Facts:

The case revolves around a conflict involving land registration in Cebu City, specifically concerning Lot 4673 of the Cadastral Survey of Cebu. The parties involved in the initial petition include Catalina Gabuya, Prudencio Gabuya, Felipa Jaca, Leonarda N. Tomakin, and Lucas Nadela, who filed a "Petition for Reconstitution of Lost Certificate of Title" before the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch I, on August 24, 1973. The petitioner, Constancio Abapo, along with private respondent Jovencio Abapo, and the Republic of the Philippines as represented by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, opposed this petition. Antonio A. Zosa sought to intervene in the proceedings as well. After the required notices and hearings, the court dismissed the application for registration, ordering the issuance of a reconstructed decree of registration for Lot 4673 in the name of Juana Gabuya, while also preserving the rights of the oppositors for any recovery claims they might have. Sub

...

Facts:

Background of the Petition

• A petition for reconstitution of a lost certificate of title and/or registration of title was filed by Catalina Gabuya, Prudencio Gabuya, Felipa Jaca, Leonarda N. Tomakin, and Lucas Nadela.
• The petition concerned Lot 4673 of the Cadastral Survey of Cebu, situated in Cebu City.
• The petition alleged that an original certificate of title had been issued (sometime in 1938 or thereafter) but was lost or destroyed due to the effects of war, despite diligent efforts to recover it.

Parties Involved and Their Positions

• Petitioners and opposing parties:
• Constancio Abapo appeared as petitioner opposing the reconstitution petition initially.
• Jovencio Abapo was identified as a private respondent.
• The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, also opposed the petition.
• Intervention:
• Antonio A. Zosa, a private respondent, was allowed to intervene and later became the mover of a motion for reconsideration and/or clarification of the dispositive portion of the lower court’s decision.

Lower Court Proceedings and Decisions

• First Decision (August 24, 1973)
• The Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch I, rendered a decision dismissing the petition for registration.
• The ruling directed the Land Registration Commissioner to issue a reconstructed decree of registration for Lot No. 4673 based on a historical decree dated November 3, 1938.
• The order noted that subsequent transactions affecting the property (involving Antonio A. Zosa and Remedios Abelgas) should be registered, with a reservation that oppositors might file an independent civil action.
• An explicit annotation concerning an eighty-five (85) square meter portion—related to a road right of way agreement—was to be recorded in the forthcoming certificate of title.

ii. Ordered the confirmation and registration of title to Lot No. 4673-A in the names of Constancio Abapo and Jovencio Abapo in equal undivided shares.

IV. The Land Registration Commission’s Report (March 9, 1977)

Appeals and Final Controversy

• Constancio Abapo filed a motion seeking to have the November 29, 1973 order set aside and the original August 24, 1973 decision reinstated.
• The petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction was subsequently filed to annul the lower court’s November 29, 1973 order and to prevent further registration proceedings on Lot No. 4673.
• The crux of the matter centered on whether there existed a valid title (in view of the alleged decree of registration) that needed to be reconstituted, thereby limiting the court’s jurisdiction to merely deciding on reconstitution and not on ownership claims.

Issue:

• Whether there was an existing valid decree of registration (i.e. the issuance of Decree No. 687556 dated November 3, 1938) that effectively created a certificate of title, even though the original certificate was lost.
• Whether the lower court, in its modified decision (November 29, 1973), overstepped its jurisdiction by ordering the registration of parts of Lot No. 4673, thus transcending its mandate which was confined to the reconstitution of the lost certificate of title.
• Whether the reconstitution petition, as filed, fell within the scope of the law (Republic Act No. 26) and adhered to its limitations regarding determination of title versus the reissuance of a lost certificate.
• Whether the principle of res judicata applies, given that the decree of registration had already been issued and had become conclusive upon all parties affected, thereby barring a re-adjudication on the matter.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)