G.R. No. L-49065. April 30, 1947.
RITA GARCHITORENA VDA. DE CENTENERA, applicant-appellee; MARIANO GARCHITORENA, movant-appellee, vs. VICENTE SOTTO, H.P. OBIAS and ANA PATAAN, oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

On June 20, 1940, Mariano Garchitorena filed a motion in the lower court seeking approval of a subdivision plan (Psu-66063-Amd.) and the issuance of certificates of title in his name for specific lots. He based his motion on a May 14, 1931 decision, later modified and affirmed by the Supreme Court, which granted title to Rita Garchitorena over four lots, subject to liens and certain exclusions. Mariano Garchitorena alleged that these lots were later adjudicated to him via a deed of sale approved by the court on April 26, 1940, and that he also purchased a 500-hectare portion from Ramon and Jose Alvarez. The lower court, on June 28, 1941, ordered the issuance of titles in favor of Mariano Garchitorena. Three oppositors appealed: H.P. Obias, Ana Pataan, and Vicente Sotto.

ISSUE

The primary issues are whether the lower court erred in:
1. Awarding title to Mariano Garchitorena for lots originally belonging to Ramon and Jose Alvarez, over H.P. Obias’s opposition.
2. Declaring Ana Pataan’s free patent title null and void.
3. Rejecting Vicente Sotto’s claim based on a sheriff’s sale from a prior judgment against Rita Garchitorena.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order.
1. Regarding H.P. Obias’s Opposition: The Court found no merit. The 500-hectare portion was conclusively declared the property of Ramon and Jose Alvarez in a prior Supreme Court decision (58 Phil. 21). As their successor-in-interest, Mariano Garchitorena was entitled to the corresponding title. The registration proceedings were in rem, providing all interested parties, including Obias, a full opportunity to present their claims initially. His arguments that the final judgment could not be amended and that it only mandated segregation were rejected, as the issuance of title to the lawful owner or his successor was a proper consequence of the final adjudication.
2. Regarding Ana Pataan’s Appeal: The Court upheld the lower court’s declaration that her Free Patent Title No. 1406 (issued in 1937) was null and void. The land it covered had already been declared private property by the Supreme Court’s final decision of March 4, 1933, years before the patent’s issuance. Consequently, the Court deemed it unnecessary to address her ancillary motion for reopening.
3. Regarding Vicente Sotto’s Appeal: The Court rejected his claim. The lots in question were adjudicated to Rita Garchitorena subject to the provisions on administration of estates (Sections 712 and 713 of the Code of Civil Procedure). A subsequent judgment authorized the judicial administrator of Andres Garchitorena’s estate to sell the lands at public auction to pay debts. Mariano Garchitorena purchased them at this auction, which was conducted with court approval and over Sotto’s opposition. Therefore, Sotto’s earlier attachment and sheriff’s sale, arising from a personal judgment against Rita Garchitorena, could not prevail over the title properly derived through the court-ordered administration and sale of the estate property.