Case Digest (G.R. No. L-55152)
Facts:
Valisno v. Plan, G.R. No. 55152, August 19, 1986, the Supreme Court En Banc, Fernan, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are Flordeliza L. Valisno and Honorio D. Valisno; respondents are Hon. Judge Andres B. Plan, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Isabela, Second Branch, and Vicencio Q. Cayaba.In August 1964 petitioners purchased two parcels of land in Cauayan, Isabela, from the heirs of Agapita V. Blanco, declared them in their name for tax purposes, and exercised exclusive possession through a caretaker. On June 30, 1967 a deed of sale from the heirs of Dr. Epifanio Q. Verano purportedly conveyed the same land to private respondent Vicencio Q. Cayaba and one Bienvenido G. Noriega. On August 12, 1968 Cayaba allegedly ousted petitioners' caretaker and built a six-door apartment on the property.
Petitioners sued for recovery of possession in the Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. Branch II-895) on January 22, 1970; the trial court ruled for petitioners but the Court of Appeals reversed in CA-G.R. No. 60142-R (decision promulgated January 19, 1978), dismissing petitioners' complaint on identification and title grounds. A petition for review to the Supreme Court was denied due course.
On September 25, 1979 Cayaba filed an application for registration in LRC Case No. Br. II-N-204, relying on the deed of sale and the appellate decision. Petitioners filed an opposition on April 26, 1980. Cayaba moved to dismiss the opposition on res judicata grounds; the Court of First Instance granted the motion and dismissed the opposition by order dated July 2, 1980, and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration on September 19, 1980.
Petitioners brought a petition for certiorari with prayer for temporary restraining order contesting those two orders, alleging grave abuse of discretion and invoking Abellera v. Farol as controlling precedent. The Supreme Court, on April 1, 1981, gave due course to...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial judge commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners' opposition to the application for registration by a motion to dismiss?
- May the plea of res judicata be raised in a motion to dismiss in land registration proceedings (i.e., is a motion to dismiss proper in such proceedings)?
- Do the earlier proceedings (Civil Case No. Branch II-895 and CA-G.R. No. 60142-R) satisfy the requirements for res judicata so as to bar petitioners' ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)