THIRD
DIVISION
TEOFILO
CACHO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
G.
R.
No. 123361
July
28,
1997
-versus-
COURT
OF APPEALS,
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
NATIONAL STEEL
CORPORATION
and THE CITY OF
ILIGAN,
Respondents-Appellees.
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:
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 vs. 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 vs. 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 Nos. 10364 and 18969 cannot include the
Camp Overton Military; that the issuance of Decrees 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.
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. Echaves 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.cralaw:red
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 vs. 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 Nos. 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 vs. US.
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 in 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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., Francisco
and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J.,
is on leave. |