Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1997 > July 1997 Decisions > G.R. No. 123361 July 28, 1997 - TEOFILO CACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 123361. July 28, 1997.]

TEOFILO CACHO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COURT OF APPEALS, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION and THE CITY OF ILIGAN, Respondents-Appellees.

Virgilio C. Manguera & Associates and Acsay Pascual & Associates, for Petitioners.

Reyno De Vera Tiu Domingo Santos Law Office and Castillo Zamora & Poblador for National Steel Corp.

SYNOPSIS


For resolution are the joint motions for reconsideration of respondents Republic of the Philippines, National Steel Corporation and the City of Iligan assailing the Court’s decision dated March 3, 1997 in the same entitled case. However, the issues raised herein were duly addressed and resolved in the decision of the Court. No controverting evidence was submitted by any of the respondents to refute the findings; and no new arguments not already considered and passed upon have been raised. Hence, the motions for reconsiderations are denied with finality for lack of merit.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; NOT PROPER AS ISSUES RAISED WERE DULY RESOLVED IN THE DECISION. — The issues raised by respondents Republic of the Philippines and National Steel Corporation relative to their first two arguments are basically factual in nature and were duly addressed and resolved in the decision of the Court. Suffice it to stress, that, with the established fact of the issuance of the corresponding decrees of registration in the case at bar, as duly certified by the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NALTDRA), the finality of judgment in the 1912 case of Cacho v. U.S. is certain. Whatever matters were resolved and ought to have been resolved in the said case, are all res judicata and can no longer be taken up in the instant case at hand, as the metes and bounds of the subject property. Even the alleged lack of the approved technical description of the subject property insisted upon by respondents will not suffice to reverse the order for the re-issuance of Decrees No. 10364 and 18969. Besides, as found by the trial court, the NALTDRA confirmed that the plan and technical description of the lots involved were found to be correct. No controverting evidence was submitted by any respondents to refute this finding. Mere insinuations of doubt being cast by respondents against the correctness of such technical description will not warrant the scale of preponderant evidence to tilt in their favor.


R E S O L U T I O N


MELO, J.:


For resolution are the joint motion for reconsideration of respondents Republic of the Philippines and National Steel Corporation assailing the Court’s decision dated March 3, 1997 in the above-entitled case upon the following grounds:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I. Reliance on the certification issued by the Land Registration Commission as conclusive proof of issuance of decrees of registration in GLRO Nos. 6908 and 6909 is misplaced. Furthermore, requiring the submission of the corresponding deed of sale and the new plan as a condition for the re-issuance of the decree would neither render the Cacho v. U .S . case nugatory nor violate the doctrine of res judicata.

II. The Torrens System of land registration should not be used as a means to perpetuate fraud. Nonpayment of property tax shows the falsity and spuriousness of petitioner’s claim that he was granted a decree after presenting the deed of sale and new plan required in the Cacho v. U .S . case.

III. Respondents presented sufficient proof assailing the existence, identity and legal interest of petitioner.

and the motion for reconsideration of respondent City of Iligan, seeking the reversal of the aforesaid decision upon the argument that Decrees No. 10364 and 18969 cannot include the Camp Overton Military; that the issuance of Decree Nos. 10364 and 18969 was attended by fraud and irregularity making these Decrees void; and that there is no proof that Teofilo Cacho actually exists and much less, as a heir of Demetria Cacho, and, therefore, cannot claim to be a real party in interest. Also, respondent City of Iligan raises an issue not raised before the Court of Appeals that part of the property claimed by Demetria Cacho is owned by the City of Iligan pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 469 issued by President Diosdado Macapagal granting several parcels of land in Iligan City to the City Government of Iligan.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Likewise submitted are the Notice of Attorney’s lien filed by Attorney Virgilio Manguera, counsel of record of petitioner, and the motion for leave to intervene filed by Fausto C. Echavez and more than 500 families who claim to have openly, continuously, notoriously, and physically occupied their respective portions of the subject property in the concept of owners for decades.

The issues raised by respondents Republic of the Philippines and National Steel Corporation relative to their first two arguments are basically factual in nature and were duly addressed and resolved in the decision of the Court. Suffice it to stress, that, with the established fact of the issuance of the corresponding decrees of registration in the case at bar, as duly certified by the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NALTDRA), the finality of judgment in the 1912 case of Cacho v. U.S. is certain. Whatever matters were resolved and ought to have been resolved in the said case, are all res judicata and can no longer be taken up in the instant case at hand, as the metes and bounds of the subject property. Even the alleged lack of the approved technical description of the subject property insisted upon by respondents will not suffice to reverse the order for the re-issuance of Decrees No. 10364 and 18969. Besides, as found by the trial court, the NALTDRA confirmed that the plan and technical description of the lots involved were found to be correct (p. 6, Decision, p. 63, Rollo). No controverting evidence was submitted by any of respondents to refute this finding. The contention that this technical description could not have been the technical description duly approved as a result of our ruling in Cacho v. U.S. because it refers to the 37.87-hectare area applied for registration does not merit this Court’s approval there being no evidence submitted by respondents showing the contrary, specially so when the NALTDRA confirmed the correctness thereof. Of significance also is the fact that the custody of the supposed approved plan being a public record is with the public Respondent. Mere insinuations of doubt being cast by respondents against the correctness of such technical description will not warrant the scale of preponderant evidence to tilt in their favor.

With respect to the issue on the identity, existence, and legal interest of petitioner, no new arguments not already considered and passed upon have been raised. Hence, we find no cogent reason to disturb our ruling therein.

The issue on the supposed fraud which attended the issuance of the decrees is a factual issue addressed to the trial court, and duly raised before the Court of Appeals on review. Both courts refused to give credence to respondents’ claim. Instead, more weight was given to the certification issued by the NALTDRA through then Acting Commissioner (now Associate Justice of this Court) Santiago Kapunan. We still find no cogent reason, as we failed to previously find any, to rule otherwise.

As regards respondent City of Iligan’s claim that a portion of the subject property had been granted to it by virtue of a presidential proclamation, we note that despite an adverse ruling upon said issue by the trial court, this issue was never raised before the Court of Appeals on review, and much less in the main petition before us now. Hence, the ruling of the trial court on said issue is already final and we find no reason to take up said issue at this late stage.

Concerning Atty. Virgilio Manguera’s prayer for the annotation of the attorney’s charging lien on the judgment, the Court notes Godofredo Cabildo’s (petitioner’s attorney-in-fact) manifestation (pp. 349-350, Rollo) expressing the full reinstatement of Atty. Manguera as principal counsel in the instant case. Noting, likewise, that misunderstandings and misapprehensions have been cleared up, and no opposition having been filed by Atty. Manguera to dispute the same, we find that it is not necessary for this Court to act on the notice of attorney’s lien, which if Atty. Manguera still wishes to pursue, may be taken up with the court of origin.

Finally, the Motion for Leave to Intervene, having been filed only on April 21, 1997 or after the decision in this case was promulgated on March 3, 1997, the same is hereby denied.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motions for reconsideration are hereby DENIED with finality for lack of merit; the Notice of Attorney’s Lien simply NOTED WITHOUT ACTION; and the motion to intervene DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

Narvasa, C.J., is on leave.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 96649-50 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYNDON V. MACOY

  • G.R. No. 109660 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO NELL

  • G.R. No. 124914 July 2, 1997 - JESUS UGADDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123074 July 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO M. FERNANDEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1017 July 7, 1997 - OSCAR B. LAMBINO v. AMADO A. DE VERA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1245 July 7, 1997 - BENIGNO G. GAVIOLA v. NOEL NAVARETTE

  • G.R. No. 105760 July 7, 1997 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107193 July 7, 1997 - EUGENIO TENEBRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112006 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO S. DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 114275 July 7, 1997 - IÑIGO F. CARLET v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116962 July 7, 1997 - MARIA SOCORRO CACA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118940-41 & 119407 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MEJIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119872 July 7, 1997 - REMEDIOS NAVOA RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122206 July 7, 1997 - RAFAEL ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105284 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO ZUMIL

  • G.R. No. 106099 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109814 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO MAALAT

  • G.R. No. 112797 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NIDA ALEGRO

  • G.R. No. 114265 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MAGALLANES

  • G.R. No. 115307 July 8, 1997 - MANUEL LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115703 July 8, 1997 - EPIFANIO L. CASOLITA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117501 July 8, 1997 - SOLID HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122308 July 8, 1997 - PURITA S. MAPA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. SC-96-1 July 10, 1997 - DAMASO S. FLORES v. BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1236 July 11, 1997 - MADONNA MACALUA v. DOMINGO TIU, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1249 July 11, 1997 - PACITA SY TORRES v. FROILAN S. CABLING

  • G.R. No. 104865 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO PONTILAR, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 113511-12 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SINOC

  • G.R. No. 115033 July 11, 1997 - PONCIANO T. MATANGUIHAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123204 July 11, 1997 - NATIONWIDE SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1158 July 14, 1997 - EUFEMIA BERCASIO v. HERBERTO BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106153 July 14, 1997 - FLORENCIO G. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108838 July 14, 1997 - PAGCOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116528-31 July 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETO ADORA

  • G.R. No. 108492 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL BANIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118078 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 123379 July 15, 1997 - BAROTAC SUGAR MILLS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120437-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO ALVARIO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1382 July 17, 1997 - REXEL M. PACURIBOT v. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR.

  • G.R. No. 105002 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIARANGAN DANSAL

  • G.R. No. 108634 July 17, 1997 - ANTONIO P. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111165 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO MERCADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113257 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY LASCOTA

  • G.R. No. 114742 July 17, 1997 - CARLITOS E. SILVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118860 July 17, 1997 - ROLINDA B. PONO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120262 July 17, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125195 July 17, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA BANDOLINO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1362 July 18, 1997 - DSWD, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. BELEN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1283 July 21, 1997 - DAVID C. NAVAL, ET AL. v. JOSE R. PANDAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108488 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODENCIO NARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111002 July 21, 1997 - PACIFIC MARITIME SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NICANOR RANAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117402 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLIE L. ALVARADO

  • G.R. No. 119184 July 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF FELICIDAD CANQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121768 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASTILLO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 122250 & 122258 July 21, 1997 - EDGARDO C. NOLASCO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124347 July 21, 1997 - CMS STOCK BROKERAGE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125510 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO LISING

  • G.R. No. 111933 July 23, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112429-30 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO P. CAYETANO

  • G.R. Nos. 118736-37 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TANG WAI LAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1205 July 24, 1997 - OSCAR P. DE LOS REYES v. ESTEBAN H. ERISPE, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1383 July 24, 1997 - JOSE LAGATIC v. JOSE PEÑAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104663 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID SALVATIERRA

  • G.R. No. 105004 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MAROLLANO

  • G.R. No. 107723 July 24, 1997 - EMS MANPOWER & PLACEMENT SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111211 July 24, 1997 - ABS-CBN EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113235 July 24, 1997 - VICTORINA MEDINA, ET AL. v. CITY SHERIFF, MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113366-68 July 24, 1997 - GREGORIO ISABELO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116635 July 24, 1997 - CONCHITA NOOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118458 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 120276 July 24, 1997 - SINGA SHIP MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121075 July 24, 1997 - DELTA MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121867 July 24, 1997 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LAB., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127262 July 24, 1997 - HUBERT WEBB, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. 95-6-55-MTC & P-96-1173 July 28, 1997 - REPORT ON AUDIT IN THE MTC OF PEÑARANDA, NUEVA ECIJA

  • G.R. No. 102858 July 28, 1997 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103209 July 28, 1997 - APOLONIO BONDOC, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110823 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROCHEL TRAVERO

  • G.R. No. 112323 July 28, 1997 - HELPMATE, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113344 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATANACIO LUTO

  • G.R. No. 116668 July 28, 1997 - ERLINDA A. AGAPAY v. CARLINA V. PALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116726 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO P. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 118822 July 28, 1997 - G.O.A.L., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119000 July 28, 1997 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119649 July 28, 1997 - RICKY GALICIA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119868 July 28, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120072 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO I. MESA

  • G.R. No. 123361 July 28, 1997 - TEOFILO CACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126556 July 28, 1997 - NELSON C. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117742 July 29, 1997 - GEORGE M. TABERRAH v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997 - PATRICIA FIGUEROA v. SIMEON BARRANCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97369 July 31, 1997 - P.I. MANPOWER PLACEMENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99030 July 31, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106582 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO BALDERAS

  • G.R. No. 107802 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JASON NAREDO

  • G.R. No. 108399 July 31, 1997 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. ROBERT MIRASOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108619 July 31, 1997 - EPIFANIO LALICAN v. FILOMENO A. VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113689 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SANGIL, SR.

  • G.R. No. 113958 July 31, 1997 - BANANA GROWERS COLLECTIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116060 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DE LA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 116292 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY PEÑERO

  • G.R. No. 119068 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997 - CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121157 July 31, 1997 - HEIRS OF SEGUNDA MANINGDING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123561 July 31, 1997 - DELIA R. NERVES v. CSC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124678 July 31, 1997 - DELIA BANGALISAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.