G.R. No. 60443 - Alvarez, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

The argument that the decision in CA-G.R. No. 7122 should be considered final and executory is flawed.
The Court of Appeals did not indicate that the prior judgment was on the merits.
For res judicata to apply, the prior judgment must be one on the merits; otherwise, it cannot bar subsequent proceedings.
The petitioners did not invoke the doctrine of res judicata until the appeal, which constitutes a waiver of the defense.

The petitioners claimed to have been in actual and adverse possession of the property, which the Court of Appeals did not accept.
The Court concluded that Constantino Alvarez, Jr. was merely an administrator of the property, not an owner.
Tax declarations indicated that the declared owner was Segundo Garcia, thus the possession of Constantino Alvarez, Jr. could not be deemed adverse and could not support a claim of prescription.

In April 1936, the Director of Lands initiated a petition for the settlement of titles over certain lands, including Lot No. 689.
An order of general default was entered on April 1, 1942, due to a lack of claims on the lot.
A petition to lift this order was filed by the heirs of Segundo Garcia Fernandez in 1940 but was dismissed on technical grounds.
In 1956, Constantino Alvarez, Jr. and others filed a motion to reopen the proceedings, claiming to be heirs of the original owners.

The Cadastral Court granted the motion to reopen and allowed the heirs of Segundo Garcia Fernandez to file their claims.
The trial was set, but the Fernandez Children failed to appear, allowing Constantino Alvarez, Jr. to present evidence ex parte, leading to a judgment in their favor in 1958.
The Fernandez Children later filed a petition for review, alleging fraud based on discrepancies in the claims of Constantino Alvarez, Jr. regarding the ownership of Lot No. 689.

The Cadastral Court's denial of the Fernandez Children’s petition was overturned by the Court of Appeals in 1969, which found doubts in the claims of Constantino Alvarez, Jr.
The Appellate Court directed a remand for further evidence from both parties.
After a new trial, the Cadastral Court ruled in favor of Constantino Alvarez, Jr. again, citing laches and prescription.
The Fernandez Children appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the Cadastral Court's decision in 1982, affirming their ownership of Lot No. 689.

The petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals failed to apply the provisions of Section 5 of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, which was deemed...continue reading