GR 136965; (March, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 136965 ; March 28, 2001
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. SEGUNDINA ROSARIO, respondent.
FACTS
The case originated from a 1971 land registration application by Datu Ditingke Ramos. The University of the Philippines (UP) intervened, claiming the land was within its titled property. The trial court denied UP’s motion to dismiss the application based on a Land Registration Commission certification that the land did not encroach on UP’s property. In 1973, the court granted the application, leading to the issuance of an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) in the name of Rosario Alcovendas Vda. de Ramos, the applicant’s surviving spouse. This title was subsequently transferred to respondent Segundina Rosario. In 1993, UP filed a petition to cancel Segundina’s title, alleging it was spurious and fraudulently issued, clouding UP’s own title. Segundina moved to dismiss this action and to cancel the notice of lis pendens on her title.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed UP’s third cause of action on the ground of res judicata and ordered the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The principle of res judicata does not apply to bar UP’s action. For res judicata to prevail, the judgment must be final, rendered by a court with jurisdiction, a judgment on the merits, and there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action. Here, there was no identity of cause of action. The earlier land registration case was an in rem proceeding concerning the applicant’s right to secure an original title. UP’s present action is a direct attack on the validity of the issued decree and certificate of title, alleging fraud in its procurement. A Torrens title can be challenged for being void ab initio, such as when issued pursuant to a void decree. The trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss as UP’s allegations of fraud required a full trial on the merits to present evidence. Consequently, the notice of lis pendens should remain annotated pending the final resolution of the case on its merits, as its cancellation at a preliminary stage would be premature. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.