George Katon vs. Manuel Palanca Jr., et al.

G.R. No. 151149, September 7, 2004; per Panganiban, J.

Facts

Herein George Katon filed a request with the District Office of the Bureau of Forestry in Puerto Princesa, Palawan, for the re-classification of a piece of real property. Thereafter, the Bureau of Forestry District Office, Puerto Princesa, Palawan, ordered the inspection, investigation and survey of the land subject of the petitioner's request for eventual conversion or re-classification from forest to agricultural land, and thereafter for George Katon to apply for a homestead patent. In a letter, the Director of Lands Manila was informed that since the subject land was no longer needed for forest purposes, the same is therefore certified and released as agricultural land for disposition under the Public Land Act. Juan Fresnillo filed a homestead patent application for a portion of the island and assailed the validity of the homestead patents and original certificates of title. Katon issued in favor of respondents on the ground that the same were obtained through fraud. The Court of Appeals (CA) held that while petitioner had caused the reclassification of Sombrero Island from forest to agricultural land, he never applied for a homestead patent under the Public Land Act.

Issue

Whether or not the CA erred in invoking its “residual prerogatives” when it motu proprio dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction and prescription

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the CA did not err in dismissing the present case. What the CA referred to as residual prerogatives were the general residual powers of the courts to dismiss an action motu proprio upon the grounds mentioned in Sec. 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. Residual jurisdiction of trial courts is available at a stage in which the court is normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case, or the subject matter involved in the appeal. This stage is reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its so-called residual jurisdiction to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow the withdrawal of the appeal.