GR 123361; (July, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123361 July 28, 1997
TEOFILO CACHO, petitioner-appellant, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION and THE CITY OF ILIGAN, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioner Teofilo Cacho sought the re-issuance of Decree Nos. 10364 and 18969, which were allegedly issued in 1912 pursuant to the case of Cacho vs. U.S. The respondents (Republic of the Philippines, National Steel Corporation, and the City of Iligan) filed motions for reconsideration assailing the Court’s March 3, 1997 decision ordering the re-issuance. The Republic and NSC argued that reliance on a Land Registration Commission (NALTDRA) certification as conclusive proof of decree issuance was misplaced, that requiring a deed of sale and new plan would not violate res judicata, that the Torrens system should not perpetuate fraud (citing nonpayment of property tax), and that they presented sufficient proof against petitioner’s existence, identity, and legal interest. The City of Iligan argued that the decrees could not include Camp Overton Military, that their issuance was attended by fraud, that there was no proof Teofilo Cacho exists or is an heir, and raised a new issue that part of the property was granted to the city by Presidential Decree No. 469. Also submitted were a Notice of Attorney’s lien by Atty. Virgilio Manguera and a motion for leave to intervene by Fausto C. Echaves and over 500 families claiming occupation.
ISSUE
Whether the motions for reconsideration filed by the respondents should be granted, thereby reversing the decision ordering the re-issuance of Decree Nos. 10364 and 18969.
RULING
The motions for reconsideration are denied. The Court found no cogent reason to reverse its decision. The factual issues raised by the Republic and NSC regarding the certification, technical description, and alleged fraud had been resolved in the main decision and by the trial and appellate courts, with weight given to the NALTDRA certification. The doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation of matters settled in the 1912 Cacho vs. U.S. case. The identity and interest of petitioner were already considered. The City of Iligan’s claim based on Presidential Decree No. 469 was not raised earlier and is thus final. The Notice of Attorney’s lien was noted without action, as any claim should be taken up with the court of origin. The motion for leave to intervene was denied for being filed after the decision’s promulgation.