G.R. No. L-26523 - Yusingco vs. Ong Hing Lian

The controversy arose from an earlier petition for the reconstitution of certificates of title covering Lots Nos. 519, 520, 1014, 1015, 1016, and 1020 pursuant to Republic Act No. 26.
Appellant Pelagio Yusingco, acting as one of the children of the late Alfonso Yusingco, asserted that, following their father’s death, his siblings formed a partnership known as Alfonso Yusingco Hermanos to carry on their deceased father’s business, and that the certificates of title had been transferred to the partnership.
The petition sought (a) the reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates and (b) the cancellation of extant annotations relating to mortgages, with the issuance of new titles in the names of the heirs of Alfonso Yusingco.

The petition was filed on February 13, 1952 and was opposed by Ong Hing Lian, acting in his capacity as administrator of the estate of the late Ong Bonpin, who claimed that he and his co-heirs were the rightful owners and possessors of the lots as successors of Ong Bonpin.
The lower court (Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte) denied the petition, basing its ruling primarily on findings that Ong Bonpin and his heirs had exercised ownership by possessing and improving the lots.
The case was remanded by the Court of Appeals on more than one occasion for the determination of evidence regarding the status of the mortgages held by the Philippine Refining Company and Carlos Palanca.
In a decision rendered on July 30, 1964, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the lower court’s denial, noting:

An extrajudicial sale on August 11, 1936—conducted by Notary Public Hernando J.C. Corvera—resulted in the acquisition of undivided halves of the lots by Ong Bonping.
A subsequent publication or auction sale was alleged to have occurred on November 11, 1941 for the remaining interests, though the evidence for this later sale was found to be insufficient.
The mortgage credits in favor of Philippine Refining Company and Carlos Palanca were ruled as fully settled, as neither creditor appeared nor presented evidence to the contrary.

On October 30, 1964, plaintiffs-appellants (a group of Yusingcos, with Pelagio being one among them) filed an accion reivindicatoria with damages and a request for a preliminary injunction. They sought possession and ownership of the disputed lots, claiming that:

They were the children and heirs of the late Alfonso Yusingco.
Title to the lots had been originally registered under Act 496 in the name of Alfonso Yusingco.
After their father’s death, the certificates of title were transferred to the partnership, but were later lost or destroyed during World War II.
The defendant, Ong Hing Lian, had surreptitiously taken possession under a false color of title during the wartime period.

Defendant raised motions to dismiss on several grounds, including that the action was barred by res judicata and the statute of limitations, and argued that the plaintiffs lacked capacity, stated no valid cause of action, and were estopped by laches.
On June 17, 1965, the lower court dismissed the case.
Subsequent procedural developments included:

Motions for substitution arising from the death of defendant Ong Hing Lian, with his heirs eventually being substituted as defendants-appellees and Aniceto Bonpin being designated the administrator of the estate.
The case reaching this Court on appeal from the dismissal order.

Whether the prior final judgment in the reconstitution suit, which determined issues of title and ownership (despite being in a different form of action), bars the present accion reivindicatoria.
Whether there exists an identity of subject matter and cause of action between the reconstitution proceedings and the current ownership recovery suit.

Whether the evidence of an extrajudicial sale held on August 11, 1936 (and the alleged auction sale on November 11, 1941) is sufficient to establish that the defendant and his successors acquired ownership of the disputed lots.
Whether the construction of substantial improvements by the oppositors and their long possession, combined with the petitioner’s failure to timely assert rights (for example, through timely protest or tax payments), connotes a relinquishment of the claim by the appellants.

Whether the delay by appellant Pelagio Yusingco in asserting his claim (approximately 28 years from the onset of possession in 1936 to filing the current action) constitutes laches, thereby barring his claim.
Whether laches should equally apply to all co-heirs or only to those who actively participated in the earlier proceedings.

Whether the Court of First Instance, acting in its capacity as a Land Registration Court, had the authority to decide on issues of ownership in the reconstitution proceedings.
Whether the exceptions to the general rule on limited jurisdiction of land registration courts—based on mutual consent and full opportunity to litigate—were satisfied in the reconstitution case.