SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 77148 June 30, 1987

HEIRS OF MARIANO LACSON, represented by MAYO LACSON, and CALAGNA-AN AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE AMELIA K. DEL ROSARIO IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE FORMER COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.chanrobles virtual law library

PARAS, J.:

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals * of November 7, 1985, affirming the Order ** dated December 17, 1979 of the Court of First Instance of floilo. The facts are as follows:chanrobles virtual law library

The land in question is designated as Lot 1, Psu-99817 originally covered by OCT No. 0-4 of the Registry of Deeds of Iloilo in the name of Mariano R. Lacson. It comprises 14,240,768 sq. meters. It is now covered by TCT NO. T-71508 in the name of Calagna-an Agro-Industrial Corporation-a family corporation of the late Mariano R. Lacson.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The aforementioned OCT No. 0-4 was obtained by the late Mariano R. Lacson pursuant to the judgment in Land Registration Case No. 567 dated December 3, 1940.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On November 28,1975, the Republic of the Philippines filed with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a complaint against the heirs of Mariano Lacson, the Calagna-an Agro-Industrial Corporation, and the Register of Deeds of Iloilo (Civil Case No. 10439) to nullify the decision of said court in Land Registration Case No. 567 dated December 3, 1940; to annul OCT No. 0-4 issued to the late Mariano Lacson pursuant to said judgment as well as the subsequent transfer certificate of title in the name of defendant corporation and to declare the reversion of the land in question and the improvements thereon to the State. The Republic alleged among other things, that the land involved is almost entirely timberland and, as such the land registration court did not acquire jurisdiction over the land; that the decision of December 3, 1940 had been appealed to the Court of Appeals (the last World War broke out and the records were destroyed) by the Director of Lands and Forestry; that the trial court could not have validly issued an order directing the issuance of a decree over the land in the absence of any reconstitution of the lost or destroyed pleadings of LRC No. 567.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On June 16, 1978, the lower court rendered a decision dismissing the Republic's complaint.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The Republic filed a motion for reconsideration and on December 17, 1979, the lower court issued an order setting aside the June 16, 1978 decision, the dispositive portion of theDecember 17, 1979 Order reading:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered setting aside the decision dated June 16, 1978 and rendering decision in its stead:chanrobles virtual law library

1) declaring the plaintiff the owner of the portion of Lot 1, Psu99817, with an area of 971.65 hectares indicated on the map (Exhibit M9, the portion being timberland and, therefore, undisposable land of the public domain;chanrobles virtual law library

2) declaring null and void ab initio Original Certificate of Title No. 0-4 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-71508 (Exhibit Q) as regards the said portion of 971.65 hectares:chanrobles virtual law library

3) ordering the defendant, Register of Deeds of Iloflo, to cancel Original Certificate of Title No. 0-4 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-71508;chanrobles virtual law library

4) declaring the defendants possessors in bad faith of the portion under litigation and not entitled to reimbursement of any and au improvements they may have introduced; andchanrobles virtual law library

5) ordering the defendants, heirs of Mariano Lacson and Calagna-an Agro-Industrial Corporation, to vacate the portion under litigation and to deliver to the plaintiff the possession of the said portion and all improvements thereon, without pronouncement as to costs. (pp. 75-76, Rollo)

After denial of the motion for reconsideration, the petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Order in its decision of November 7, 1985.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Hence, this Petition.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Petitioners contend that respondent court erred:'

a) In implicitlyholdingthattheLandRegistrationCourthas no jurisdiction in Land Reg. Case No. 567 (Mariano R. Lacson, applicant);chanrobles virtual law library

b) In not dismissing the reversion suit (Civil Case No. 10439) since there was an appeal in the registration proceedings, and the judgment therein has not been annulled;chanrobles virtual law library

c) In holding that petitioners should have reconstituted the records of Land Reg. Case No. 567, instead of placing the burden upon the State; andchanrobles virtual law library

d) In not holding that the State cannot "ventilate anew the factual and legal issues affecting the disposibility of subject land after the same had been placed by them in Land Registration Case No. 567" (pp. 81-82, Roll?)

We agree with the respondents when they said that:chanrobles virtual law library

1. The Court of First Instance of Iloilo did not acquire jurisdiction over the land in question, the same being timberland.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

2. The appeal of the government to Court of Appeals in the land registration proceedings did not bar the institution of the cancellation suit against the petitioners. The issuance of a decree over the land in dispute in 1946 and the corresponding certificate of title in 1947 rendered such an appeal impractical, necessitating therefor a remedy other than the said appeal.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

3. Petitioners had the burden to reconstitute the records of the land registration proceedings for after all they were the ones interested in preserving their alleged right to the disputed land.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

4. The land registration proceedings does not constitute res judicata, Two of the essential requisites namely, that the former judgment must be final and it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and parties are absent in this case. Be it noted that properties of the public domain can never be the subject of land registration proceedings.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, this petition is DISMISSED and the assailed decisi-'3n is hereby AFFIRMED.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

* Penned by Justice Mariano A. Zosa and concurred in by Justices Jorge R. Coquia, Floreliana Castro-Bartolome, and Bienvenido C. Ejercito.chanrobles virtual law library

** Penned by Judge Amelia K. Del Rosario.