G.R. No. 155943; August 19, 2013
PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES PEPITO L. NG AND VIOLETA N. NG, AND SPOUSES ANTONIO V. MARTEL, JR. AND JULIANA TICSON, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This case involves a 6.7905-hectare property in Las Piñas City. The factual background stems from several interconnected cases. On February 7, 1977, Spouses Benito and Corazon Lopez and Spouses Pepito and Violeta Ng acquired the property from Philip Dumbrique, leading to the issuance of TCT Nos. 61176 (Lopez) and 61177 (Ng) on January 6, 1978. This acquisition was upheld by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 91413 (the Fusilero case) in a Resolution dated July 2, 1990. The Lopezes later sold their portion to Spouses Antonio Martel, Jr. and Juliana Ticson.
Prior to this, on January 21, 1975, the Factor siblings executed a Deed of Sale of Unregistered Lands over the same property in favor of Pilar Development Corporation (petitioner). Petitioner fenced, subdivided, and developed the land into “Pilar Village.” The Factors had also filed an application for registration (LRC No. N-9049), which was initially granted by the CFI on January 31, 1976, leading to the issuance of TCTs in the Factors’ names on December 13, 1994. However, upon a Petition to Reopen filed by respondents (the Ngs and the Lopezes/Martels), the RTC set aside its initial decision on December 8, 1994, and ordered titles issued in respondents’ favor. The Factors did not appeal this.
Instead, the Factors filed a new Complaint for Annulment of Title (Civil Case No. 94-3158) seeking to cancel TCT Nos. 61176 and 61177. This was dismissed by the RTC on September 8, 1995, a dismissal affirmed by the CA and ultimately by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 132334 through a Resolution dated February 22, 1999.
Subsequently, on July 15, 1997, petitioner filed the instant Complaint for Quieting of Title and Declaration of Nullity of respondents’ titles (Case 3). Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing petitioner had no cause of action and that it was barred by prior judgment and the statute of limitations. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss on February 9, 1998. The CA affirmed this dismissal, prompting petitioner’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of petitioner’s Complaint for Quieting of Title, specifically in holding that the principles of laches, stare decisis, and res judicata barred the action.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The dismissal of the Complaint for Quieting of Title was proper.
The Court held that the validity of respondents’ titles (TCT Nos. 61176 and 61177) had been conclusively settled in prior final judgments. The ownership of the property acquired by respondents’ predecessors-in-interest from Dumbrique was upheld in the Fusilero case (G.R. No. 91413). Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in its Resolution of February 22, 1999 in G.R. No. 132334, had already affirmed the dismissal of the Factors’ action to annul those very same titles. This constituted res judicata, barring any re-litigation of the issue of the validity of respondents’ certificates of title.
The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that laches should apply against the titleholders (respondents). It found no basis to apply laches, as respondents’ titles had been repeatedly upheld, and their rights had been actively asserted in the prior judicial proceedings. The principle of stare decisis also applied, as the validity of the titles had been consistently affirmed in related cases. Since the foundation of petitioner’s complaint—the alleged nullity of respondents’ titles—had been definitively resolved against it in prior final judgments, the Complaint for Quieting of Title correctly failed to state a cause of action and was properly dismissed.