AV.4 Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals et al G.R.

L-45168, September 25, 1979, 93 SCRA 238

(1979)
FACTS: Two motions for leave of court to intervene in the above entitled case were filed by Greenfield
Development Corporation and Alabang Development Corporation and Ramond D. Bagatsing, claiming to be
the registered owner of seven (7) parcels of land adjoining that of private respondent, situated in the Barrio of
Cupang, Municipality of Muntinlupa, Province of Rizal.

Movant alleges that the land supposedly covered by the certificate sought to be reconstituted
overlapped and included substantial portions of movant's land; movant claims a substantial, material,
proprietary and legal interest in the subject matter of the instant petition which will directly and adversely
affect the petition for reconstitution of the respondent. Moreover, it is contended that if re-constitution is
granted, other title holders and possessors overlapped by the land covered by the title sought to be
reconstituted stand to be deprived of their property rights and that greater injury shall be inflicted to the
Torrens system of registration for there will be two holders of certificates of title overlapping each other
thereby negating the very purpose of the Torrens system and imperiling the indefeasibility and stability of the
same such that when this happens "the chaos that it will create will be unimaginable." Furthermore, the
second movant alleges that they were not personally notified of the petition for reconstitution and that copies
of the notices of hearing were not posted on Lots 1 and 3 of the respondent before the hearing as required by
the trial court.

Private respondent separately opposed both motions, the, first motion on the ground that the supposed
TOTs of the intervenor are of the 1972 vintage so that if same are true that titles are the ones that overlap that
of private respondent which was procured as early as November 13, 1942 and that of her mother-predecessor
issued on Sept. 29, 1942; that the motion to intervene constitutes a mere annoyance tending merely to derail
and delay the proceedings; that petitioner is guilty of laches and that to grant the motion after trial and
judgment rendered comes out of time as an abuse of judicial discretion and that whatever interest or right
movants are supposed to have may be fully protected by a separate proceeding.

ISSUE: Whether the motions for intervention should still be granted even though it was filed beyond the
allowed period to intervene.
RULING: Yes, in view of the higher and greater interest of the public and in order to administer justice
consistent with a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of the respective claims of the parties and their
numerous successors-in-interest, the motions for intervention are hereby granted.
Rule 12, Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for intervention. According to Section 2
thereof, which reads:

Sec. 2. Intervention. - A person may, before or during a trial, be permitted by the court, in its
discretion, to intervene in an action, if he has legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the
success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or when he 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.

It is quite clear and patent that the motions for intervention filed by the movants at this stage of the
proceedings where trial has already been concluded, a judgment thereon had been promulgated in favor of
private respondent and on appeal by the losing party, the Director of Lands, the same was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals and the instant petition for certiorari to review said judgment is already submitted for
decision by the Supreme Court, are obviously and manifestly late, beyond the period prescribed under the
aforecoded Section 2, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court.

But Rule 12 of the Rules of Court like all other Rules therein promulgated, is simply a rule of procedure, the
whole purpose and object of which is to make the powers of the Court fully and completely available for
justice. The purpose of procedure is not to thwart justice. Its proper aim is to facilitate the application of
justice to the rival claims of contending parties. It was created not to hinder and delay but to facilitate
and promote the administration of justice. It does not constitute the thing itself which courts are always
striving to secure to litigants. It is designed as the means best adopted to obtain that thing. In other words, it
is a means to an end.
The denial of the motions for intervention arising from the strict application of the Rule due to alleged lack of
notice to, or the alleged failure of, movants to act seasonably will lead the Court to commit an act of injustice
to the movants, to their successors-in-interest and to all purchasers for value and in good faith and thereby
open the door to fraud, falsehood and misrepresentation should intervenors' claims be proven to be true. For it
cannot be gainsaid that if the petition for reconstitution is finally granted, the chaos and confusion arising
from a situation where the certificates of title of the movants covering large areas of land overlap or incroach
on properties the title to which is being sought to be reconstituted by private respondent, who herself
indicates in her Opposition that, according to the Director of Lands, the overlapping embraces some 87
hectares only, is certain and inevitable. The aggregate area of the property claimed by respondent covering
Lot 1 and Lot 2 is 1,435,062 sq. meters which is situated in a fast-growing, highly residential sector of Metro
Manila where growth and development are in rapid progress to meet the demands of an urbanized, exploding
population. Industries, factories, warehouses, plants, and other commercial infrastructures are rising and
spreading with the area and the owners of these lands and the valuable improvements thereon will not simply
fold their hands but certainly will seek judicial protection of their property rights or may even take the law
into their own hands, resulting to multiplicity of suits.