GR L 55771; (November, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-55771 November 15, 1982
Tahanan Development Corporation, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals, Hon. Manuel E. Valenzuela, The Director of Lands, Nicolas A. Pascual, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, the Pascuals, filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of a lost certificate of title over Lots 2 and 4 of Plan II-4374 in Muntinlupa, Rizal, claiming to be the intestate heirs of the registered owner, Manuela Aquial. The Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXIX, presided by Judge Manuel E. Valenzuela, granted the petition on October 5, 1978. Petitioner Tahanan Development Corporation, whose subdivision lots are covered by Torrens titles derived from OCT No. 6576, filed a petition to set aside the decision, alleging that the reconstituted lots overlapped its properties. The trial court denied Tahanan’s petition. Tahanan then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which initially ordered the reopening of the case but later reversed itself in a resolution dated April 30, 1980, dismissing Tahanan’s petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Tahanan’s petition and upholding the trial court’s decision ordering the judicial reconstitution of title in favor of the Pascuals.
RULING
No, the Supreme Court set aside the challenged resolution of the Court of Appeals. The petition was rendered moot and academic by the Court’s prior decision in the related case of Alabang Development Corp. and Bagatsing vs. Valenzuela ( G.R. No. 54094 , August 30, 1982). In that case, the Court, applying its findings in the earlier Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals (Bernal) case, reversed the same decision of Judge Valenzuela in Reconstitution Case No. 504-P and dismissed the petition for reconstitution. The legal logic is grounded in the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment and judicial consistency. The Bernal and Alabang cases definitively ruled that the decree and title sought to be reconstituted from Plan II-4374—the same plan and lots involved here—were fake and spurious, and the reconstitution proceedings were null and void for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Republic Act No. 26 . Since the validity of the very same reconstitution judgment has already been conclusively adjudicated by the Supreme Court, the present petition raising identical questions of law and fact must be decided identically. The Court therefore ordered the dismissal of the reconstitution petition, as the claimed title of Manuela Aquial was a fabrication.