Title
Heirs of Adalid vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 122202
Decision Date
May 26, 2005
Heirs of Faustina Adalid sought annulment of titles over Lot No. 211, claiming fraudulent cadastral decree. Court dismissed case, applying **res judicata** due to prior final judgment in Civil Case No. 4049, affirming ownership dispute settled.
annulment of titles
damages
res judicata
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 122202)

Factual Background: Lot No. 211, the Cadastral Proceedings, and the Titles

Petitioners’ complaint in Civil Case No. 136-B alleged continuous possession and occupancy of Lot No. 211, located along Burgos St., Bais City, in the concept of owner, through their ascendants and predecessors-in-interest since before 1900. They claimed that the property had been declared for taxation beginning in 1906 in the name of Faustina (Cristina Adalid), then declared from 1925 up to the present in the name of Juan Jamito and brothers, who were described as grandsons of Faustina. They alleged that they introduced improvements and that Lot No. 211 had been surveyed on November 15 and 16, 1916.

Petitioners also relied on proceedings in Cadastral Case No. 7, identified as LRC Cadastral Records No. 161. They alleged that they were included in the list of claimants for Lot No. 211, yet Cadastral Decree No. 260144 was allegedly issued on June 6, 1927 in favor of the conjugal partnership of Gorgonio Montesa and Manuela Teves despite their assertion that they had never been actual occupants. They further alleged that the decree was issued based on fraudulent ownership declarations made in the answers filed in that cadastral case by Maria Zerna and Gorgonio Montesa. Petitioners claimed that Original Certificate of Title No. 5367 was issued on July 29, 1927, that it was later cancelled, and that Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4344 was issued to the Gregorio spouses, whom they alleged to have known of the alleged nullity of the original certificate. Finally, petitioners alleged that the Gregorio spouses, and their predecessors-in-interest, had never been in possession of the land.

The private respondent Gregorio spouses denied the material allegations. They asserted that spouses Gorgonio Montesa and Manuela Teves had been the owners and actual occupants of the property even before the issuance of Cadastral Decree No. 260144, and they invoked the earlier adjudication in Civil Case No. 4049, described as a decision dated 22 February 1974 of the then Court of First Instance, Branch 1, Negros Oriental, later affirmed by the Court of Appeals. They raised affirmative and special defenses, including prescription, laches, operation of the Torrens system, and res judicata, and they moved for dismissal. The Register of Deeds of Bais City likewise denied the allegations and asserted that the issuance of the cadastral decree and corresponding title had been made after due notice and hearing by the cadastral court, and that the action was already barred by res judicata.

Petitioners opposed the motion to dismiss. They argued that they never recognized the Gregorio spouses as rightful owners and that the latter were not innocent purchasers for value. They maintained that the prior judgment in Civil Case No. 4049 did not bar the case because the issue in that earlier case involved the validity or nullity of a different cadastral decree—identified by petitioners as Cadastral Decree No. 260177—whereas Civil Case No. 136-B involved Cadastral Decree No. 260144. They emphasized that the subject matters were different because of the different cadastral decree numbers.

Trial Court Proceedings: Dismissal on Res Judicata

On 19 November 1990, the trial court ordered the transmission of the records of Civil Case No. 4049 for the disposition of the motion to dismiss and the opposition.

After due hearing, on 22 January 1992, the trial court dismissed Civil Case No. 136-B, holding that the requisites of res judicata were present. The trial court explained that Lot No. 211 of the Bais Cadastre, though originally titled under Cadastral Case No. 26(0)144, was the subject of Civil Case No. 4049. It further ruled that the reference to Cadastral Decree No. 260177 in the earlier decision was a typographical error, because the complaint in that prior case specifically mentioned Cadastral Decree No. 260144. The trial court acknowledged a similar misstatement involving another decree number (described as 260977) but concluded that the records consistently referred to Lot No. 211 and G.L.R.O. Cadastral Record No. 161. It stated that the mis-stated decree number was not controlling for identifying the property, and it observed that the mis-stated number clearly covered Lot No. 303, which was allegedly an entirely different land to Lot No. 211.

The trial court also noted that the judgment in Civil Case No. 4049 had become final and ruled that, given the identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action, the present suit could not proceed. It thus dismissed the complaint.

Petitioners sought reconsideration, which the trial court denied. They appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending, among others, that the trial court had no authority to treat the decree number as a typographical error, that it erred in treating the final judgment in Civil Case No. 4049 as a bar, and that it erred in dismissing the complaint.

Court of Appeals Ruling: Identity of Property and Application of Res Judicata

On 28 April 1995, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal in toto. It held that petitioners had erroneously assumed that the trial court had amended or modified the final judgment in Civil Case No. 4049. The appellate court ruled that the trial court had not made new pronouncements on the earlier issues. Instead, it merely found that the mention of Cadastral Decree No. 260177 was a typographical error in addressing petitioners’ contention that the prior case and the present case involved different properties.

The Court of Appeals further reasoned that the cadastral decree number was not the only basis for identifying the property. It pointed to the detailed land description in Civil Case No. 4049 and held that the property there was the same property involved in Civil Case No. 136-B. It emphasized that petitioners’ own complaint identified the property subject of dispute as that covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4344, and it stated that Civil Case No. 4049 also concerned the lot covered by TCT No. T-4344. It cited as the most convincing circumstance that the dispositive portion of the prior decision specifically mentioned Lot No. 211 and not Lot 303.

Applying the doctrine of res judicata, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court committed no error in finding the requisites satisfied. It denied reconsideration through a Resolution dated 29 September 1995.

Petitioners’ Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari on 20 November 1995, now including the previously unwilling co-plaintiffs—Alicia, Ana, Marissa, Cherryl, and Donna, all surnamed Jamito—as petitioners. The Supreme Court record also reflected the substitution of private respondent Herman Gregorio by his heirs following his death.

Petitioners assigned multiple errors, but the Supreme Court identified two threshold issues: first, whether the trial court was correct in holding that the mention of Cadastral Decree No. 260177 in Civil Case No. 4049 was a typographical error; and second, whether the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 4049 barred the relitigation of the present case. Resolution of these threshold issues was deemed to render unnecessary review of the remaining assigned errors.

Supreme Court’s Resolution of the Threshold Issues

On the first issue, petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals’ position in the dismissal case amounted to an amendment or modification of a final judgment in Civil Case No. 4049, contrary to the rule that once a decision becomes final and executory, no further amendment or correction may be made except to correct clerical errors or mistakes or to order execution. The Court rejected the premise that the trial court modified the earlier judgment.

The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not order any amendment to the final decision. It merely made a factual finding, after reviewing the records of Civil Case No. 4049, that the reference to Cadastral Decree No. 260177 was typographically misstated because the complaint in that case specifically mentioned Cadastral Decree No. 260144. It described the trial court’s explanation as based on established facts from the prior case, including that Lot No. 211 of the Bais Cadastre was titled under Cadastral Case No. 260144 and that Original Certificate of Title No. 5367 was issued on July 29, 1927 and later transferred to the Gregorio defendants, resulting in Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4344.

The Supreme Court also adopted the reasoning that, in any event, identity of property could be established through other means besides the cadastral decree number. It underscored that the property in Civil Case No. 4049 was covered by TCT No. T-4344, the same title petitioners themselves identified as the one covered by the property subject of Civil Case No. 136-B. It noted that the dispositive portion of Civil Case No. 4049 specifically mentioned Lot No. 211, which left no other conclusion as to identity of the subject matter.

On the second issue, the Supreme Court ruled affirmatively that the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 4049 barred the present suit. It applied the controlling principle of res judicata and restated its requisites: (1) a former final judgment rendered on the merits; (2) jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties in the former case; and (3) identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the first and second actions.

The Supreme Court held that there was no dispute that Civil Case No. 4049 had attained finality, and it characterized this as admitted by petitioners. It also found that the court that rendered the earlier judgment had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter and that the earlier case was decided on the merits after due hearing.

Petitioners argued that there was no identity of parties because certain individuals and the Register of Deeds of Bais City were not parties in the earlier case. The Supreme Co

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms