Republic Vs Clemente Tapay
Republic Vs Clemente Tapay
DECISION
HERNANDO, J.:
This petition for review2 assails the March 20, 2003 Decision3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CV No. 54088, which upheld the August 14, 1996 Order4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Lipa City, Batangas, Branch 12 in Land Case No. N-1727, LRC Rec. No. N-35920.
Antecedents:
Sometime in 1980, Flora and Clemente Tapay (respondents) filed an application for registration
of Lot No. 10786, with an area of 684 square meters, before the RTC of Lipa City.5 They alleged
that a certain Francisca Cueto had been in possession of the property since 1925 until it was sold to
Teofila Lindog (Teofila), respondents' predecessor.6 When Teofila died intestate in 1971,
respondents inherited the property.7
Respondents' application for registration was opposed by the Republic of the Philippines
(petitioner) through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).8 Petitioner argued that: (1) the
documents submitted by respondents (such as the muniments of title, tax declaration, and receipt of
tax payments) did not constitute competent evidence of acquisition of property; (2) neither did
respondents' open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the land in the concept of an
owner constitute the same; (3) respondents' claim of ownership based on a Spanish title or grant can
no longer be availed of since respondents failed to file the appropriate application within the period
set by Presidential Decree No. 892;9 and (4) the parcel of land applied for is part of public
domain.10
A notice of the application for registration was posted, published, and served on the adjoining
property owners.11 The RTC thereafter issued an order of general default against the whole
world.12
During the course of the proceedings, the Land Registration Commission or LRC (now the Land
Registration Authority or LRA) issued a report stating that based on the Books of Cadastral Lots, the
lot was previously the subject of registration in another case—Cadastral Case No. 33, LRC (GLRO)
Cadastral Record No. 1305—and had already been adjudicated to another person, but the cadastral
court has yet to issue a decree of registration.13 The LRC, however, was unable to determine the
identity of the person to whom the property was adjudicated to because the records of the case,
including a copy of the decision, were not available.14
[D]espite the report of the LRC, the RTC adjudicated the land to the respondents in its May 28,
1982 Decision, viz.:
WHEREFORE, and upon previous confirmation of the Order of General Default, this Court
hereby adjudicates and decrees, the land subject matter of this application in favor of and in the
names of applicants FLORA TAPAY, married to Ambrocio Barrion and CLEMENTE TAPAY, married
to Leticia Aranda, both Filipinos, of legal age and residing at Barrio Maraouy, Lipa City, as the true
and absolute owners thereof, in equal shares pro indiviso.
Once this Decision have become final, let the corresponding decree of registration be issued.15
After the Decision became final, the RTC directed the LRC to issue the decree of registration
and the corresponding certificate of title.16 However, instead of complying with the order, the LRC
submitted a supplemental report reiterating that the subject land was previously the subject of
registration proceedings in Cadastral Case No. 33.17 The LRC then recommended that the
cadastral court's decision be nullified so that it can issue a decree of registration in favor of
respondents.18
Accordingly, respondents filed a motion to set aside the decision in Cadastral Case No. 33 in
order to give effect to the May 28, 1982 Decision of the RTC.19 This motion was granted in the
August 14, 1996 Order of the RTC, viz.:
WHEREFORE, as prayed for, the Decision in Cadastral Case No. 33, LRC (GLRO) Cadastral
Record No. 1305 relative to Lot No. 10786 is hereby SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.20
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA, arguing that the RTC had no authority to set aside the
decision of the cadastral court as it amounted to interference with the authority of another co-equal
court.21
The CA agreed with petitioner that generally, the RTC has no authority to nullify the decision of a
co-equal court.22 However, the CA opined that this doctrine finds no application in this case
considering that: (1) petitioner was unable to present the records of the cadastral case, (2) LRC
admitted that it could not determine the identity of the party to whom the subject lot was adjudicated
to, and (3) because the LRC, knowing that it could not execute the decision in the cadastral
proceedings as it never attained finality, recommended that the decision be nullified by the RTC.23
The CA also considered that except for petitioner, no other person claimed ownership over the
subject property.24 If the property was indeed adjudicated to a third person, the CA postulated, that
party should have challenged the application filed by respondents who, through their own evidence,
were able to show that the possession of their predecessor-in-interest was peaceful, open, public,
and continuous since 1925.25
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and finding no reversible error in the assailed August 14,
1996 Order of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court of Lipa City, Batangas, the herein appeal
is DISMISSED for lack of merit and said Order is UPHELD and AFFIRMED.26
First, the RTC of Lipa City has no authority to nullify the decision of a co-equal court and only the
CA has such power. Thus, the decision in Cadastral Case No. 33 remains valid and subsisting.28
Second, the decision of the cadastral court in Cadastral Case No. 33, as well as all matters
incident to it, continue to be within the exclusive control of the cadastral court until a registration
decree is issued.29
Third, the decision in Cadastral Case No. 33 constitutes res judicata and thus bars respondents'
subsequent application for registration. While the parties in the cadastral court and the RTC of Lipa
may be different, the decision binds respondents because decisions in cadastral proceedings bind
the whole world.30
And fourth, the RTC's May 28, 1982 Decision which adjudicated the land to respondents can no
longer be modified to order the nullification of the decision in Cadastral Case No. 33 due to
immutability of judgment.31
Arguments of respondents:
First, the nullification of the decision in the cadastral proceedings should be upheld considering
that from 1982 up to the present, petitioner failed to produce the records of the case while
respondents were able to present sufficient evidence to support their right to a registration decree.33
Second, the CA, which is empowered to nullify the decision of the cadastral court, already
affirmed the August 14, 1996 Order of the RTC. Hence, the nullification was made within bounds of
law.34
Third, there is lack of identity of parties to satisfy the elements of res judicata, and the records
are incomplete to show that the proceedings actually took place and that the decision actually
attained finality.35
And fourth, there was no modification of the RTC's May 28, 1982 Decision.36
Issue
Did the CA err in affirming the RTC's August 14, 1996 Order?
Our Ruling
The Court agrees with petitioner that a regional trial court has no power to nullify or interfere with
the decision of a co-equal court pursuant to the law and the doctrine of judicial stability.37 Applying
the doctrine to this case, petitioner is correct in postulating that the August 14, 1996 Order of RTC
Lipa City is void and thus, the cadastral court's decision in Cadastral Case No. 33 remains valid and
subsisting as of this time.
However, the foregoing presupposes that Cadastral Case No. 33 really existed and that there
actually is a decision in that case. Unfortunately for petitioner, aside from the single entry "Cadastral
Case No. 33, LRC (GLRO) Cadastral Record No. 1305," no other record, including a copy of the
decision, exists to support the theory. Key information, such as the identity of the parties in the case
and of the court that rendered the decision, as well as the outcome thereof, has remained unknown
despite the lapse of more than 40 years since the LRC submitted its report. No one, aside from the
Republic, has even come forward to claim any interest arising from the supposed case. The Court
therefore agrees with the CA that the doctrine of judicial stability finds no application in this case.
Practical considerations now demand that the proceedings in the RTC be no longer disturbed and
the August 14, 1996 Order no longer set aside.
We agree that indeed, there are no available records bearing the so called Cadastral Case No.
10, Cadastral Record No. 984 or the decision or decree of registration or title issued therein. The
only single entry in the records is found on page 80 of the LRA Record Book of Cadastral Lots: "a
portion of said lot is already covered by a certificate of title pursuant to the decision rendered in Cad.
Case No. 10." But no matter how we look at it, we cannot deduce therefrom the actual text of the
decision, the exact portion of Lot 459 affected, or the parties in whose favor the supposed title was
issued, including the details of this supposed title. For sure, it would be the height of injustice for
respondents to be held hostage or punished by reason of the plain scarcity of the records on file with
the government agencies concerned. It is certainly illegal, immoral, and against public policy and
order for respondents who have been vested with a legal right to be precluded from exercising it,
sans any real remedy under the law.
xxxx
Although we recognize that a final and executory decision in a land registration case does not
ever become extinct, here, again, the records are simply too scarce for any court of law or the LRA
itself to ascertain what exactly should be executed in terms of the text of the decision, x x x
We therefore fully concur with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the only right and
logical thing to do under the circumstances is to allow the execution of the final and executory
Decision dated October 26, 1967 for registration of the entire Lot 459 filed by the same Julian Sta.
Ana and Mercedes Sta. Ana who are respondents' predecessors-in-interest thereto. Remarkably, no
private party has ever come forward to oppose the claim of ownership invariably asserted by
respondents' predecessors-in-interest over the entire Lot 459 or a portion thereof. In any event,
whatever decision, if any, may have been issued over a portion of Lot 459 in Cadastral Case No. 10,
Cadastral Record No. 984, there is no existing title found in the records pertaining to that portion.
Consequently, there can be no double titling to speak of resulting from the order of execution in LRC
Case No. N-5999 (in relation to the Decision dated October 26, 1967), as affirmed in CA-G.R. SP
No. 139385.39 (Citations omitted, emphasis supplied)
Notably, in Republic v. Heirs of Sta. Ana, the LRA reported that a prior decree of registration had
already been issued, yet the Court still decided to allow the subsequent registration because there
was no way to verify the truthfulness of the alleged prior case.40 Considering that it is the decree of
registration that binds the land and quiets the title thereto,41 and not the decision, the registration
should be allowed with much more reason here where no decree of registration covering the subject
land had yet been issued and only the existence of the supposed decision (which has not yet even
attained finality) bars respondents' application.
It is also worth noting that almost 40 years had passed since the trial court determined that
respondents are entitled to a registration decree. One of the respondents even passed away while
waiting for it.42 In Republic v. Heirs of Sta. Ana, one of the key considerations for allowing the
subsequent registration was the fact that a long time had passed since the trial court ordered the
issuance of a registration decree.43 The Court intimated that to reverse such decision would run
counter to the purpose of land registration, which is to finally settle title to real property.44 Here, it is
in keeping with the purpose of land registration to finally allow respondents to be granted a
registration decree.
In fine, the Court believes that the higher interest of justice will be better served by granting
respondents' prayer for a registration decree. After all, even after the lapse of so many years, no
other person has come forward to dispute their claim.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The March 20, 2003 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 54088, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.