GR 19336; (December, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19336 December 28, 1964
JOSEFA VDA. DE SANTOS, ET AL., applicants-appellants, vs. ANDRES J. DIAZ, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
Applicants Josefa Vda. de Santos and her children filed a petition for registration of several parcels of land in Las Piñas, Rizal. This was the third attempt to register the same lands. The first application was filed by Mamerto Santos (Josefa’s deceased husband) on March 6, 1928 (Case No. 709, G.L.R.O. Record No. 31555), which was dismissed on December 29, 1929, due to his failure to comply with a court order to amend a survey plan. The second application was filed by the appellants (the widow and children) after Mamerto’s death in 1942 (L.R.C. No. N-1809, L.R.C. Record No. N-11980), which was dismissed on January 5, 1959, for insufficiency of evidence. The present case was commenced on August 4, 1960. Oppositor Andres J. Diaz opposed the application regarding Lots Nos. 2, 3, and 4, claiming ownership and praying for confirmation of his own title. The Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissed the petition on September 8, 1961, on the grounds of res judicata and estoppel.
ISSUE
Whether the orders of dismissal in the two previous registration cases bar the present proceedings under the principle of res judicata.
RULING
No. The principle of res judicata does not bar the present application. Under Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act) before its amendment by Act No. 3621 , courts in ordinary registration proceedings could only grant judgment for the applicant or dismiss the application; they could not grant affirmative relief to an oppositor. Consequently, the parties were not true legal adversaries, and a dismissal did not operate as res judicata against the unsuccessful applicant, nor did it bar a subsequent application, even if the first dismissal was not explicitly “without prejudice.” The dismissal of the second case for “insufficiency of evidence” did not constitute a determination that the applicants had no title to the lands; it meant only that the evidence presented at that time was insufficient. Furthermore, no opposition was filed in the previous cases, and the first was dismissed without a hearing, meaning no contentious issue essential for res judicata existed. The order appealed from is set aside, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.