FABIAN B. S. ABELLERA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. FELICIANO GARCIA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

In the Court of First Instance of La Union, Fabian B. S.
Abellera sued Feliciano Garcia in 1918 to recover a parcel of land situated in
the town of Aringay, same province, (civil case No. 936). As the lot was
included in the cadastral survey and both parties had claimed it in the
cadastral proceedings, the civil case was dismissed and the parties were
directed to litigate in the cadastral court. The conflict about the lot
(numbered 4973) was subsequently heard by Hon. Meynardo Farol, Judge, who, in
due time awarded it to Feliciano Garcia in cadastral case No. 5.

Abellera appealed to the Court of Appeals. However, due to the
loss of the stenographic notes, the case was returned in 1943 by the appellate
court for new trial under the provisions of section 64 of Act 3110. Nothing
seems to have been done, until January, 1946, when Fabian B. S. Abellera began
in the La Union Court of First Instance another action (the present proceedings)
against the same opponent, asserting ownership over the land, damages due to
defendant’s occupation thereof, and asking for restitution of possession plus
damages.

The defendant Feliciano Garcia moved for dismissal, partly upon
the ground that there was another action pending between the same parties,
expressly referring to the case returned by order of the Court of Appeals. After
hearing the motion, Judge Alejandro Panlilio granted the motion and dismissed
the case, saying:

“There is no question that the appeal had been taken by
plaintiff herein from the decision adjudicating lot No. 4973, the contested
land, rendered in cadastral case No. 5 of Aringay, La Union, and there seems to
be no question, either, that the only reasons that moved the Court of Appeals,
motu proprio, to order the return of the case to this Court for a new
trial, was the fact that the stenographer who had taken the notes of the hearing
of the case could not be located. And such being the case, it is clear that the
sole purpose of the Court of Appeals in returning the case was to give an
opportunity to plaintiff to reconstruct the evidence, originally introduced at
the hearing, in accordance with section 64 of Act No. 3110, and not to allow or
give him a free hand to start a new action. In other words, the Court of Appeals
ordered a new trial specifically in cadastral case No. 5 of Aringay, La Union,
as regards lot No. 4973, and then, for the sole and specific purpose of
reconstructing the evidence introduced at the original hearing, and did not,
otherwise, authorize plaintiff to institute a new action. Courts will never
encourage multiplicity of suits.”

When his motion to reconsider was denied, Abellera perfected an
appeal to the Court of Appeals, which in turn endorsed the expediente
to us, as no question of fact is involved.

It is obvious that the order of dismissal was correctly
entered. The cadastral proceedings were pending, and Abellera may not be
permitted to start another litigation. He asserts that the expedientes
in La Union had all been destroyed and seems to hold the impression that the
cadastral proceedings may not be reconstructed. But his impression does not seem
to be correct, as may be seen from an endorsement of the Chief of the General
Land Registration Office:

“* * * all the plans, decisions, orders and all other records
of Aringay cadastre (cad. case No. 5, G.L.R.O. cad. record No. 248) were lost
during the last war. However, said Aringay cadastre cadastral case No. 5 can be
reconstituted if this Office can. be furnished again with the plans, technical
descriptions of all the cadastral lots, decisions, orders and all the data
needed for said reconstitution.

“In this connection, it is necessary to ascertain first from
the Bureau of Lands whether the plans and technical descriptions were among the
records salvaged in that Office, and to request the reproduction of said
plans.”

The appellant has not shown that the Bureau of Lands is unable
to furnish the required data and there is no reason now before us to presume
that the cadastral proceedings could not be reconstructed.

And unless it is definitely demonstrated that the cadastral
expediente may not be sufficiently reconstituted to permit adjudication
of appellant’s litigation therein, this new proceeding should not be
countenanced.

Wherefore, the appealed order of dismissal will be affirmed,
with costs without prejudice to further proceedings in the cadastral case. So
ordered.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Padilla, Tuason,
Montemayor, Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concur.