G.R. No. 142766 ; June 15, 2007
NARCISO AMOROSO, Petitioner, vs. JUAN ALEGRE, JR., Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Juan Alegre, Jr. filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership against petitioner Narciso Amoroso over two parcels of land in Roxas City. Alegre claimed ownership derived from his father, Juan Alegre, Sr., who had obtained reconstituted titles (OCT Nos. RO-1020 and RO-1021) for the lots in 1955. He alleged that Amoroso occupied the property and built houses without consent while the Alegre family was in Manila. Amoroso defended his possession, asserting he bought the land in 1946 from the Severino brothers, the registered owners under OCT No. 4570. He argued that the 1957 Decision of the Court of First Instance (CFI) in the earlier reconstitution case, which dismissed Alegre, Sr.’s petition and set aside the reconstituted titles, barred Alegre, Jr.’s present action.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed both the recovery case and Amoroso’s separate petition for reconstitution of OCT No. 4570, holding that ownership was already settled in 1924 cadastral proceedings. The Court of Appeals (CA) remanded the recovery case for decision on the merits, finding it was a simple action for possession, not a land registration case. The CA also affirmed the dismissal of Amoroso’s reconstitution petition. On remand, the RTC ruled in favor of Alegre, Jr., a decision affirmed by the CA. Amoroso elevated the case via petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC decision which ordered Amoroso to vacate the property and recognized Alegre, Jr.’s ownership.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court held that the 1957 CFI Decision in the earlier reconstitution case did not constitute res judicata to bar the present recovery suit. The 1957 case was a proceeding in rem for the reconstitution of a lost certificate of title, not an action to recover ownership or possession. Its sole purpose was to determine whether the reconstitution should be granted based on Alegre, Sr.’s evidence. The CFI’s dismissal and its factual findings on Amoroso’s possession were merely incidental to that limited purpose; it did not make a final adjudication on the merits of ownership between the parties. Consequently, Alegre, Jr. was not precluded from filing an ordinary civil action to assert his claim of ownership and recover possession.
On the merits, the Court found Alegre, Jr.’s evidence of ownership superior. He established a clear chain of title from his grandparents, through his father, to himself. In contrast, Amoroso failed to substantiate his claim. His purported deed of sale from 1946 was not presented, and his tax declarations and payments, while indicative of possession, are not conclusive evidence of ownership. The Court emphasized that a certificate of title, once reconstituted, serves as prima facie evidence of ownership. Alegre, Jr. successfully proved his title, while Amoroso did not. Therefore, the CA correctly upheld the RTC’s order for Amoroso to vacate the property.