G.R. Nos. 187308 & 187517; September 18, 2013
Hilaria Bagayas, Petitioner, vs. Rogelio Bagayas, Felicidad Bagayas, Rosalina Bagayas, Michael Bagayas, and Mariel Bagayas, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Hilaria Bagayas, claiming to be the legally adopted child of spouses Maximino Bagayas and Eligia Clemente, initially filed a complaint for annulment of sale and partition. She alleged that respondents, the biological children, falsified a 1974 deed of absolute sale transferring two parcels of land from the deceased spouses to themselves, noting that Eligia’s signature was forged as she had died in 1971. The RTC, in a March 24, 2008 Decision, recognized Hilaria’s adoption but dismissed her complaint. It ruled the deed valid, stating the properties were Maximino’s exclusive property, making Eligia’s signature surplusage, and that the action constituted an improper collateral attack on the Torrens titles issued to respondents. This Decision became final.
Subsequently, Hilaria filed twin petitions under Section 108 of P.D. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) for the amendment of the titles to include her name as a co-owner, asserting a new interest as an heir. The RTC dismissed these petitions, ruling they were barred by res judicata, as the validity of the sale and titles had been conclusively settled in the final judgment in the annulment case.

ISSUE

Whether the petitions for amendment of title under Section 108 of P.D. 1529 are barred by res judicata.

RULING

Yes, the petitions are barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s dismissal. The elements of res judicata are present: (1) the prior judgment by the RTC in the annulment case was final; (2) the court had jurisdiction; (3) the judgment was on the merits; and (4) there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the prior and subsequent cases.
The core issue in both the annulment case and the Section 108 petitions was the ownership of the subject properties based on Hilaria’s status as an heir. The first case conclusively ruled that the deed of sale was valid and the titles issued in respondents’ names were indefeasible, thereby negating Hilaria’s claim of co-ownership. A petition under Section 108 cannot be used to re-litigate this settled issue of ownership, as it is not a substitute for an appeal or a direct attack on a decree of registration. The proper remedy for Hilaria to assert her hereditary rights, if any, is to institute intestate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouses, not an action for amendment of title. The Court emphasized that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked, and a Section 108 proceeding cannot be utilized to achieve such an attack under the guise of amending a certificate.