G.R. No. L-49933 August 6, 1980
Dominga Gabas de Velayo and Valeriano, Pantaleon, Villamor, Bienvenida, and Romeo, all surnamed Balayong, petitioners-appellants, vs. Court of Appeals and Januario Gabas, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

This case involves an intra-family dispute over Lot No. 4232-D in Ozamiz City. The petitioners, Dominga Gabas de Velayo and the children of the late Adriano Balayong (her half-brother), filed an action for partition or reconveyance against respondent Januario Gabas (Dominga’s full brother). They claimed the lot formed part of the estate of their common predecessor, Genoveva Ronquillo, who died intestate in 1964. The property originated from lands owned by Genoveva’s second husband, Tranquilino Gabas, and those acquired during their marriage.
The pivotal background is a cadastral proceeding concluded in 1940. In her 1936 answer in that case, Genoveva initially claimed Lot No. 4232 was owned in common by her and her three Gabas children (Raymunda, Dominga, and Januario). However, Dominga’s name was later crossed out. The cadastral court ultimately adjudicated specific subdivided portions: Lot 4232-B to Bonifacio Belayo, Lot 4232-C to Javier Medina, and the remaining Lot 4232-D to Raymunda and Januario Gabas as co-owners. Petitioners argued this adjudication was fraudulent, particularly the deletion of Dominga’s name, and that the lot should be partitioned among all of Genoveva’s heirs.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners’ action for partition or reconveyance of Lot No. 4232-D is barred, and whether the cadastral court’s 1940 decision validly adjudicated ownership.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the action. The legal logic rests on the conclusiveness of the cadastral decree and the absence of a viable cause of action for partition. The Court found the petitioners’ fundamental assumption—that Lot No. 4232-D remained part of Genoveva’s estate—was erroneous. By virtue of the 1940 cadastral decision, which had long become final, ownership of the lot was already adjudicated to Raymunda and Januario Gabas. Consequently, upon Genoveva’s death in 1964, she no longer had any title to the property to pass on by intestate succession.
The Court rejected the claim of fraud, noting a preponderance of evidence indicated Dominga’s name was removed from the cadastral claim because she had already sold her one-hectare share (Lot 4232-B) to Bonifacio Belayo in 1938. The cadastral proceeding, being in rem, is binding on the whole world, including the petitioners, and its decision carries the force of res judicata. Since the title was already settled by a final judgment, there existed no common ownership to justify an action for partition. The Court thus upheld the validity of the 1940 adjudication, rendering the petitioners’ action without merit.