SPECIAL FIRST
DIVISION.
.
HEIRS OF ANTONIO
PAELAND ANDREA ALCANTARA
AND CRISANTO PAEL,
Petitioners,
G.R.
No.
133547
November 11, 2003
-versus-
COURT OF APPEALS,
JORGE H. CHINAND RENATO B.
MALLARI,
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
MARIA DESTURA,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
133843
November 11, 2003
-versus-
COURT OF APPEALS,
JORGE H. CHINAND RENATO B.
MALLARI,
Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O
N
PUNO,
J.:
This treats of the
Report submitted to this Court by the Former Special Fourth Division of
the Court of Appeals, dated July 30, 2003, pursuant to our Resolution,
dated December 7, 2001, directing said court to receive evidence on the
conflicting claims over the subject properties covered by TCT Nos.
52928
and 52929 between private respondents Jorge H. Chin and Renato B.
Mallari,
on the one hand, and intervenor University of the Philippines (U.P.),
on
the other.
The case at bar is another
crass attempt to grab part of the Diliman Campus of the University of
the
Philippines. Over and over again, this Court has ruled that the title
of
U.P. over its Diliman Campus is indefeasible and beyond dispute. We
cannot
deviate from this ruling.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The facts reveal that
on December 9, 1993, Maria Destura filed a complaint before the
Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City against her husband, Pedro Destura, together
with Jorge Chin and Renato Mallari. The complaint sought the annulment
of the memorandum of agreement (MOA) dated March 26, 1992 executed by
Chin
and Mallari as first parties, Pedro Destura as second party, and Jaime
Lumansag, Jr. as third party, over Lot Nos. 588-A and 588-B located in
Barrio Culiat, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 52928 and TCT No. 52929.
It alleged that Chin and Mallari were former agents of Pedro Destura,
authorized
to sell Lot Nos. 588-A and 588-B, then covered by TCT No. 36048; that
when
Destura came from Canada, he discovered that the title to the land has
been transferred to Chin and Mallari in whose names TCT No. 52928 and
TCT
No. 52929 were registered; that Chin and Mallari executed the MOA
subject
of the complaint to appease Destura; that the MOA stated that Chin and
Mallari had a buyer of the lots and they promised to pay Destura one
hundred
million pesos (P100,000,000.00) upon finality of the sale; that the
sale
did not materialize and the payment of the promised amount has become
uncertain,
to the prejudice of the Destura spouses. The complaint also sought the
annulment of TCT No. 52928 and TCT No. 52929 as they were allegedly
obtained
through fraudulent means. It prayed that the Register of Deeds issue a
new title in the name of the Destura spouses.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The case was dismissed
against Pedro Destura after he and his wife entered into an amicable
settlement.cralaw:red
Chin and Mallari, meanwhile,
were declared in default for failure to file their Answer.[2]
On January 24, 1995,
the trial court rendered a judgment by default. The trial court
nullified
the MOA in question. It ruled:
On the
issue
of the memorandum of agreement, it is to be noted that under its
express
terms the payment of the P100,000,000.00 to Pedro Destura depended on
the
sale of the properties covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
52928
and 52929 to the alleged ready buyer of the third party, Jaime B.
Lumansag,
Jr. Since no sale materialized in accordance therewith because the
buyer
backed out of the transactions, the agreement lost its efficacy.
Pursuant
to Art. 1181, Civil Code, upon the non-fulfillment of the condition,
the
obligation of the defendants under the memorandum of agreement did not
take effect and Destura ceased to be bound thereby.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That the
fulfillment
of the condition, i.e., the payment of the P100,000,000.00 to Destura,
already became uncertain and indefinite is also established competently
and conclusively. As a consequence, the memorandum of agreement should
be nullified because it was made to depend upon a condition that was
void
for being dependent upon the sole will of the debtors.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court
likewise
nullified TCT No. 52928 and TCT No. 52929. It found:
Concerning
the validity of the transfers of the certificates of title into the
names
of defendants Mallari and Chin, the records competently and credibly
show
that highly suspicious circumstances attended such transfers of
registered
ownership resulting in the issuance of Transfer Certificates of Title
Nos.
52928 and 52929. The transfers were by virtue of two deeds of sale
covering
the land described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 36048 which
appear
to have been executed on the same date of December 10, 1978. The
vendors
in the first deed of sale were the spouses Luis and Leony Menor and
those
in the other were Roberto Pael, Crisanto Pael, and Teofila Pael. The
deeds
were supposedly notarized by a certain Catalino C. Manalaysay. Yet, as
certified to by the Chief of the Archives Division, Records Management
and Archives Office, no copy of the first deed of sale, Exhibit U, was
available at said office because the latest notarial record on file
under
the name of Catalino C. Manalaysay was for the year 1964.
Another document
submitted
to support the transfer of the property to the defendants was a deed of
extra-judicial settlement of estate with waiver made and entered in
among
Crisanto, Roberto, Teofila, and Cresencia, all surnamed Pael, under
date
of December 27, 1965, by which the alleged heirs of Antonio Pael and
Andrea
Alcantara divided and adjudicated among themselves the property covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 36048. Again the Chief of the
Archives
Division, Records Management and Archives Office, certified that no
copy
of the document was available at said office because the notary public
before whom the document appeared to have been acknowledged, one
Catalino
E. Dumlao, had no records thereat for the period from January, 1964 to
December 18, 1967.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There was,
moreover,
a certification issued on September 2, 1992 by the Chief, Official
Gazette
Publication, National Printing Office, attested (sic) that there were
no
records in said office showing that a publication of LRC Case No.
N-10792,
LRC Record No. 7672, entitled Spouses Antonio Pael and Andrea
Alcantara,
et al., Applicants, Petition of Extra-judicial Settlement had been made
in the Official Gazette. This contradicted the alleged certificate of
publication
of notice of initial hearing.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The sale appears
to
have been made in 1978. But if that was so, then it was fictitious,
since
the defendants willingly accepted appointments as the agents of Pedro
Destura
with authority to sell the property in his behalf only in 1990. Their
act
of accepting the appointment was a declaration against interest, in
that
they thereby admitted quite expressly the ownership of the property on
the part of the Desturas as late as 1990, in effect debunking the
alleged
sale in 1978 in their favor. It is additionally relevant to note that
this
fact of Destura's ownership was further confirmed by the fact that the
defendants caused the transfer of the certificates in their names only
in 1992.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court then
ordered
the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to "cancel Transfer Certificates
of
Title Nos. 52928 and 52929 in the names of Jorge Chin and Renato B.
Mallari
and the transfer certificates of title from which said certificates
were
derived until but not including Transfer Certificate of Title No.
36048,
and thereafter reinstate Transfer Certificate of Title No. 36048 in the
names of Spouses Antonio Pael and Andrea Alcantara and Crisanto Pael."[5]
On February 13, 1995,
Atty. Oliver Lozano, counsel for Chin and Mallari, filed a notice of
appeal.[6]
The following day, the trial court approved the notice of appeal and
forwarded
the records to the Court of Appeals.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A week later, Atty.
Lozano filed a Motion for New Trial and a Supplemental Motion.[8]
On August 28, 1995,
the trial court denied the motion for new trial for lack of merit. It
also
dismissed the appeal previously allowed on the ground of abandonment.
The
trial court's Decision was thus declared final and executory.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In September 1997, Chin
and Mallari, assisted by new counsel, Atty. Samuel Alentaje, filed
before
the Court of Appeals a Petition for Annulment of Judgment. They claimed
that the gross negligence of their former counsel, Atty. Lozano,
constituted
extrinsic fraud which prevented them from presenting their case before
the trial court. They also assailed the trial court's order cancelling
their title and upholding the title of the Paels who were not parties
to
the case.[10]
On April 29, 1998, the
Court of Appeals rendered a decision[11]
in favor of Chin and Mallari. It annulled the decision of the trial
court
upon finding that the gross and reckless negligence of their former
counsel
which caused them to be declared in default and which later led to the
dismissal of their appeal and finality of the judgment amounted to
extrinsic
fraud. Further, the appellate court reversed the order of the trial
court
canceling TCT No. 52928 and TCT No. 52929 and reinstating TCT No. 36048
registered in the name of the Paels. It also rejected Maria Destura's
claim
over the property. It instead upheld the validity of the sale of 70% of
the property by a certain Luis and Leony Menor and 30% thereof by the
Paels
to Chin and Mallari. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the decision dated January 24, 1995 and the Order
dated August 28, 1995, both issued in Civil Case No. Q-93-18569, are
hereby
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, and accordingly judgment is issued:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a)
DECLARING
as valid the memorandum of agreement dated March 26, 1992;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) DECLARING as
null
and void both the cancellation of the titles, Transfer Certificates of
Title Nos. 52928 and 52929 of petitioners Jorge H. Chin and Renato B.
Mallari
over the subject property and the reinstatement of the title Transfer
Certificate
No. 36048, in the names of Antonio Pael, Andrea Alcantara and Crisanto
Pael;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) DECLARING
the petitioners
as the true and absolute owners of the subject property and ORDERING
the
Register of Deeds of Quezon City to REINSTATE the aforementioned
titles,
TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929 in favor of petitioners Jorge H. Chin and
Renato
B. Mallari;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x[12]
The case was
elevated
to this Court by the Heirs of Pael and by Maria Destura via separate
petitions
for review.
The Heirs of Pael
argued
in G.R. No. 133547:
1. The
Honorable
Court of Appeals gravely misappreciated, ignored, misapplied and/or
overlooked
the fact that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the
annulment
of judgment is improper as there was no extrinsic fraud or reckless and
gross negligence committed by private respondents' former counsel,
Atty.
Oliver Lozano, hence, the assailed decision of the appellate court
should
be stricken down for being without credible basis.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. The Honorable
Court
of Appeals seriously erred in not holding that assuming arguendo that
extrinsic
fraud and gross and reckless negligence were committed by Atty. Lozano,
private respondents were bound by said extrinsic fraud and gross and
reckless
negligence as they themselves contributed to the commission of such
fraud
and negligence of their counsel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. The Honorable
Court
of Appeals gravely erred in not holding that the revival of the title
in
favor of Antonio Pael and Andrea Alcantara and Crisanto Pael, even if
they
are not parties to the case below, was a logical consequence of the
default
judgment.
4. The Honorable
Court
of Appeals gravely erred in not holding that since the default judgment
had already long become final and executory, consequently the
reinstatement
of the titles of private respondent and the declaration as null and
void
of the title in the names of Antonio Pael and Andrea Alcantara and
Crisanto
Pael were erroneous and improper.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. The Honorable
Court
of Appeals gravely erred when in its decision it adjudicated the case
on
the merits, which is procedurally flawed.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Destura raised the
following
errors in G.R. No. 133843:
1. The
ruling
of the respondent Court of Appeals that private respondents are not
bound
by the negligence and incompetence of their counsel is erroneous and
contrary
to law and jurisprudence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. The ruling of
the
respondent Court of Appeals that the gross negligence of counsel for
private
respondents constitutes "extrinsic fraud" is likewise erroneous and
contrary
to law and jurisprudence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Granting for
the
sake of argument, that there is basis to annul the questioned decision,
the action of respondent Court of Appeals in adjudicating the merits of
the case is contrary to Section 7, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. The findings
of the
respondent Court of Appeals that the interest of the private respondent
in the subject property over that of petitioner is not borne out by any
evidence in the records of the case in the trial court.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 10, 2000,
this
Court rendered a decision denying both petitions and affirming the
title
of Chin and Mallari over the property.
The Heirs of Pael and
Destura filed separate Motions for Reconsideration. During their
pendency,
the University of the Philippines (UP) filed a Motion for Intervention,[15]
alleging that the properties covered by TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929 in the
names of Chin and Mallari form part of its Diliman Campus, registered
in
the name of UP under TCT No. 9462.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On December 7, 2001,
this Court denied the motions for reconsideration of Destura and the
Heirs
of Pael, but granted the motion for intervention filed by UP. The Court
remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reception of evidence on
the conflicting claims over the property in question by Chin and
Mallari
as against UP.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On July 30, 2003, the
Former Special Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals submitted its
Report
recommending that this Court recognize the better rights of Chin and
Mallari
over the property as against the claim of U.P. It made the following
observations:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is the
view
of this court that petitioners have successfully refuted U.P.'s
assertion
of ownership over the subject properties, more particularly, the two
(2)
parcels of land denominated as Lot No. 588-A consisting of 518,455
square
meters, and Lot 588-B, comprising 261,022 square meters, or a total of
779,477 square meters, or 77.9477 hectares. The preponderance of
evidence
supports the claim of petitioners Chin and Mallari over the subject
properties
covered by TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929, as shown by the following:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. The
April
29, 1998 Decision of this court and the February 10, 2000 decision of
the
Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. 133547 and 133843 which plainly and
categorically
stated that petitioners Chin and Mallari are the true and absolute
owners
of the subject properties.
2. The December
7, 2001
Resolution of the Supreme Court itself which remanded the instant cases
to this court for reception of evidence merely to determine the
conflicting
boundary claims of the parties, petitioners and intervenor U.P.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. The
Verification
Survey Report dated January 16, 2003 submitted to the RTC, Branch 99,
Quezon
City, which found that "the property of Jorge Chin and Renato Mallari
described
on TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929 falls inside and is entirely within the
property
covered by TCT Nos. RT-107359 (192689), RT-107350 (192686), RT-58201
(192687),
RT-57441 (192688) PR-32309, registered in the name of the University of
the Philippines."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. The findings
of Atty.
Virgilio B. Tiongson, Assistant Regional Executive Director for Legal
Services
and Public Affairs, DENR-NCR, in his memorandum dated January 14, 2003,
that since the verification and survey report found that the properties
of Chin and Mallari, covered by TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929, "fall(s)
inside
the property covered by the titles of the University of the
Philippines,"
then there is an apparent overlapping of the titles. His findings
refuted
the Tiburcio and other cases cited by U.P. which were found to be
inapplicable
and irrelevant to the claim of Chin and Mallari. Atty. Tiongson
recommended
that the report on the verification/relocation survey over the
properties
covered by TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929 in the names of Jorge H. Chin and
Renato
B. Mallari be adopted as it appears from the record that the properties
of U.P. under TCT No. 9462 overlap the properties of Chin and Mallari,
hence, the same should be returned to Chin and Mallari, the true and
absolute
owners thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. The
aforementioned
Decision of this court dated April 29, 1998 and the Decision of the
Supreme
Court dated February 10, 2000 in G.R. Nos. 133547 and 133843 which
categorically
ruled that petitioners Chin and Mallari are the true and absolute
owners
of the subject properties and its resolution dated December 7, 2001
remanding
the cases to this court for reception of evidence to determine the
conflicting
boundary claims of petitioners Chin and Mallari and intervenor U.P.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
6. The findings
of Geodetic
Engineer Mauro Gabriel in the narrative report dated February 20, 1995
on the verification survey of the subject properties which he submitted
to the Regional Technical Director, DENR-NCR, who then found that the
properties
of U.P. overlap the properties of the Paels identified as Lot 588-A and
Lot 588-B, Psd-1006, and recommended that said properties be excluded
from
the properties claimed by U.P. under its TCT No. 9462, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
In order to
correct
whatever mislead (sic) that had been (sic) transpired by the previous
preparation
of the Deed of Conveyance is to exclude properties and rights that had
been long existing before the transfer of ownership from the
Commonwealth
Government of the Philippines to University of the Philippines. That is
to exclude the private property of the Paels, the survey plan, Psd-1006
from lot 42-C, Pes-13 (8th parcel of land) covered by T.C.T. No. 9462
(U.P.).
In view of the
foregoing,
I am recommending that the long existing private property of Antonio
Pael,
et al. (now Jorge H. Chin & Renato B. Mallari) identified as lots
588-A
& 588-B, Psd-1006 be respected and that lot 42-C, Pcs-13 be amended
in order to exclude the private rights from University of the
Philippines
properties, upon approval and confirmation of the proper legal
authorities
concerned." (Emphases supplied.)[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court of Appeals
further
found that the certificate of title held by Chin and Mallari originated
from OCT No. 730 registered on May 5, 1914, while that of UP originated
from OCT No. 735 which was allegedly registered on a later date, July
6,
1914. It declared:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This court,
after a studied and judicious examination and appreciation of the
totality
of the evidence submitted by petitioners Chin and Mallari and
intervenor
U.P., finds that petitioners' TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929 originated from
OCT No. 730 which was registered on May 5, 1914. On the other hand, the
court finds that intervenor U.P. has failed to sufficiently establish
that
its TCT No. RT-107350 (192689) similarly originated from the same OCT
No.
730. For one, intervenor failed to submit authenticated or certified
copies
of the TCT of the Commonwealth of the Philippines which covers the
parcels
of land sold to U.P. and which thereafter secured its TCT No. 9462. To
note once more, in her report to the LRA Verification Committee (Exh.
"3"),
Atty. Edelwina C. Pastoral lamented that because of "the loss of said
documents,
it is difficult to establish the link and determine the manner of
transfer
of the lot in question owned by the Tuasons from OCT No. 730 to TCT No.
2681, TCT No. 6075 & TCT No. 26550, and to the Commonwealth of the
Philippines leading to the issuance of TCT No. 36048 in the name of the
latter." Moreover, the TCTs presented by intervenor U.P. to prove its
ownership
of the lands allegedly conveyed to it by the Commonwealth of the
Philippines
(marked as Exhs. "1," "2," "3," "4," "5" and "6"), uniformly show that
the OCT No. 730 which, U.P. claims, was the root of said TCTs was
registered
on May 3, 1914. This date appears, however, to fall on a Sunday, which
casts doubts on U.P.'s claim. This court, therefore, finds that in line
with its observations on the cases cited by U.P., the latter's TCT,
which
overlaps that of petitioners, originated from another title — OCT No.
735
— which was registered on July 6, 1914 (see Galvez vs. Tuason, supra).[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We rule in favor of
intervenor
U.P.
The facts show that
Chin and Mallari and the Desturas trace their claim of ownership over
the
property to the Paels. The Desturas allegedly purchased the property
from
the Paels through their agent, a certain Lutgarda Marilao. Chin and
Mallari
claim that they bought 70% of the property from Spouses Luis and Leony
Menor, and 30% thereof directly from the Paels. The Menor spouses, in
turn,
allegedly acquired the 70% also from the Paels.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The disputed property,
however, is part of the U.P. Diliman Campus, covered by TCT No. 9462.
It
was established, after the survey conducted by the Department of
Environment
and Natural Resources, National Capital Region (DENR-NCR) that the
property
claimed by Chin and Mallari overlaps the property covered by UP's
title.
The superiority of UP's title over that of the Paels has been
recognized
by the courts in an earlier case filed by Roberto Pael, et al. against
UP.cralaw:red
Roberto Pael, et al.,
previously filed before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City,
Branch
52 a complaint against UP for declaration of nullity and damages
docketed
as Civil Case No. Q-31629. The complainants alleged that they were the
heirs of Antonio Pael and Andrea Alcantara, the registered owners of a
parcel of land consisting of Lot Nos. 588-A and 588-B of subdivision
Plan
Psd-1006, located in Barrio Culiat, Quezon City and covered by TCT No.
36048. They sought to nullify the title of UP, TCT No. 9462, which also
covered said parcel of land. After the complainants rested their case,
U.P. filed a demurrer to evidence which was denied by the trial court.
U.P. then went to the Court of Appeals via a petition for prohibition
to
restrain the trial court from proceeding with Civil Case No. Q-31619.
UP
contended that the question of the validity of the certificate of title
of the land in dispute has been put to rest in three cases decided by
the
Supreme Court as early as 1959. The Court of Appeals granted the
petition
for prohibition and permanently enjoined the trial court from hearing
and
proceeding with Civil Case No. Q-31619. It cited the findings of this
Court
in prior cases that the land in question covered by OCT No. 730 was
originally
owned by the Tuasons who sold the same to UP. OCT No. 730 was cancelled
and TCT No. 9462 was later issued and registered in the name of U.P. It
held that as early as 1959, this Court has declared that the decree of
registration with respect to the land covered by OCT No. 730 had become
conclusive and binding against the whole world. Upholding the validity
of UP's title over the property, the Court of Appeals ruled that Pael's
complaint lacked legal basis. Pael filed before this Court a petition
docketed
as G.R. No. 97277 entitled "Roberto Pael, et al. vs. University of the
Philippines" to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. The
petition
was denied by this Court on April 15, 1991 for late filing. Entry of
judgment
was made on August 15, 1991. The ruling in this case is final and binds
the Paels and all their successors-in-interest which include Chin and
Mallari.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nonetheless, despite
the above decision, Chin and Mallari filed another Petition against UP
for Quieting of Title before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
The
petition filed on February 5, 1995 alleged that Chin and Mallari were
the
individual owners of Lot Nos. 588-A and 588-B located in Barrio Culiat,
Quezon City and covered by TCT No. 52928 and TCT No. 52929. They
claimed
to have derived their titles from TCT No. 36048 registered under the
name
of Spouses Antonio Pael and Andrea Alcantara and their son Crisanto
Pael.
They alleged that based on official records and entries in the land
registration
offices of the government, there appears to be two TCT No. 36048 in
existence
— one registered in the name of the Commonwealth Government and another
registered in the name of the Paels. The Commonwealth Government's
title
was later cancelled and TCT No. 9462 was issued and registered in the
name
of UP. They averred that this created a cloud on the title of the Paels
from whom they derived their titles, hence the Petition for Quieting of
Title. During the course of the proceedings, Chin and Mallari filed a
"Motion
to Order for Relocation and Verification Survey." They alleged that
there
was a need to define in an appropriate sketch plan the relative
locations
of the individual properties of the parties for the purpose of
determining
whether their lots were within the perimeter area of UP's property. The
trial court granted the motion. UP filed a petition for certiorari
before
the Court of Appeals to set aside the order of the trial court granting
the motion. The appellate court dismissed the petition after finding no
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. UP filed a
petition
for review before the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. 127537
entitled
"University of the Philippines vs. Hon. Felix M. De Guzman, etc., Jorge
H. Chin and Renato B. Mallari." The petition was denied on March 19,
1997
as it was filed late. Entry of judgment was made on August 4, 1997.
Hence,
in an Order dated August 2, 2002, the Quezon City RTC ordered the
DENR-NCR
to conduct a relocation and verification survey of the properties
covered
by TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929.[19]
The Verification Survey Report dated January 16, 2003 of the DENR-NCR
survey
team revealed that "the property of Jorge Chin and Renato Mallari
described
in TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929 falls inside and is entirely within the
property
covered by TCT Nos. RT-107350 (192689), RT-107360 (192689), RT-58201
(192687)
and RT-57441 (192688) PR32309 registered in the name of the University
of the Philippines,"[20]
confirming its initial findings that there was an overlapping of titles.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is judicial notice
that the legitimacy of UP's title has been settled in several other
cases
decided by this Court. The case of Tiburcio, et al. vs. People's
Homesite
& Housing Corp. (PHHC), et al.[22]
was an action for reconveyance of a 430-hectare lot in Quezon City,
filed
by the heirs of Eladio Tiburcio against PHHC and UP. A portion of the
disputed
land was covered by TCT No. 1356 registered in the name of PHHC and
another
portion was covered by TCT No. 9462 registered in the name of UP.
Affirming
the validity of TCT No. 1356 and TCT No. 9462, this Court ruled:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x the land in question has been placed under the operation
of the Torrens system since 1914 when it has been originally registered
in the name of defendant's predecessor-in-interest. It further appears
that sometime in 1955 defendant People's Homesite & Housing
Corporation
acquired from the original owner a parcel of land embracing practically
all of plaintiff's property for which Transfer Certificate of Title No.
1356 was issued in its favor, while defendant University of the
Philippines
likewise acquired from the same owner another portion of land which
embraces
the remainder of the property for which Transfer Certificate of Title
No.
9462 was issued in its favor. It is, therefore, clear that the land in
question has been registered in the name of defendant's
predecessor-in-interest
since 1914 under the Torrens system and that notwithstanding what they
now claim that the original title lacked the essential requirements
prescribed
by law for their validity, they have never taken any step to nullify
said
title until 1957 when they instituted the present action. In other
words,
they allowed a period of 43 years before they woke up to invoke what
they
claim to be erroneous when the court decreed in 1914 the registration
of
the land in the name of defendants' predecessor-in-interest. Evidently,
this cannot be done for under our law and jurisprudence, a decree of
registration
can only be set aside within one year after entry on the ground of
fraud
provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired the property.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, this Court held
that
the decree of registration in the name of the predecessor-in-interest
of
PHHC and UP, as well as the titles issued pursuant thereto have become
incontrovertible.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Court again affirmed
the validity and indefeasibility of UP's title in the case of Galvez
vs.
Tuason,[24]
where Maximo Galvez and the heirs of Eladio Tiburcio sought the
recovery
of a parcel of land in Quezon City registered under the names of
Mariano
Severo, Maria Teresa Eriberta, Juan Jose, Demetrio Asuncion, Augusto
Huberto,
all surnamed Tuason y de la Paz, U.P., and PHHC. This is the same land
subject of the controversy in Tiburcio vs. PHHCThis Court held in
Galvez
that the question of ownership of the disputed land has been thrice
settled
definitely and conclusively by the courts: first, in the proceedings
for
the registration of the property in the name of the Tuasons; second, in
the application filed by Marcelino Tiburcio with the Court of First
Instance
of Rizal for registration of the disputed property in his name which
was
dismissed by said court; and third, in the action for reconveyance
filed
by the heirs of Eladio Tiburcio against PHHC and UP which was also
dismissed
by the court, which dismissal was affirmed by this Court in Tiburcio
vs.
PHHC. We held that the issue of ownership of the property was already
beyond
review.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The rulings in Tiburcio
vs. PHHC and Galvez vs. Tuason were reiterated by this Court in PHHC
vs.
Mencias[25]
and Varsity Hills vs. Mariano.[26]
In upholding the alleged
right of Chin and Mallari over the property in dispute, the Court of
Appeals
relied heavily on the decision of this Court dated February 10, 2000
that
Chin and Mallari are its true and absolute owners. It should be
emphasized,
however, that our February 10, 2000 Decision involved only the
conflicting
claims of Chin and Mallari as against Maria Destura and the Heirs of
Pael.
Our decision upholding the superior rights of Chin and Mallari over
those
of the petitioners was based on its findings on the sale of the
property
by the Paels and a certain Menor to Chin and Mallari. Thus, this Court
held:
On the
other
hand, the records show that private respondents are the owners of the
subject
property by virtue of the sale to them by the Menors and the Paels as
early
as December 10, 1978. As above stated, the Paels sold 70% of the total
land area of the property to the spouses Luis and Leony Menor. The
Menors,
in turn, sold to private respondents the same 70%, while the remaining
30% was sold by the surviving heirs of the Paels to private
respondents
x x x.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
U.P. was then not a
party
in the case and its right over the property was not considered when
this
Court rendered its decision. It was only after the petitioners filed a
motion for reconsideration that U.P. intervened and claimed that the
property
subject of this case is within its premises and is titled to its name.
Our Decision, therefore, should not bind U.P. and our initial ruling as
regards the rights of the original parties to the case should not
prejudice
the rights of U.P. The remand of the case to the Court of Appeals was
precisely
intended to determine the veracity of the allegation of U.P. that the
contested
property is indeed within its premises. And this fact was affirmed in
the
Verification Survey Report of the DENR-NCR Survey Team which found that
Lot Nos. 588-A and 588-B overlap the property of U.P. Needless to
stress,
Chin and Mallari are precluded from claiming ownership of the land in
dispute
as the issue of ownership by UP has long been settled in numerous
decisions
by this Court, and have therefore become incontestable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to the opinion
of the Court of Appeals, the rulings of this Court in the various cases
questioning the validity of U.P.'s title, especially in G.R. No. 97277
entitled "Roberto Pael, et al. vs. University of the Philippines,"
apply
to the case at bar and constitute res judicata in the concept of
conclusiveness
of judgment. There is conclusiveness of judgment when, between the
first
case where the judgment was rendered and the second case where such
judgment
is invoked, there is identity of parties, not of causes of action. The
judgment is conclusive in the second case, only as to those matters
actually
and directly controverted and determined, and not as to matters merely
involved therein.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
G.R. No. 97277 involved
an action by the Paels to nullify the title of U.P. over Lot Nos. 588-A
and 588-B which they claim to be likewise registered in their name. The
appellate court affirmed the validity of UP's title and held that
Pael's
complaint lacked legal basis. It is admitted in this case that Chin and
Mallari derived their title to Lot Nos. 588-A and 588-B from the Paels.
The ruling in the former case, therefore, insofar as the superiority of
UP's title is concerned, is conclusive in the case at bar. It has been
said that the foundation principle upon which the doctrine of res
judicata
rests is that parties should not be permitted to litigate the same
issue
more than once; that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or an opportunity for
such trial has been given, the judgment of the court, so long as it
remains
unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity
with them in law or estate.[29]
Finally, it should be
emphasized that this Court's Decision in Tiburcio, et al. vs. PHHC, as
well as in the subsequent cases upholding the validity and
indefeasibility
of the Certificate of Title covering the U.P. Diliman Campus, precludes
the courts from looking anew into the validity of UP's title. Thus, the
appellate court's discourse in the case at bar as regards the origin of
U.P.'s certificate of title, whether it came from OCT 730 or OCT 735 is
intolerable, to say the least. The rule is that material facts or
questions
which were in issue in a former action and were there admitted or
judicially
determined are conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein and
that such facts or questions become res judicata and may not again be
litigated
in a subsequent action between the same parties or their privies,
regardless
of the form the issue may take in the subsequent action, whether the
subsequent
action involves the same or a different form of proceedings, or whether
the second action is upon the same or a different cause of action,
subject
matter, claim or demand, as the earlier action. In such cases, it is
also
immaterial that the two actions are based on different grounds, or
tried
on different theories, or instituted for different purposes, and seek
different
reliefs. By the same token, whatever is once irrevocably established as
the controlling legal principle or decision continues to be the law of
the case between the same parties in the same case, whether correct on
general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision
was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,
the decision dated February 10, 2000 is SET ASIDE insofar as it
declares
private respondents Jorge H. Chin and Renato B. Mallari as the true and
absolute owners of Lot Nos. 588-A and 588-B. The title of intervenor
U.P.
over the disputed property is upheld. Thus, the Registry of Deeds in
Quezon
City is ordered to cancel TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929 in the names of
private
respondents Jorge H. Chin and Renato B. Mallari, and Civil Case No.
Q-95-22961
filed by private respondents against intervenor UP before the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 99, for quieting of title is hereby
dismissed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J. and
Austria-Martinez, JJ.,
concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Original Records, pp. 1–5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id. at 33 & 74.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 138.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 138–139.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 139–140.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 141.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 142.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 144–149.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 191–197.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
CA Rollo, vol. 1, pp. 3–67.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id. at 579–638.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id. at 636.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Rollo, G.R. No. 133547, pp. 113–114.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Rollo, G.R. No. 133843, pp. 18–19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Rollo, vol. 3, pp. 873–876.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Id. at 1242–1248.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Report submitted by Associate Justices Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, Chairman,
Eliezer
R. De Los Santos and Danilo B. Pine, pp. 14–16.
[18]
Id. at 25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Exhibit "F" for Respondents, CA Rollo, vol. 3, pp. 1181–1882.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Exhibit "G" for Respondents, CA Rollo, vol. 3, pp. 1185–1886.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Exhibit "H" for Respondents, CA Rollo, vol. 3, p. 1888.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
106 Phil. 477 (1959).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Id. at 481.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
10 SCRA 344 (1964).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
20 SCRA 1031 (1967).chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[26]
163 SCRA 132 (1988).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Decision, G.R. Nos. 133547 and 133843, p. 27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Camara vs. Court of Appeals, 310 SCRA 608 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Calalang vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 231 SCRA 88 (1994).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
J.C. Lopez & Associates, Inc. vs. Commission on Audit, 364 SCRA 472
(2001), citing Veloso, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 196 (1996). |