EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 123780, September 24, 2002 ]
IN RE: PETITION SEEKING FOR CLARIFICATION AS TO THE VALIDITY AND FORCEFUL EFFECT OF TWO (2) FINAL AND EXECUTORY BUT CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT. GROUP COMMANDER, INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY GROUP, PHILIPPINE ARMY, REPRESENTED BY COLONEL PEDRO R. CABUAY, JR., PETITIONER, VS. DR. POTENCIANO MALVAR AND MARCELINO LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS. HEIRS OF ELINO ADIA, REPRESENTED BY JULIANA ADIA, INTERVENORS.
SEPARATE OPINION
VITUG, J.:
In not upholding the prior decision in G.R. No. 90380 over the subsequent ruling in G.R. No. 110900, the questioned ponencia is premised thusly–
1. The subject property is disposable and alienable public land falling under the jurisdiction of the Director of Lands (now Land Management Bureau or, hereinafter, the “LMB”). Decisions of the LMB, once approved by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (“DENR”), are conclusive on factual questions. Accordingly, G.R. No. 110900, where the LMB would appear to have concluded that the Adia Spouses and their heirs had preferential right to the property, having possessed the same since 1929, should be sustained;
2. G. R. No. 90380 adjudicating the parcel of land to the Heirs of Hermogenes Lopez, although promulgated prior to G.R. No. 110900, is not binding on the LMB since the latter has not been impleaded a party thereto;
3. G.R. No. 90380 and G.R. No. 110900 are in personam in nature, even when a parcel of land is the subject of dispute, concerning different parties with conflicting claims. On the one hand, G.R. No. 90380 only involves the issue of possession; upon the other hand, G.R. No. 110900 has squarely raised the issue of the validity of the homestead patent of the Lopezes which is assailed for being tainted with fraud.
Thus, per the ponencia under consideration, the ruling in G.R. No. 90380 has not been considered to be the law of the case so as to bar G. R. No. 110900.
Relative to the first ground, respondents Dr. Potenciano Malvar, et al., eloquently argued that their predecessor-in-interest, Hermogenes Lopez, had first asserted his claim on the subject property on 16 July 1959 when he filed an application for registration (docketed General Land Registration Commission Records No. 2531). Lopez subsequently initiated court proceedings for the annulment of certain certificates of title covering the property. The matter culminated in a favorable decision on 26 July 1973; in the meantime, Hermogenes Lopez had sold the property to Ambrosio Aguilar. Aguilar forthwith filed another case, Civil Case No. 24873, against the same defendants - Heirs of Fernando Gorospe, Salvador P. Tagle, Rosario G. de Tagle, Beatriz de Zuzmanegui, Eduardo V. Santos and the Director of Lands, in which the proceedings in the prior case were adopted. The case ultimately reached this Court, docketed G.R. No. 90380, and was decided in favor of Aguilar, successor-in-interest of Hermogenes Lopez, on 13 September 1990.
The Heirs of Elino Adia, in their case, first made known their claim to the property on 10 September 1985, when they lodged their protest with the LMB. The LMB decision in their favor was sustained by this Court in G.R. No. 110900.
The trial court in Civil Case No. 24873, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 07475 and this Court in G. R. No. 90380 uniformly held that Fermin Lopez, father of Hermogenes Lopez, was in possession of the land as early as 1920, and that possession had been held by his successors-in-interest up to the present time. In Director of Lands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,1 possession of alienable public land, personally or through a predecessor-in-interest, openly, continuously and exclusively for 30 years would convert, ipso jure, the land to private property by the mere lapse or completion of the period. Accordingly, as early as 1950 or 30 years since 1920, when Fermin Lopez first had possession over the land, the property was transformed into one of private ownership, and, thenceforth, beyond the jurisdiction of the LMB. So, also, the LMB had since ceased to have any authority to adjudicate the ownership of the land to the Adia Heirs, let alone in 1985 or 35 years later.1aшphi1
Anent the second and third grounds, it would not be all that accurate to insist that the decision of this Court in G. R. No. 90380 did not bind the LMB upon the thesis of its not being a party thereto. Annex 1 of the instant motion for reconsideration would disclose that the LMB (then Director of Lands) was the last of nine (9) defendants in Civil Case No. 24873 (which ultimately became G.R. No. 90380) filed by Ambrosio Aguilar before the then Court of First Instance of Pasig, Rizal, in 1976. Annex 2 of the same motion would also indicate that the Director of Lands, in fact, filed an Answer to the complaint. Being a party to G.R. No. 90380, the ruling thereon, holding Aguilar, the successor-in-interest of Hermogenes Lopez, to be the rightful owner of the land in question was binding on the LMB.
Neither could successors-in-interest of the Adia spouses aptly assert that the ruling in G.R. No. 90380 was not binding on them. In Director of Lands vs. Sisican,2 this Court ruled:
“x x x Appellants, however, contend that they were not parties in Civil Case No. 655 and, hence, not bound by the decision therein.
“It must be remembered that as applicants of supposedly public land, whatever right appellants may have over the lots applied for, is only derived from the government. Since, the government, represented by the Director of Lands, was a party in Civil Case No. 655 and is bound by the decision therein, appellants cannot properly claim to be excluded from the enforcement and effect thereof. And, if at the time the free patents were issued in 1953, the land covered therein has already been decreed as private property of another and, therefore, not a part of the disposable land of the public domain, then applicants-patentees acquired no right or title to the land, and certainly the Director of Lands has reason to ask for the cancellation of the patents and titles thus erroneously issued.”
It might not be amiss to add that there exists another case, for quieting of title, filed by the Heirs of Elino Adia and their transferees versus the Heirs of Hermogenes Lopez before the RTC Antipolo, Rizal. The case later found its way to this Court in G.R. No. 127350. In its extended resolution, dated 03 February 1997, this Court, consistent with its previous ruling in G.R. No. 90380, granted the motion of the Lopezes for the dismissal of the case on the ground of res judicata1aшphi1.
Regrettably, the ponencia has been unable to heretofore fully appreciate the truly complex facts and circumstances attendant not only to the case at bar but also to the other cases inextricably related to it. I, therefore, vote to grant the motion for reconsideration.
Footnotes
1 146 SCRA 509. This case expressly set aside the doctrine in Meralco vs. Castro- Bartolome (114 SCRA 799).
2 13 SCRA 516.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
