GENERAL OFFSET PRESS, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. APOLONIA ANATALIO AND JUAN FEDERICO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS; APOLONIA ANATALIO AND JUAN FEDERICO, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, VS. …

General Offset Press versus Anatalio

The Case

This is a motion for reconsideration of a minute resolution of the Supreme Court dismissing an appeal. General Offset Press, which the Court calls GOP, sued Apolonia Anatalio and her co-defendants for ejectment over a parcel of land in Quezon City. The defendants answered with a single defense: that they owned the land. The case matters because it teaches a hard rule of procedure and res judicata. When a party's only defense in an ejectment suit is ownership, and that same claim of ownership is finally settled against them in a separate quieting of title case, the appeal in the ejectment suit becomes moot and academic, and a dismissal on a technicality carries the same effect as a dismissal on the merits.

Procedural History

On the seventh of May, 1960, GOP filed a complaint for ejectment against the defendants before the Municipal Court of Quezon City. The defendants interposed only one defense, that they were the owners of the disputed land. The municipal court rejected that claim, sustained the complaint, and on the fifteenth of November, 1960, rendered a decision directing the defendants to vacate the premises. On motion of GOP, the same court issued an order for immediate execution.

To restrain that order, the defendants filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, and the court issued the writ on the twenty-first of December, 1960. In the meantime, the defendants appealed the municipal court's decision to the same Court of First Instance. After trial on the merits, the Court of First Instance rendered a joint decision in the two cases in favor of GOP. It expressly ruled that the defendants' singular defense of ownership could not be entertained because GOP held a Torrens title over the land, the validity of which could not be assailed in an ejectment suit. That joint decision is the subject of the present appeal.

While the appeal was pending, the defendants filed with the same court, at its Quezon City branch, an action for quieting of title over the very same land. That case was dismissed on the twenty-first of December, 1963. The defendants went to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed their appeal for failure to file their brief on time. They elevated that dismissal to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, which was likewise dismissed for having been filed out of time. The decision in the quieting of title case thus became final. On the fourth of April, 1966, GOP filed with the Supreme Court a petition to dismiss the instant appeal on the ground that the sole issue of ownership had become moot. By a minute resolution dated the twentieth of April, 1966, the Supreme Court granted the petition. Hence, this motion for reconsideration.

Facts

GOP held a Torrens title over a parcel of land in Quezon City. The defendants occupied the land and claimed to own it. In May 1960, GOP sued them for ejectment before the Municipal Court of Quezon City.

The defendants raised only one defense, that they were the owners of the disputed land. The municipal court rejected that claim and ordered them to vacate the premises. When the court ordered immediate execution, the defendants sought certiorari and injunction from the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and also appealed the municipal court's decision to the same court.

The Court of First Instance upheld GOP, ruling that the defendants' claim of ownership could not be entertained against a Torrens title in an ejectment suit. While that appeal was pending, the defendants filed a separate action for quieting of title over the same land. That action was dismissed, their appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed for failure to file their brief on time, and their petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court was dismissed for having been filed out of time. The quieting of title decision became final, and GOP then moved to dismiss the pending ejectment appeal as moot.

Issues

• Whether or not the appeal in the ejectment case became moot and academic with the finality of the decision in the quieting of title case.
• Whether or not a dismissal of the quieting of title case on a technicality, for having been filed out of time, produces the same effect as a dismissal on the merits.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It rests on the doctrine of res judicata and on the rule that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked in an ejectment suit, as the Court of First Instance held and the Supreme Court accepted.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no reason to reconsider its resolution of the twentieth of April, 1966. With the dismissal of the certiorari petition, the title and ownership of GOP over the disputed property, as against a similar claim by the defendants, became an established, settled, and incontestible fact. The one and sole issue raised in the appeal at bar is therefore moot and academic. The Court reasoned that no fair or useful purpose could be realized by either party if the appeal were maintained. If the Court were to decide the appeal on the merits in favor of the defendants, it would cause the promulgation of two utterly conflicting decisions, namely, its resolution dismissing the certiorari petition and its decision on the merits finding the defendants the real owners. If it were to decide in favor of GOP, exactly the same result would be realized as if the case were dismissed.

On the second issue, the Court held that a dismissal on a technicality is no different in effect and consequences from a dismissal on the merits. It acknowledged that it had dismissed the certiorari petition for having been filed out of time, and so had no occasion to rule on the merits of the quieting of title case. Still, the effect of that dismissal was to make the quieting of title decision final, and with it the settled ownership of GOP.

Doctrine

First, a final judgment on the ownership of land binds the parties in a later ejectment suit, and the issue of ownership becomes moot and academic. Second, a dismissal of an appeal on a technicality, such as failure to file the brief on time or filing a petition out of time, is no different in effect and consequences from a dismissal on the merits. Third, a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked in an ejectment suit, so a defendant's bare claim of ownership will not defeat the registered owner's right to possession.

Disposition

The Court affirmed its resolution of the twentieth of April, 1966, dismissed the appeal, and denied the motion for reconsideration, in favor of General Offset Press.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a dismissal on a technicality is no different in effect and consequences from a dismissal on the merits. Examiners use this case to test res judicata, mootness, and the rule that ownership cannot be collaterally attacked in an ejectment suit.