G.R. No. 127022 & G.R. No. 127245, September 2, 1999
Case Parties:

FIRESTONE CERAMICS, INC., BOOMTOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Spouses CYNTHIA D. CHING and CHING TIONG KENG, Spouses CARMEN SOCO and LORENZO ONG ENG CHONG, Spouses SOLEDAD B. YU and YU SY CHIA and LETICIA NOCOM CHAN, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, LORENZO J. GANA, PATROCINIO E. MARGOLLES, ALICE E. SOTTO, VIRGINIA E. VILLONGCO, EDGARDO C. ESPINOSA, LUCIA E. LAPERAL, NORMA C. ESPINOSA, TERESITA E. CASAL, PELTAN DEVELOPMENT, INC., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (formerly CFI of Rizal) and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PIÑAS, METRO MANILA, respondents, ALEJANDRO B. REY, petitioner-intervenor.
and
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DIRECTOR, LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU, petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, LORENZO J. GANA, PATROCINIO E. MARGOLLES, ALICE E. SOTTO, VIRGINIA E. VILLONGCO, EDGARDO C. ESPINOSA, LUCIA A. LAPERAL, NORMA C. ESPINOSA, TERESITA E. CASAL, PELTAN DEVELOPMENT INC., THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (formerly CFI) of RIZAL, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PIÑAS, METRO MANILA, respondents.

FACTS

The consolidated cases originated from a decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in an action for annulment of judgment filed by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of the Land Management Bureau, seeking to nullify the decision of the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal in LRC Case No. 672, GLRO Record No. 30406. The subject property is a 996,175-square meter parcel of land in Las Piñas covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 4216 issued on March 26, 1929, in the names of spouses Lorenzo J. Gana and Maria Juliana Carlos. The Republic alleged that at the time of the title’s issuance, the land was still part of the forest zone and thus incapable of registration as private property, as it was only declassified as alienable and disposable land on January 3, 1968. The private respondents (heirs/assigns of the Gana spouses) moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the Supreme Court had already upheld the validity of OCT No. 4216 in prior cases ( G.R. No. 109490 and G.R. No. 112036). Petitioner-intervenor Alejandro B. Rey sought to intervene, adopting the government’s petition. Petitioners Firestone Ceramics, Inc., et al., also moved to intervene, claiming ownership of a portion (18.8 hectares) of the land under titles derived from a different registration proceeding (OCT No. A-S-47 from LRC Case No. N-6625) and arguing that their portion should be excluded if OCT No. 4216 is nullified. The private respondents opposed both interventions, contending that the titles of Firestone Ceramics, et al., had already been nullified by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 109490 , and that Alejandro Rey had chosen a different forum (a civil case) to pursue his claims. The CA dismissed the government’s petition for annulment of judgment, denied the motions for intervention, and denied all motions for reconsideration.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Republic’s petition for annulment of the CFI decision that granted the registration of the land and issued OCT No. 4216.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motions for intervention filed by Firestone Ceramics, Inc., et al., and by Alejandro B. Rey.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petitions and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. On the Annulment of Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the Republic’s action for annulment of judgment was properly dismissed. A judgment can only be annulled on grounds of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. The Republic’s claim was based on the alleged nullity of the judgment because it ordered the registration of forest land. However, the Republic failed to attach a certified true copy of the challenged CFI decision to its petition. Without the decision, the Court of Appeals had no basis to examine its contents and determine its validity. The claim that the land was forest land at the time of registration remained a mere allegation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the validity of OCT No. 4216 had already been sustained in final and executory decisions of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 109490 (Margolles v. Court of Appeals) and G.R. No. 112036 (Golden Rod, Inc. v. Court of Appeals). The principle of finality of judgment and the doctrine of stare decisis bar the re-litigation of this issue.
2. On the Denial of the Motions for Intervention:
* For Firestone Ceramics, Inc., et al.: The Court of Appeals correctly denied their intervention. Their claim to a portion of the land was based on titles derived from OCT No. A-S-47. However, in G.R. No. 109490 , the Supreme Court had already declared OCT No. A-S-47 and all titles emanating from it null and void, and that decision had become final and executory. Therefore, petitioners Firestone Ceramics, et al., no longer had any legal interest in the property that would warrant intervention.
* For Alejandro B. Rey: The Court of Appeals also correctly denied his intervention. He had already filed a civil case (Civil Case No. LP-8852-P) against the private respondents concerning the same property. Having chosen that forum to assert his claims, he was barred from intervening in the annulment case.