Valisno v. Plan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners-spouses Flordeliza and Honorio Valisno purchased two parcels of land on August 21, 1964, declared them for taxation, and exercised possession. On August 12, 1968, private respondent Vicencio Q. Cayaba, claiming ownership by virtue of a deed of sale, ousted the caretaker installed by petitioners and erected a six-door apartment on the land. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of possession, which was decided in their favor by the trial court. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the land occupied by the respondent was not sufficiently identified with the land described in the complaint, and that the respondent was the actual possessor with a just title. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court upon denial of petitioners' petition for review on certiorari. Subsequently, private respondent filed an application for registration of title to the lands, citing the deed of sale and the Court of Appeals decision. Petitioners filed an opposition, which private respondent moved to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners challenge the orders of the respondent judge dismissing their opposition and denying their motion for reconsideration, arguing that res judicata cannot be set up in a land registration case and that the requisites for res judicata were not met.
Issue(s)
Whether a motion to dismiss based on res judicata is proper in a land registration proceeding. Whether the requisites for res judicata are present in the case, considering the prior decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 60142-R. Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the opposition.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The dismissal of the petitioners' opposition by the respondent judge is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of a motion to dismiss in land registration proceedings: The Court held that while the Land Registration Act does not explicitly provide for a motion to dismiss, the Rules of Court can be applied suppletorily. Citing Duran v. Oliva, the Court sustained the dismissal of an application for registration upon a motion to dismiss filed by oppositors when it was indubitably shown that the court lacked jurisdiction because the lands were previously registered in the oppositors' names. The Court reasoned that allowing the registration proceeding to continue would be a mere exercise in futility. The Court clarified that the irregularity complained of by petitioners stems from the infrequent use of such a motion in land registration cases, not from it being unauthorized. The Court also re-evaluated the case of Abellera v. Farol, noting a dissent by Justice Paras which supported the allowance of a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata, citing cases where final judgments in ordinary civil cases were held to be res judicata in registration cases. On the presence of res judicata: The Court found that the principle of res judicata operates in the case. The requisites for res judicata were met: (a) the former judgment (CA-G.R. No. 60142-R) was final and rendered by a court with jurisdiction; (b) it was a judgment on the merits; and (c) there was identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the previous civil action for recovery of possession and the current land registration case. The inclusion of private respondent Cayaba's co-owner, Bienvenido Noriega, Sr., did not create a difference in parties, as one co-owner can defend the interests of the co-ownership. The subject matter was the same parcels of land. The cause of action was also the same, as the complaint for recovery of possession (accion reinvindicatoria) and the application for registration both fundamentally involve claims of ownership and seek to exclude others. The Court emphasized that the employment of different forms of action does not prevent the application of the principle that the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated, citing Dais v. Court of First Instance of Capiz and Yusingco v. Ong Hing Lian. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners had their "day in court" in the previous civil case and the appeal, where their claims were fully aired. The Court reiterated that the decision in CA-G.R. No. 60142-R had attained finality and remained the law of the case between the parties. Therefore, dismissing the opposition on the ground of res judicata was a proper exercise of judicial authority, serving the interest of practicality and convenience by preventing the relitigation of issues already settled by a final judgment. The Court explicitly abandoned the ruling in Abellera v. Farol that res judicata cannot be set up in a land registration case.
Main Doctrine
A motion to dismiss based on res judicata is permissible in land registration proceedings, and the principle of res judicata applies when there is identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action, even if the forms of action differ.