate and indirect. 2) Ongco's motion to intervene was filed with the appellate court after judgment had already been rendered by the trial court, constituting inexcusable delay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    LORENZA C. ONGCO vs. VALERIANA UNGCO DALISAY; G.R. No.

    190810; July 18, 2012

    Sec. 1. Who may intervene. - A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in
    the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be
    adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or
    of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court
    shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of
    the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected
    in a separate proceeding.

    FACTS:

    On 15 October 2007, respondent Valeriana Ungco Dalisay (Dalisay) applied for registration of a
    parcel of land designated as Lot 1792, Cad-609-D, by filing an Application for Land Registration
    before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Binangonan, Branch 2.2 At the hearings, no oppositor
    aside from the Republic of the Philippines (the Republic) came. Neither was there any written
    opposition filed in court. Thus, an Order of General Default was issued against the whole world
    except the Republic. Consequently, on 15 October 2008, the court found respondent Dalisay to
    have clearly shown a registrable right over the subject property and ordered that a decree of
    registration be issued by the Land Registration Authority once the Decision had become final.3
    Herein petitioner Lorenza C. Ongco (Ongco) never intervened in the proceedings in the trial
    court.

    The Republic filed an appeal with the CA docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 92046.4 While the case
    was pending appeal, petitioner Ongco filed a "Motion for Leave to Intervene" dated 23 June
    2009 with an attached Answer-in-Intervention.5

    The Answer-in-Intervention sought the dismissal of respondent Dalisay's Application for Land
    Registration on the ground that, contrary to the allegations of Dalisay, the subject property was
    not free from any adverse claim. In fact, petitioner Ongco had allegedly been previously found to
    be in actual possession of the subject land in an earlier case filed before the Department of
    Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) when she applied for a free patent on the land.

    PRINCIPLE:

    Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in the proceedings,
    becomes a litigant therein for a certain purpose: to enable the third party to protect or preserve a
    right or interest that may be affected by those proceedings.13 This remedy, however, is not a
    right. The rules on intervention are set forth clearly in Rule 19 of the Rules of Court.

    It can be readily seen that intervention is not a matter of right, but is left to the trial court's sound
    discretion. The trial court must not only determine if the requisite legal interest is present, but
    also take into consideration the delay and the consequent prejudice to the original parties that
    the intervention will cause. Both requirements must concur, as the first requirement on legal
    interest is not more important than the second requirement that no delay and prejudice should
    result.14 To help ensure that delay does not result from the granting of a motion to intervene,
    the Rules also explicitly say that intervention may be allowed only before rendition of judgment
    by the trial court.

    DECISION:

    Ongco may not be allowed to intervene.

    Petitioner has not shown any legal interest of such nature that she "will either gain or lose by the
    direct legal operation of the judgment." On the contrary, her interest is indirect and contingent.
    She has not been granted a free patent over the subject land, as she in fact admits being only in
    the process of applying for one.16 Her interest is at best inchoate. In Firestone Ceramics v.
    CA,17 the Court held that the petitioner who anchored his motion to intervene on his legal
    interest arising from his pending application for a free patent over a portion of the subject land
    merely had a collateral interest in the subject matter of the litigation. His collateral interest could
    not have justified intervention.

    In any event, the Motion for Intervention was filed only with the CA after the MTC had rendered
    judgment. By itself, this inexcusable delay is a sufficient ground for denying the motion.

    You might also like