EN BANC
G.R. No. L-27210 June 29, 1972
AGAPITO SUPIO, BRIGIDA SUPIO, Assisted by her husband Igmedio Osorio; MARCELINA SUPIO, Assisted by her husband Jose Gerprio; GAUDIOSA GAVORO, Assisted by her husband Lucio Eyap; GERONIMO GAVORO; NATIVIDAD GAVORO, single; AQUILINA GICANO, Assisted by her husband Godofredo Hermigoso; JOSE GAYONDATO; and PAULA GAYONDATO, single, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
BERNARDINO GARDE, MARIA GARDE (widow) and GAUDENClO GARDE, defendants-appellees.
Jose R. Edis for plaintiffs-appellants.
Jose Y. Hilado for defendants-appellees.
Separate Opinions
TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:
I agree with Mr. Justice Makasiar that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed unqualifiedly, and that the question of "which of the two titles should prevail" should not be left hanging.ℒαwρhi৷
The main opinion does affirm the appealed judgment which ordered the dismissal of the plaintiffs-appellants' complaint for partition against defendants-appellees on the express ground that "the original certificate of title for the same lot in the names of the defendants was still subsisting (and) it is obvious that (the "reconstituted") transfer certificate of title in the names of the plaintiffs (jointly with defendants) must be considered null and void,"1 and consequently, plaintiffs have no cause of action against defendants for partition of the lot in question.
The main opinion further expressly sustains defendants-appellees' defense of res adjudicatca2 by virtue of this Court's decision of May 17, 1922 in R.G. No. 17653 upholding defendants' and their predecessor's exclusive title and ownership over the said lot.3
While defendants still have a pending action in the land registration court for relief and for cancellation of the "reconstituted" title wrongfully issued in the names of of both plaintiffs and defendants, such action should now be held to be moot with this Court's affirmance of the appealed judgment, which resolved ahead the same issue and has already squarely declared the nullity of said "reconstituted" title and upheld the uncancelled original title issued exclusively in the name of defendants-appellants as clearly the only valid and existing title to the property.
I therefore vote for the unqualified affirmance of the appealed judgment.
Concepcion, C.J., concurs.
Footnotes
1 R.G. No. 17653.
Separate Opinions
MAKASIAR, J., concurring:
By reason of the principle of res judicata, WE cannot review or re-open Our decision of May 17, 1922 in Government vs. Gicano, et. al.;1 much less can the trial court or the cadastral court before which is pending appellees' petition for relief from the orders of the land court for reconstitution and cancellation of O.C.T., as well as for the issuance of T.C.T. No. T-41323 in favor of appellants. Hence, O.C.T. No. 15502 issued in favor of appellees covering Lot 915 of the Hinigaran Cadastre pursuant to Our 1922 decision should be categorically re-affirmed as the only valid title and should prevail, so that the cadastral court will have no alternative but to grant appellees' petition for relief and accordingly set aside its orders for reconstitution and cancellation of O.C.T. and direct the cancellation of T.C.T. No. T-41323, thus finally putting an end to all questions or disputes over the ownership of said Lot 915 and thereby saving the appellees further expense and anxiety. The dispositive portion of the main opinion penned by Mr. Justice Barredo, leaving it to the land court to decide which title should prevail, lends itself to protracting the litigation; because incidents may arise or may be provoked during the hearing on the petition for relief, which incidents may require Our resolution, depending upon the resourcefulness of appellants or their counsel, before the land court could decide the main issue.
Concepcion, C.J., and Castro, J., concur.
Footnotes
1 At page 6, main opinion; notes in parenthesis and emphasis supplied.
2 Idem, at page 9.
3 Idem, at pages 7-8.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
