Case Digest (G.R. No. 192486)
Facts:
Ruperta Cano Vda. de Viray and Jesus Carlo Gerard Viray v. Spouses Jose Usi and Amelita Usi, G.R. No. 192486, November 21, 2012, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are Ruperta Cano Vda. de Viray (surviving spouse of the late Jesus Viray) and, nominally, Jesus Carlo Gerard Viray (deceased April 1992); respondents are Spouses Jose and Amelita Usi. The dispute concerns parcels that once comprised Lot No. 733, Cad-305-D (TCT No. 141‑RP) in Masantol, Pampanga. On April 28–29, 1986, Geodetic Engr. Abdon Fajardo prepared a subdivision (the Fajardo Plan) dividing Lot 733 into Lots 733‑A to 733‑F; the next day Ellen P. Mendoza executed notarized deeds of absolute sale conveying Lot 733‑F to Jesus Viray and Lot 733‑A to Spouses Avelino and Margarita Viray. The Fajardo Plan had not then been LMB‑approved and the purchasers did not annotate the original TCT.
Four years later, on August 20, 1990, Mendoza, Emerenciana Vda. de Mallari and the Usis executed a Subdivision Agreement (the 1st SA) adopting a different LMB‑approved plan prepared by Engr. Alfeo Galang (the Galang Plan), subdividing Lot 733 into Lots A–C and purporting to allocate Lots 733‑A to Mallari, 733‑B to the Usis, and 733‑C to Mendoza. TCT 141‑RP was canceled and derivative titles (TCT Nos. 1584‑RP, 1585‑RP, 1586‑RP) were issued. On April 5, 1991, Mendoza and others executed a second Subdivision Agreement (the 2nd SA) subdividing Lot 733‑C into Lots 733‑C‑1 to C‑13 under a Galang plan approved by the LMB on March 1, 1991; the Usis thereby obtained TCT Nos. 1585‑RP (733‑B), 2092‑RP (733‑C‑1) and 2101‑RP (733‑C‑10). A later LMB ocular inspection and survey (Engr. Angelito Nicdao, June 28, 1999) showed that Lot 733‑A (Fajardo) lies within Lot 733‑B (Galang) and Lot 733‑F (Fajardo) largely coincides with Lots 733‑C‑8 to C‑12 (Galang) and part of C‑10 — i.e., overlapping allocations.
These overlapping transactions produced multiple suits. Relevant ones: (1) Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale cases (Civil Cases Nos. 88‑0265‑M and 88‑0283‑M) in which the RTC, by Joint Decision (Aug. 1, 1989), found for the Virays; the CA and this Court (G.R. No. 122287, Decision Dec. 11, 1995) effectively affirmed that dismissal and finality followed. (2) Forcible entry case (MCTC Civil Case No. 91(13)) filed Nov. 19, 1991 by Jesus Viray against the Usis, decided July 29, 1998 in favor of Viray; that judgment became final and executory and related attempts by the Usis to annul it were dismissed at the RTC and CA, and their petition to this Court (G.R. No. 154538) was denied (Feb. 12, 2003). (3) Cancellation of Titles case filed by Vda. de Viray (Civil Case No. (02)‑1164(M)) remains pending in RTC Branch 54. (4) On December 12, 2001 the Usis filed a petition for accion publiciana/reivindicatoria (Civil Case No. 01‑1118(M)) seeking possession/recovery of Lots 733‑B, 733‑C‑1 and 733‑C‑10 (Galang Plan) — the RTC dismissed that petition on June 21, 2007 for failure of proof; the Usis appealed to the CA (CA‑G.R. CV No. 90344). The CA reversed on July 24, 2009, declaring the Usis owners...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely and seriously err in reversing the RTC decision dismissing respondents’ petition (i.e., is the CA judgment subject to certiorari under Rule 45)?
- Whether the subdivision agreements of August 20, 1990 and April 5, 1991 (the 1st and 2nd SAs) constitute valid partitions of co‑owners’ pro‑indiviso shares that effectively transferred ownership to the Usis.
- Whether the Usis’ accion publiciana/reivindicatoria is barred by res judicata because of prior final judgments (the RTC/CA affirmations of the April 29, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)