G.R. No. 123780, September 24, 2002.
Group Commander, Intelligence and Security Group, Philippine Army, represented by Colonel Pedro R. Cabuay, Jr., Petitioner, vs. Dr. Potenciano Malvar and Marcelino Lopez, Respondents. Heirs of Elino Adia, represented by Juliana Adia, Intervenors.

FACTS

This is a Separate Opinion by Justice Vitug regarding a petition seeking clarification on two conflicting final and executory Supreme Court decisions. The prior decision, G.R. No. 90380 (promulgated September 13, 1990), adjudicated a parcel of land in favor of Ambrosio Aguilar, the successor-in-interest of Hermogenes Lopez. The subsequent decision, G.R. No. 110900, sustained a Land Management Bureau (LMB, formerly Director of Lands) decision in favor of the Heirs of Elino Adia, who claimed possession since 1929. The ponencia (main opinion) upheld the later ruling (G.R. No. 110900) over the prior one (G.R. No. 90380) on grounds including that the property was disposable public land under LMB jurisdiction, that G.R. No. 90380 did not bind the LMB as it was not a party, and that the two cases involved different issues (possession vs. validity of a homestead patent). Justice Vitug disagrees.

ISSUE

Whether the ponencia correctly upheld the subsequent ruling in G.R. No. 110900 over the prior decision in G.R. No. 90380.

RULING

Justice Vitug, in his Separate Opinion, votes to grant the motion for reconsideration and argues that the ponencia is erroneous. He contends that: (1) The land had become private property as early as 1950, by virtue of Fermin Lopez’s (father of Hermogenes) open, continuous, and exclusive possession since 1920, thereby removing it from the LMB’s jurisdiction long before the Adia Heirs’ claim in 1985, pursuant to the doctrine in Director of Lands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court; (2) The LMB (Director of Lands) was in fact a party defendant in Civil Case No. 24873, which culminated in G.R. No. 90380, and was thus bound by that ruling; and (3) The Heirs of Adia, as applicants deriving rights from the government, are also bound by the decision in G.R. No. 90380 against the government, following Director of Lands vs. Sisican. He further notes that in another related case (G.R. No. 127350), the Supreme Court had already dismissed a case filed by the Adia Heirs against the Lopez Heirs on the ground of res judicata, consistent with G.R. No. 90380.