1. That at the time the instant case was commenced, they were already the registered owners of 480 square meters as shown by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 16922, dated January 29, 1960, pursuant to deeds of sale executed at an earlier date by the late Fausto Soy;

2. That at the time this suit was instituted, the said Fausto Soy was no longer the owner in fee simple, which fact plaintiffs already knew being residents of Bonuan where the property in question is situated and where herein spouses likewise reside;

3. That inspite of the foregoing, plaintiffs deliberately concealed this suit from the herein-named spouses by not including them as indispensable parties-defendants pursuant to Sections 2 and 7 of Rule 3 of the New Rules of Court, and likewise failed and omitted to inform the Honorable Court pursuant to Section 9, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, of such fact which, it been conveyed would have been a compulsory basis for the Honorable Court to summon their appearance, for without their presence, no valid judgment could ever be rendered.

A. Stipulation of Facts as proposed by the Intervenors (Gonzales spouses) and admitted by the plaintiffs, to wit:

l. That the land is originally covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 49661 (now Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3904, Dagupan City), Record No. 916, Case No. 35 in the name of Fausto Soy;

2. That on January 22, 1941, Fausto Soy sold 253 square meter of the land to Francisco Landingin, . . .

3. That on July 22, 1954, Antonio Soy and Gregoria Miranda sold 240 square meters of the said land to Juanita Gonzales and Coronacion Ganaden as intervenors herein . . . The basis of the vendors' right was pursuant to a deed of donation executed by Fausto Soy in their favor, described as Doc. No. 201, Page No. 4, Bk. III, Series of 1952, notarial register of Maximo Landingin;

4. That on September 22, 1954, TCT No. 9141 was issued. Therein was indicated the following as registered owners: Fausto Soy with an area of 480 sq. meters, Pio Siapno, 253 sq. m. and Juanito Gonzales and Coronacion Ganaden, 240 sq. m.;

5. That on March 3, 1958 said co-owners subdivided the pursuant to a deed of confirmation and subdivision, registered March 4, 1958;

6. That on January 27, 1960, Fausto Soy sold 240 sq. m. of the land to Juanita Gonzales and Coronacion Ganaden by means of Doc. No. 15, Page 23, Bk. VII, Series of 1960, notarial register of Maximino Landingin, registered on January 29,1960;

7. That on January 29, 1960, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 16922 was issued to Juanita Gonzales, wherein was indicated his share as co-owner of 480 square meters; and Fausto Soy, 240 square meters;

8. That on March 11, 1965, Fausto Soy sold 140 square meters of the land to intervenors herein by means of Doc. No. 112, Page 53, Bk. XI, Series of 1965 of the Notarial Register of Maximino Landingin registered on October 31, 1967;

9. That on April l4, 1965, plaintiffs filed the instant complaint for partition against Fausto Soy;

10. That on April 14, 1965, plaintiffs filed a notice of lis pendens annotated in the certificate of title of the said land;

11. That on May l5, 1965, Fausto Soy filed his Answer;

12. That on December 8, 1967, the case was dismissed for failure of the parties to appear;

13. That on December 15, 1967 the court issued an order Cadastral Case No. 35, Record No. 916, cancelling the annotation of lis pendens (upon petition of the intervenors);

14. That on November 28, 1967, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider order dismissing the complaint;

15. That on January l8, 1968, plaintiffs filed a notice of death of defendant Fausto Soy;

16. That on March 18, 1968, the Court reopened the case;

17. That on October 31, 1968 plaintiffs filed an amended complaint;

18. That on November 16, 1973, the case was again dismissed for non-appearance of the parties;

19. That on November 16, the order of dismissal was set aside;

20. That on January 9, 1974 defendants did not appear and plaintiffs were allowed to present their evidence ex-parte;

21. That on March 22, 1974, the case was decided on the basis the evidence adduced ex-parte;

22. That a writ of execution was issued for execution but could not be enforced because of the third party claim of the herein intervenors;

23 That herein intervenors filed a motion for intervention on April 15, 1975 which was granted pursuant to the order of the Court dated July 23, 1975;

24 That intervenors filed an Answer in Intervention on September 1, 1975;

25 That on May 24, 1976, plaintiffs filed a re-amended complaint, and on June 14, 1976, intervenors filed an amended answer in intervention;

26 That intervenors had been in possession of the area of 620 sq. meters on the various dates of acquisition stated in the foregoing up to the present;

27 That intervenors had been paying the real estate taxes and had declared the same for taxation purposes in their names as owner;

28 That the possession of the foregoing properties including the land in question is open and public.

B. Stipulation of Facts proposed by plaintiffs and admitted by intervenors as follows:

1. That the original complaint was filed on April 14, 1965 by plaintiffs Rosita Lopez, . . . against Fausto Soy;

2. That upon the death of Fausto Soy, the complaint was reamended to implead his heirs . . .;

3. That the original plaintiffs and original defendant are brother and sisters;

4. That the disputed property is Cadastral Lot No. 6870, TCT No. 9144 and particularly described in paragraph 3 of the original complaint;

5. That due to the failure of the defendants to appear in the hearing, the plaintiffs were allowed to adduce their evidence and on March 22, 1974, the Honorable Court rendered a decision in favor of plaintiffs;

6. That when the said decision became final and executory, the same cannot be implemented in view of the third party claim on the intervention;

7. That the intervenors intervened and filed their Answer to the complaint;

8. That on April 14, 1965, the plaintiffs filed with the Register of Deeds a Notice of Lis Pendens which is duly annotated as Entry No. 30414 in TCT No. 9144;

9. That on January 27, 1960, the spouses intervenors bought a portion of 240 sq. meters for the sum of P900.00 from Fausto Soy, as per Entry 19356 of TCT No. 9144;

10. That as a consequence of such purchase . . ., TCT No. 9144 was cancelled by TCT Nos. 9178 and 16922, the latter in the name of intervenors and Fausto Soy, in the portion of 480 sq. meters for Fausto Soy;

11. 11. That said intervenors purchased their remaining portion of 140 sq. meters in the name of Fausto Soy, all of which purchase subsequently to the annotation of the lis pendens;

In this instant case, the Court finds out that there is no iota of proof to show that the plaintiffs are co-owners of the property in question. The case has no leg to stand on because the land has long been covered by O.C.T. as far back as 1932 in the name of their predecessor in interest Fausto Soy.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

(a) Ordering the case filed by the herein plaintiffs dismissed;

(b) Declaring and sustaining the ownership of the INTERVENORS over the portions of the property purchased by them from Fausto Soy;

(c) Ordering the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens annotated at the back of their title.

From the time the subject property (Lot 6870) was brought under the operation of the Land Registration Act in the name alone of Fausto Soy, who had recognized the proprietary rights of plaintiffs-appellants as co-owners, the land was impressed with a trust relationship in favor of Fausto's sisters or their children. When Fausto sold a portion of 140 square meters to intervenors, the relationship of trust included said intervenors. Upon the death of Fausto Soy, the trust relationship subsisted between Fausto's heirs and his living sisters or the latters' children, as well as the Intervenors-appellees. . . .