THIRD DIVISION
|
HEIRS OF TAMA TAN BUTO,
represented by JAYNOL TAMA TAN BUTO, Petitioners, - versus - ERNESTO
T. LUY, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 149609
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated:
__________________ |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This
is a petition for review on certiorari
assailing the Decision[1]
dated
The Facts
This
case involves the ownership of a parcel of land with an area of seven thousand
nine hundred eighty-three (7,983) square meters, located at Barrio Makar,
On
The
land originally formed part of the property described in plan SA-V-5244-D
covering an area of fifty-four thousand five hundred fifty-eight (54,558)
square meters.[5] On
Buto
claims that he inherited the land from his late father Datu Buto Tumagon who
was in possession thereof continuously, publicly and exclusively in the concept
of an owner, long before the end of the Spanish regime.[7]
The land subject of Buto’s application is identical to
The
Director of Lands and Leyva opposed the application for registration by Buto. The Director of Lands objected to Buto’s
application on the ground that the subject property forms part of the public
domain. Leyva, for his part, opposed the application because he was the
registered owner of the land, as evidenced by OCT No. V-160 issued by the
Register of Deeds of Cotabato.[9]
On
PREMISES
CONSIDERED, the registration and adjudication of the aforementioned parcel of
land, with all improvements existing thereon, is hereby decreed in favor of
TAMA TAN BUTO, 55 years old, married to Ulana Baliwan, resident of Kindap,
Kiamba, Cotabato, Philippines. The Register of Deeds of the
SO ORDERED.[11]
The
decision of the trial court was appealed by Leyva to the CA docketed as CA-G.R.
No. 30813-R. In a Decision[12]
dated
After
the requisite investigation conducted by the representatives of the Bureau of
Lands of his Sales Application, and the requirements of the law complied with,
the land was scheduled to be sold at public auction. At the said auction sale,
the applicant and the oppositor Leyva participated. Oppositor was declared the
highest bidder and, consequently, the property was awarded to him (Leyva) by
the Director of Lands. From this award applicant appealed but his appeal was
dismissed. Accordingly, Sales Patent No. V-1113, covering the land in question
was finally granted to the oppositor Leyva on
The
1968 Decision of the appellate court further ruled that Buto failed to pursue
the remedies available to him as a person aggrieved by registration of a land
under Act No. 496, which is to file a petition for review within one (1) year
from the issuance of a decree of registration obtained by fraud; or to
institute an ordinary action for the cancellation and/or reconveyance of title.
Buto, instead of filing the appropriate remedy provided for by law, instituted
an application for registration of land previously registered. Hence, the
The
CA decision dated
In
1999, the heirs of Buto inquired with the CA if an appeal was made on the
decision of the trial court dated
This is to certify that Land Reg. Case No. N-62, LRC Record No. 8541 of the Regional Trial Court (CFI), 12th Judicial Region of Cotabato City entitled “APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF LAND/TAMA TAN BUTO,” was not received on appeal by this Court as per verification from our records of appealed civil case.[19]
In
view of the above-cited certification, the heirs of Buto filed a Motion for Execution
of the
WHEREFORE, let a writ of execution
be issued against private respondents, his heirs, and assigns, and
successors-in-interests.
SO ORDERED.[23]
On
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the
Court hereby orders the cancellation of the remaining titles of Eligio Leyva
and all derivative titles of certain persons/entities listed above from the
fraudulent title of Eligio Leyva. The
Register of Deeds of General Santos [City] is directed to cancel the titles listed
in this resolution and in lieu thereof, he/she should issue titles in the name
of the Heirs of TAMA TAN BUTO. Collaterally, let a writ of possession be issued
in favor of petitioner and his heirs against all occupants of the lands, and
the Sheriff is directed to place the Heirs of TAN BUTO in actual possession of
the land.
SO ORDERED.[25]
Luy filed a petition for certiorari
and prohibition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 62961, seeking to annul the RTC Resolution
dated
On
Considering
that, as repeatedly stated, the decision of the registration court was the
subject of an earlier reversal via the decision of this court promulgated on
March 15, 1968, the resolution of [the] respondent judge issued on December 14,
2000, which ordered the cancellation of petitioner’s certificate of title and
issuance of a writ to place private respondents in possession of the premises,
is obviously without legal basis. Put a little differently, respondent judge
did not have any jurisdiction to issue the same as in fact the whole
registration proceedings have effectively been voided and set aside.
It may be stated in this connection
that a sales patent issued in accordance with the Public Land Act and
registered in conformity with the provisions of the Land Registration Act (Act
No. 496) becomes irrevocable and enjoys the same privileges as Torrens title
issued thereunder (Samonte v. Sambillon, 107 Phil. 198 [1960]). A certificate
of title cannot be the subject of collateral attack (Trinidad v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, 204 SCRA 524 [1991]).
WHEREFORE,
the petition is GRANTED. The
resolution of respondent judge dated
SO ORDERED.[28]
A
motion for reconsideration was timely filed by the heirs of Buto. However, the
same was denied in a Resolution[29]
dated
The Issue
The
sole issue in this case is whether or not the heirs of Buto are barred by res judicata.
The Ruling of the Court
We rule in the affirmative.
The
heirs of Buto can no longer question the decision of the CA dated
The
requisites of res judicata are: (a)
The former judgment must be final; (b) it must have been rendered by a court
having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a
judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be, between the first and the second
actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause of action.[30]
In
this case, there is a concurrence of all these requisites.
The
present petition assails the Decision dated
As
mentioned above, the CA Decision dated
There
is also no denying the identity of the parties in this petition and in the
previous case decided with finality by the CA in CA-G.R. No. 30813-R. Although the name of Luy does not appear in LRC
No. N-62 and in CA-G.R. No. 30813-R,[32] there
is still identity of parties. Luy, as successor-in-interest
and as the new owner of the land covered by TCT No. T-35185, is the legal
substitute of Leyva. As previously pronounced by this Court, there is identity
of parties not only where the parties are identical, but also when the parties
are in privity with them such as between their successors-in-interest by title
subsequent to the commencement of the action, litigating for the same thing,
under the same title, and in the same capacity.[33]
The
requirement of identity of cause of action is met in the present petition. The heirs
of Buto are invoking the same ground of fraud to nullify Sales Patent No.
V-1113 which was the basis for the issuance of OCT No. V-160 in the name of
Leyva. As previously stated, the parcel of land consisting of 7,983 square
meters in TCT No. T-35185 in the name of Luy, was part of the 54,558 square
meters of land covered by OCT No. V-160 in the name of Leyva. Leyva subdivided
the land in OCT No. V-160, and had transfer certificates of title covering the
subdivided lots issued in his name. By virtue of a valid contract of sale
between Leyva and Luy, TCT No. T-34648 in the name of Leyva was cancelled, and
thereafter, TCT No. T-35185 was issued to Luy.
As
all the requisites of res judicata
are present in this case, the heirs of Buto can no longer question the March
15, 1968 Decision of the CA. The motions
for the issuance of writ of execution, writ of possession, and cancellation of
derivative titles from OCT No. V-160 filed by the heirs of Buto in RTC, Branch
22, General Santos City, are barred by this principle, and the subsequent grant
of said motions by the trial court are without force and effect for being inconsistent
with the rules of procedure established by this Court. It is clear that the
trial court no longer had jurisdiction to act on these motions of the heirs of
Buto because the decision of the CA regarding the parcel of land in question is
already final. A final judgment or order on the merits by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties, is conclusive
between the same parties and their successors-in-interest litigating on the
same issue.[34]
The
heirs of Buto argue that due process was not accorded to them in CA-G.R. No.
30813-R. They claim that they were unaware of the CA decision. They also claim
that the notices from the court regarding the filing of briefs were not sent to
them. They further assert that the decision is of doubtful validity since the
justices who promulgated the same appear to have used the same pen in signing
their names in the decision.[35]
All
these allegations of the heirs of Buto cannot be sustained. They are merely conjectures unsupported by
evidence. The findings of facts of the CA are deemed conclusive upon this
Court. Any question with regard to the findings of the appellate court should
have been timely brought on appeal or other appropriate remedy provided for by
law. Any question as to the soundness or validity of a decision of any court of
this land which has already attained finality may no longer be reviewed by this
Court.
Another
reason why we can no longer entertain the present petition is because after the
expiration of one (1) year from the issuance of the decree of registration, the
certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the
property in favor of the person whose name appears thereon.[36]
The certificate of title that was issued to Leyva on
The primary and fundamental purpose
of the Torrens System of registration is to finally settle the titles to land
and put to stop any question of legality of title thereto. That being the
purpose of the law, there would be no end to litigation if every property
covered by torrens title may still be relitigated in a subsequent land
registration proceedings. Pursuant to this purpose, a homestead patent once
registered under the Land Registration Act, can not be the subject matter of a
cadastral proceeding, and any title issued thereon is null and void. The same
may be said of a sales patent. Once a certificate of title is issued under the
Land Registration Act in lieu of a sales patent, the land is considered
registered under the
x x x x
A Court of First Instance has no
jurisdiction to decree again the registration of land already decreed in an
earlier land registration case and a second decree for the same land is null
and void. This is so, because when once decreed by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the title to the land thus determined is already a res judicata binding on the whole world,
the proceeding being in rem. The
court has no power in a subsequent proceeding (not based on fraud and within
the statutory period) to adjudicate the same title in favor of another person.
Furthermore, the registration of the property in the name of the first
registered owner in the Registration Book is a standing notice to the world
that said property is already registered in his name. Hence, the latter
applicant is chargeable with notice that the land he applied for is already
covered by a title so that he has no right whatsoever to apply for it. To declare
the later title valid would defeat the very purpose of the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Petition is hereby DENIED. Cost
against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, with Associate Justices Cancio C. Garcia (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Elvi John S. Asuncion, concurring; rollo, pp. 26- 30.
[2]
[3] Deed of Absolute Sale; rollo, p. 257.
[4] Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-35185 issued by the Register of Deeds of General Santos City; id. at 211-212.
[5] Rollo, pp. 159-168.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Penned by District Judge Juan A. Sarenas; rollo, pp. 261-275.
[11]
[12] Penned by Associate Justice Nicasio Yatco, with Associate Justices Salvador V. Esguerra and Eulogio S. Serrano, concurring; rollo, pp. 159-168.
[13] Rollo,
p. 167.
[14]
[15]
[16] Entry of Judgment issued by the
Court of Appeals; id. at 169.
[17] Rollo,
pp. 540-553.
[18]
[19]
[20] The then Court of First Instance of Cotabato, First Branch; id. at 540-553.
[21] Regional Trial Court, Branch 22,
[22] Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Jose S. Majaducon; rollo, pp. 359-362.
[23]
[24]
[25] Rollo, p. 498.
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31] Rollo, p. 169.
[32] In
CA-G.R. No. 30813-R, the case is entitled “Tama
Tan Buto v. Director of Lands and Eligio T. Leyva.”
[33]
Filinvest Land, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 142439,
[34] Rollo, pp. 32.35.
[35]
[36] Ybañez
v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68291,
[37] OCT No. V-160 in the name of Eligio T. Leyva, rollo, p. 437.
[38] 113 Phil. 144 (1961).