Gitgano v. Borromeo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns Lot No. 2359-D. In 1969, several individuals applied for the registration of portions of Lot No. 2359 before the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch III, in Land Registration Case No. R-736. Rosalia Diano opposed these applications, claiming inheritance of the entire Lot No. 2359, including Lot No. 2359-D, which was not part of the initial applications. The court initially rendered a decision on September 18, 1969, confirming the titles of the applicants for specific portions (A, B, C, F, G, H). Subsequently, on November 3, 1969, the court issued an amended order, adjudicating Lot No. 2359-D in favor of Rosalia Diano. 2. Procedural History: Following the amended order of November 3, 1969, no appeal was filed, and a decree of registration was issued in 1969. Gregorio Gitgano, the petitioner, later filed a petition for relief from judgment, which was dismissed. He then initiated two separate civil cases for reconveyance of Lot No. 2359-D against Rosalia Diano. The first reconveyance case, Civil Case No. 11663, was dismissed. The second reconveyance case, Civil Case No. 12828, was also dismissed, specifically on the ground of being barred by a prior judgment. Gitgano's subsequent petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals challenging the dismissal of Civil Case No. 12828 was also dismissed. Thereafter, Gitgano filed the present case, Civil Case No. 13513, seeking to annul the November 3, 1969 amendatory judgment. The Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch IV, dismissed Civil Case No. 13513, leading to the current petition. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch IV, which dismissed Civil Case No. R-13513. The petitioner argues that the November 3, 1969 order, adjudicating Lot No. 2359-D to Rosalia Diano, is null and void because it lacks findings of fact or law and contradicts the original decision. The issues raised are whether the prior dismissals of Civil Cases No. R-11663 and R-12828 bar the present action to annul the judgment, and whether the November 3, 1969 order is indeed void. The petitioner contends that the dismissals of the reconveyance cases do not preclude this annulment action and that the amendatory order itself is fundamentally flawed.
Issue(s)
Whether the orders dismissing Civil Case No. R-11663 and Civil Case No. R-12828, both for reconveyance, which have already become final, bar the action to annul the amendatory judgment of the land registration court of November 3, 1969. Whether the order of the land registration court dated November 3, 1969, is null and void.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Order dismissing Civil Case No. R-13513 is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether prior dismissals bar the present action: The Court affirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No. R-13513. It held that Section 38 of the Land Registration Act (Act 496) provides that a decree of registration becomes indefeasible and conclusive after one year from its entry and cannot be opened or reviewed, even on the ground of fraud. The petitioner's action for annulment was filed more than three years after the issuance of the decree. Furthermore, the petitioner had already filed two previous cases for reconveyance of Lot No. 2359-D, both of which were dismissed. The second reconveyance case was dismissed on the ground of being barred by prior judgment, and this dismissal was upheld by the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the present action for annulment is barred by prior judgments under the principle of res judicata. On the issue of whether the order of November 3, 1969, is null and void: The Court found no merit in the contention that the order of November 3, 1969, was null and void. The petitioner's claims that the order was not based on any finding of fact or law and was repugnant to the original decision were the same grounds raised in the previous dismissed cases for reconveyance. The Court reiterated that after the lapse of one year, a decree of registration is no longer open to review or attack, even if attended by fraud. The remedy for a landowner whose property was erroneously registered is an action for reconveyance, which the petitioner had already pursued unsuccessfully. The evidence presented by the petitioner did not clearly show the nullity of the order in question. The Court emphasized that litigation must end, and once a judgment becomes final, the issues raised should be laid to rest.
Main Doctrine
An action for annulment of a decree of registration filed more than one year after its issuance, and after prior actions for reconveyance based on the same grounds have been dismissed, is barred by prior judgment and by Section 38 of the Land Registration Act (Act 496).