G.R. No. 254021 - Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Philippine Bank of Communications Employees Association

The case concerns Lot No. 937, a 46,143-square meter parcel located in Cebu City, part of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate.
The Banilad Friar Lands have a history of multiple ownership disputes reaching the Supreme Court.

The Commonwealth of the Philippines filed an expropriation complaint against various Friar Lands owners for use by the Armed Forces under the National Defense Act.
Lot 937 was registered to Eutiquio Uy Godinez, married to Felisa Sy Cip.
The Commonwealth valued Lot 937 provisionally at PHP 1,845.72, deposited PHP 9,500 as payment for all lots, and supposedly took possession.
Felisa, administratrix of Eutiquio's estate, accepted PHP 1,845.72 as just compensation in 1939, supported by a CFI Decision Parcial and a Provincial Voucher dated May 25, 1939.
The CFI rendered a decision in 1940 confirming payments for other lots but considered Lot 937 resolved by the 1939 partial decision.
World War II disrupted possession and ownership, leading to subsequent ownership controversies.

Ramona U. Agustines, purportedly attorney-in-fact for Mariano Godinez (Eutiquio's son), filed a petition for reconstitution claiming loss of records and registered ownership of Mariano.
The CFI granted the petition in 1956, issuing reconstituted TCT No. RT-6757 in Mariano’s name based on a technical description, a tax declaration in Eutiquio's name, and a survey plan.

Mariano’s supposed attorneys-in-fact filed a reivindicatoria to claim ownership of Lot 937, alleging Philippine National Police construction and possession without just compensation by the Republic.
RTC Branch 9 ruled in favor of Mariano in 2002, holding that the Republic failed to prove just compensation payment.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, noting lack of evidentiary weight on the 1939 partial decision due to language issues.
Numerous subsequent legal actions were taken, including filings by Archangels Residents and AFP members, challenging possession and titles over Lot 937.

In 2013, the Republic (through DND) filed a complaint for cancellation of the reconstituted title based on allegations that the expropriation court already awarded Lot 937 to the Republic and just compensation was paid.
The Republic claimed Mariano and his agent misrepresented possession and non-encumbrance, leading to fraud in the reconstitution.
Marcos Mazy’s Capital, Inc. purchased Lot 937 from Mariano in 2018, obtained a new TCT (No. 107-2018002380), and joined as defendant in the cancellation case.
RTC Branch 12 dismissed the complaint, ruling issues were barred by res judicata; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.

The Court undertook ocular inspection of Lot 937 and the original records of the Expropriation Case and Reconstitution Case.
A Provincial Voucher evidencing payment of just compensation to Felisa Sy Cip was discovered in the Expropriation Case records.

Whether the reconstitution of title issued to Mariano was valid and lawful.
Whether the Republic had paid just compensation for Lot 937 during expropriation proceedings.
Whether the decision in the 1997 Reivindicatoria Case adjudging Mariano as owner is final and binding (res judicata).
Whether RTC Branch 12 had jurisdiction over the cancellation complaint.
Whether Mazy’s is an innocent purchaser for value of Lot 937.