Ongco v.

Ungco / Dalisay
GR 190810

FACTS: Respondent Valeriana Ungco Dalisay applied for registration of a parcel of land by filing an
Application for Land Registration before the (MTC) of Binangonan. At the hearings, no oppositor aside
from the Republic of the Philippines 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.

The Republic filed an appeal with the CA. While the case was pending appeal, petitioner Lorenza Ongco
filed a "Motion for Leave to Intervene" with an attached Answer-in-Intervention. She sought the
dismissal of respondent Dalisay's Application for Land Registration on the ground that she had allegedly
been previously found to be in actual possession of the subject land in an earlier case filed before the
DENR when she applied for a free patent on the land.

Dalisay contends Ongco did not have a legal interest over the property. Moreover, the intervention would
unduly delay the registration proceeding, which was now on appeal. Besides, petitioner's interest, if
any, may be fully protected in a separate and direct proceeding. Dalisay pointed out that Section 2,
Rule 19 of the Rules of Court was clear that intervention may be filed at any time before rendition of
judgment by the trial court, but not at any other time.

The CA denied the Motion for having been filed out of time.

ISSUE: W/N the Motion to Intervene should be granted to Ongco. No.

HELD: 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. This remedy, however, is not a right.

The rules on intervention are set forth clearly in Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, which reads:

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.

Sec. 2. Time to intervene. - The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before
rendition of judgment by the trial court. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall
be attached to the motion and served on the original parties.

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. 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.

The following are the points the Court stated why Ongco couldnt intervene and the proper remedy that
should be availed:

1. Ongco did not show legal interest in the case; she was not an indispensable party.
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. Her interest is at best inchoate.
Jurisprudence provide that only movants who were indispensable parties to the case can
file a Motion to Intervene. Ongco is not an indispensable party. Her interests are inchoate
and merely collateral, as she is only in the process of applying for a free patent. Also, the
action for land registration may proceed and be carried to judgment without joining
her. This is because the issues to be threshed out in a land registration proceeding
such as whether the subject land is alienable and disposable land of the public domain;
and whether the applicant or her predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession of the said land under a bona fide claim of ownership
since 12 June 1945, or earlier can be threshed out without joining petitioner.

2. Ongco filed the Motion out of time because the case was already on appeal when she filed it.
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.
To recall, the motion should be filed "any time before rendition of judgment."
The MTC found that the required publication was made by respondent Dalisay when she
applied for land registration. That publication was sufficient notice to petitioner Ongco.
Thus, petitioner only had herself to blame when she failed to intervene as soon as she
could before the rendition of judgment.

3. Ongco can file a Petition to Review the Decree of Registration.

Had petitioner learned of the trial court proceedings in time, and had she wanted to
oppose the application, the proper procedure would have been to ask for the lifting of
the order of default and then to file the opposition. It would be an error of procedure
to file a motion to intervene. This is because proceedings in land registration are in
rem and not in personam.
Under Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, or the Property Registration Decree,
there is a remedy available to any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest
therein - through an adjudication or a confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud. The
person may file, in the proper court, a petition for reopening and reviewing the decree
of registration within one year from the date of entry thereof. This Court has ruled
that actual fraud is committed by a registration applicant's failure or intentional
omission to disclose the fact of actual physical possession of the premises by the party
seeking a review of the decree. It is fraud to knowingly omit or conceal a fact from which
benefit is obtained, to the prejudice of a third person. Thus, if she is so minded, petitioner
can still file for a petition to review the decree of registration.