G.R. No. 149041 ; July 12, 2006
HEIRS OF ROLANDO N. ABADILLA, represented herein by SUSAN SAMONTE ABADILLA, petitioners, vs. GREGORIO B. GALAROSA, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Gregorio Galarosa filed a Petition for Reconstitution of a lost Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. 261465). The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 105, granted the petition and ordered the Register of Deeds to reconstitute the title. However, the Register of Deeds refused, prompting Galarosa to file an urgent motion to compel compliance. In 1993, RTC Branch 105 denied this motion, finding that the title was spurious based on an NBI report showing a forged signature of the Register of Deeds and a Land Registration Authority consulta indicating the title’s serial number was assigned to a different registry.
Subsequently, in 1997, Galarosa filed a separate Complaint for Recovery of Ownership and Annulment of Title against the Heirs of Rolando Abadilla, who held a different title (TCT No. 60405) over the same property, alleging it was fraudulent. The Abadillas moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint was barred by the 1993 Order from Branch 105, which had already declared Galarosa’s title spurious. The RTC, Branch 84, agreed and dismissed the 1997 complaint on the ground of res judicata.

ISSUE

Whether the 1993 Order in the reconstitution case (LRC Case No. Q-3536(90)) constitutes res judicata, thereby barring the 1997 complaint for annulment of title and recovery of ownership (Civil Case No. Q-97-31250).

RULING

No, the principle of res judicata does not apply. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the dismissal, holding that the two cases involved different causes of action and subject matters. The 1993 reconstitution case was a special proceeding in rem, the sole objective of which was to reconstitute a lost title based on its authenticity and existence. The court’s finding of spuriousness in that case was merely a preliminary determination necessary to deny the reconstitution; it did not constitute a final adjudication on the issue of ownership over the property itself.
In contrast, the 1997 complaint is an ordinary civil action for recovery of ownership and annulment of title, which directly puts in issue the ownership of the land and the validity of the Abadillas’ certificate of title. The cause of action here is the alleged fraud in the issuance of the Abadillas’ title and Galarosa’s claim of rightful ownership. A certificate of title is not ownership itself but merely its evidence. Therefore, the question of ownership must be ventilated in a separate adversarial suit where both parties can fully present their evidence, which the 1997 complaint provides. The trial court is ordered to proceed with the trial on the merits.