GR 91797; (August, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 91797 August 7, 1992
WIDOWS & ORPHANS ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ORTIGAS & COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, respondents.
FACTS
On August 27, 1974, petitioner Widows’ and Orphans Association, Inc. (“Widora”) filed Land Registration Case No. Q-336 before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, applying for original registration of title over a 156-hectare parcel of land in Malitlit-Ugong, Quezon City, based on Titulo Propiedad No. 4136. Private respondent Ortigas & Co. Limited Partnership (“Ortigas”) filed an opposition and a motion to dismiss, asserting that the land was already registered in its name under TCT Nos. 77652 and 77653. The trial court set the case for hearing to allow Widora to prove its claim that Ortigas’s titles were not derived from the Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) referenced on their faces. After nine years of hearings, the trial court denied Ortigas’s motion to dismiss on March 30, 1988, finding that the TCTs did not appear to be derived from the mentioned OCTs. Ortigas filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which, on November 27, 1989, nullified the trial court’s order and dismissed the registration case, holding that the land was already registered under Torrens titles in Ortigas’s name and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court’s Third Division, in a decision dated August 28, 1991, set aside the Court of Appeals decision and reinstated the trial court’s order, directing a full-blown hearing on the merits. Ortigas filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the trial court’s order and dismissing the land registration case based on its factual findings regarding the derivation and authenticity of Ortigas’s Torrens titles.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted Ortigas’s Motion for Reconsideration. It held that the factual uncertainties regarding Ortigas’s titles had already been conclusively resolved in previously decided cases, making them matters of judicial notice and barring relitigation under the principle of res judicata. The Court found that Ortigas’s titles were valid derivatives of OCT No. 351, which was issued pursuant to Decree No. 1425 in G.L.R.O. Record No. 917, adjudicating a large tract known as Hacienda de Mandaloyon to Ortigas’s predecessor-in-interest. The Court also clarified that the evidence presented by Ortigas, including a certified true copy of OCT No. 351 and survey plans, was admissible and not merely “secondary evidence” as previously characterized. Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the registration case for lack of jurisdiction, as the land was already registered under the Torrens system.