G.R. No. L-25153, October 4, 1968
ANTONIO CLEMENTE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERNARDINO PASCUA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The subject matter is a portion (Lot No. 5463-A, 15.9987 hectares) of Lot No. 5463, Santiago Cadaster, Isabela, originally owned by Romualdo Gaffud. On March 3, 1943, Gaffud executed an absolute deed of sale over this portion in favor of Antonio Clemente, who had been in possession since 1939. Clemente failed to register this deed because Gaffud’s owner’s duplicate certificate of title (OCT No. I-2174) was allegedly held by a priest. On July 11, 1949, Gaffud executed another deed of absolute sale over the entire Lot No. 5463 to Gregorio Cachen for P5,000, which was later found unpaid. Upon presentation of this deed and the owner’s duplicate, OCT No. I-2174 was cancelled, and TCT No. T-1633 was issued in Cachen’s name on December 1, 1949. Cachen did not take possession. On July 1, 1950, Cachen sued Clemente for possession (Civil Case No. 275). The Court of First Instance of Isabela dismissed Cachen’s complaint, declaring the sale to Cachen null and void for lack of consideration and recognizing Clemente’s better right as first possessor in good faith. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA- G.R. No. 13737 -R) on January 31, 1958, and the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-13673) dismissed Cachen’s petition for review on May 14, 1958, the resolution becoming final on October 13, 1958.
On January 19, 1962, Clemente annotated a notice of lis pendens on TCT No. T-1633, referencing the prior litigation. On March 4, 1962, Cachen sold the lot to Bernardino Pascua. Upon registration, TCT No. T-1633 was cancelled, and TCT No. T-16798 was issued in Pascua’s name, carrying the lis pendens annotation. When Pascua sought possession in 1963, he found Clemente in control under a writ of possession from the prior case. Pascua moved to set aside the writ and filed a case in the Court of Agrarian Relations, but proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of the present action.
Clemente filed this case (Civil Case No. II-712) against Pascua for reconveyance of Lot No. 5463-A and damages. Pascua’s answer contested venue, alleged lack of cause of action, and pleaded prescription. Clemente moved for summary judgment, arguing no genuine issue of fact existed, citing the final Court of Appeals decision and supporting documents. The trial court granted summary judgment, ordering Pascua to execute a deed of conveyance, transfer tax declaration, surrender the owner’s duplicate of TCT No. T-16798, and pay damages (attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, exemplary damages, nominal damages, costs, etc.). Pascua appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court properly rendered a summary judgment.
2. Whether the prior litigation (Civil Case No. 275) settled the title to the property in favor of Clemente, entitling him to reconveyance from Pascua.

RULING

1. Yes, summary judgment was proper. The Supreme Court held there was no genuine issue of material fact. Pascua’s challenge to venue—claiming the land was in Nueva Vizcaya based solely on his tax declaration—was outweighed by admissions in his answer and documentary evidence (the lot was part of the Santiago Cadaster, Isabela, covered by Isabela titles). The issue of whether the prior case settled title depended on interpreting the final decisions therein, a pure question of law. Thus, under Rule 34, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, summary judgment was appropriate.
2. Yes, the prior litigation settled Clemente’s ownership, and Pascua is bound to reconvey. The Court examined the Court of Appeals decision in CA- G.R. No. 13737 -R, which declared Clemente the “absolute owner” of Lot No. 5463-A and entitled to possession, dismissing Cachen’s complaint. That decision found Cachen’s sale null and void for lack of consideration and Cachen not an innocent purchaser due to knowledge of Clemente’s prior claim. Since Pascua purchased from Cachen with the lis pendens annotation on the title, he was aware of the pending litigation and its outcome. Therefore, Pascua cannot claim to be a purchaser in good faith and “acquired no more rights than those of Cachen, who had none.” The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision ordering reconveyance and payment of damages.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against defendant-appellant.