G.R. No. 123780 - Cabuay, Jr. vs. Malvar

The case involves conflicting final and executory decisions of the Supreme Court concerning the ownership of a parcel of land in Barrio De la Paz, Antipolo City, covering 19 hectares, 48 ares, and 88 centares approximately.
Petitioner: Group Commander, Intelligence and Security Group of the Philippine Army, represented by Colonel Pedro R. Cabuay, Jr.
Respondents: Dr. Potenciano Malvar and Marcelino Lopez; intervening parties include the Heirs of Elino Adia, represented by Juliana Adia.

Early possession began in 1920 when Fermin Lopez occupied the land for taxation purposes.
Hermogenes Lopez, son of Fermin, continued the possession and filed a homestead application (No. 138612) which was approved by the Director of Lands on February 7, 1939.
Following approval, a patent was issued in favor of Hermogenes Lopez; however, before a formal certificate of title could be issued, subsequent transfers occurred.
Hermogenes Lopez transferred his rights to Ambrosio Aguilar by a deed of sale executed on July 31, 1959.

On August 24, 1944, the land was registered in the name of Fernando Gorospe under OCT No. 537, which was later canceled and replaced by subsequent Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) following sales between various parties.
A series of litigation ensued regarding the conflicting registrations, with Hermogenes Lopez and later Ambrosio Aguilar seeking judicial recognition of their ownership.

The Court of First Instance and subsequently the Court of Appeals rendered decisions that initially favored the Lopez side.
On December 21, 1959, Hermogenes Lopez filed a complaint to annul OCT No. 537 and the derived TCTs; however, his complaint was dismissed for lack of being the real party-in-interest as he had already transferred the property.
Ambrosio Aguilar then instituted a similar action (Civil Case No. 24873) that eventually led to decisions affirming his, and by extension his successors’ (the Lopez heirs), ownership.

In the early 1980s, the Heirs of Elino Adia began asserting their adverse claim by filing protests with the Bureau of Lands (later the Lands Management Bureau or LMB).
The protests included challenging the authenticity of the approved homestead patent of Hermogenes Lopez. Their claims led to administrative proceedings and charges against the then Regional Director, which were eventually dismissed.
Subsequent litigation was launched by the Lopez heirs in 1984 (Civil Case No. 463-A) to cancel the 1959 deed of sale, with judgments being rendered in their favor.
Meanwhile, the Adia heirs advanced their claim through separate protests and administrative applications, culminating in an LMB decision (B.L. Claim 653) that favored reconstitution of the homestead application in the name of Elino Adia.
The conflicting judicial decisions emerged:

G.R. No. 90380 (First Division, 1990) reaffirmed the ownership of the Lopez heirs based on continuous possession and full compliance with the Public Land Act.
G.R. No. 110900 (Third Division, 1993/1999) sided with the Adia heirs and set aside the earlier favorable ruling for the Lopez heirs.

Finally, issues arose when Col. Cabuay, Jr. filed a petition seeking clarification on the validity of the two conflicting decisions, which eventually reached the Court En Banc for resolution.

After prolonged litigation and motions for reconsideration by both parties, the Court En Banc took up the case to resolve the impasse between conflicting decisions (G.R. Nos. 90380 and 110900).
The contentious issues included the authority of the Lands Management Bureau in disposing of property that had allegedly already acquired private status through long and uninterrupted possession and whether the decisions of lower divisions were binding.
The En Banc decision was rendered in the context of determining the true and lawful owner of the subject property.

As between the Lopez heirs and the Adia heirs, which group lawfully owns the disputed parcel of land?
Whether the continuous, open, and uninterrupted possession for more than 30 years under the Public Land Act had effectively converted the public land into private property, thereby vesting ownership in the Lopez heirs.

Whether the LMB retained jurisdiction to dispose of the land once it had been segregated from the public domain by long-term possession.
Whether the LMB’s decision (favoring the Adia heirs) can be binding in light of the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in G.R. No. 90380 affirming the Lopez heirs’ title.

How to reconcile the conflicting decisions of the First Division (G.R. No. 90380) and the Third Division (G.R. No. 110900) on the issue of ownership and on the effect of administrative actions by the LMB.
Whether the principle of res judicata and the finality of Supreme Court judgments preclude the reconsideration of earlier decisions and should bind all government agencies.