GREGORIO GITGANO, PLAINTIFF VS. HONORABLE JOSE C. BORROMEO, JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, ROSALIA DIANO, ESPERANZA F. GARCIA, AS EX-OFFICIO PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF CEBU,…

Gitgano versus Borromeo

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Gregorio Gitgano against Judge Jose C. Borromeo of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Rosalia Diano, and the ex-officio provincial sheriff of Cebu. Gitgano asks the Supreme Court to annul and set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch Four, which dismissed his action to annul an order issued by another branch of the same court in a land registration case. The case matters because it gathers into one decision two enduring rules every practitioner must know: the indefeasibility of a decree of registration after one year, and the bar of prior judgment against repeated litigation of the same cause.

Procedural History

The story begins in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch Three, sitting as a land registration court. After judgment was rendered and later amended, no appeal was taken, and a decree of registration issued in 1969. Gitgano first filed a petition for relief from judgment in the land registration case, which was dismissed. He then filed a case for reconveyance, which was also dismissed. A second reconveyance case was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by prior judgment. He challenged that dismissal before the Court of Appeals by certiorari, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in February 1973.

On August 13, 1973, Gitgano filed a new action before the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch Four, for annulment of the amendatory judgment of the land registration court. After trial, that court dismissed the case. Gitgano then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

In 1969, Juan Entica and several others applied for registration of separate portions of Lot Number 2359 situated in Mandaue, Cebu, before the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch Three. Rosalia Diano opposed the applications, claiming she had inherited the entire lot, including Lot Number 2359-D, which no applicant had applied for, from her mother, the original owner of the whole lot.

After publication and hearing, the land registration court rendered judgment on September 18, 1969, confirming the titles of the several applicants to their respective portions. On November 3, 1969, upon motions filed by Ciriaco Ulanulan and Rosalia Diano, the court issued an order amending its decision to adjudicate an additional lot to Ulanulan and Lot Number 2359-D to Rosalia Diano. No appeal was taken from either the decision or the amendatory order, and a decree of registration issued to the respective owners in 1969.

Gitgano then pursued a series of remedies against the award of Lot Number 2359-D to Diano: a petition for relief from judgment, which was dismissed; a first action for reconveyance, which was dismissed; and a second action for reconveyance, which was dismissed as barred by prior judgment. When the Court of Appeals dismissed his certiorari petition, he filed the present action to annul the amendatory order, alleging that the award to Diano was not based on any finding of fact or law and was repugnant to the findings in the decision.

Issues

• Whether or not the final orders dismissing the two earlier actions for reconveyance bar the later action to annul the amendatory judgment of the land registration court.
• Whether or not the order of the land registration court dated November 3, 1969 is null and void.

Applicable Provisions

Section 38 of the Land Registration Act provides:

Section 38. Decree of registration, and remedies after entry of decree. If the court after hearing finds that the applicant or adverse claimant has title as stated in his application or adverse claim and proper for registration, a decree of confirmation and registration shall be entered. Every decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, subject only to the exceptions stated in the following section. It shall be conclusive upon and against all persons including the Insular Government and all the branches thereof whether mentioned by name in the application, notice of citation, or included in the general description "To all whom it may concern" Such decree shall not be opened by reason of the absence, infancy or other disability of any person affected, thereby, nor in any proceeding by any court for reversing judgments or decrees; subject however, to the right of any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by decree of registration obtained by fraud to file in the competent Court of First Instance a petition for review within one year after entry of the decree provided no purchaser for value has acquired an interest.

This provision fixes the one-year period within which a decree obtained by fraud may be reviewed, and it is the measure against which the timeliness of Gitgano's action is tested.

Ruling

On the second issue, which the Court took up first, it held that the order of November 3, 1969 is not null and void, and that the action to annul it can no longer be maintained. The basic rule is that after the lapse of one year, a decree of registration is no longer open to review or attack, even though its issuance may have been attended by fraud. After one year from entry, the decree becomes indefeasible and conclusive. The Court explained that the aggrieved party is not without remedy: if the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value, an action for reconveyance remains available. That, the Court observed, is exactly what Gitgano had done, and both reconveyance cases had been dismissed. The present action, filed more than one year from the issuance of the decree and after two reconveyance cases had already been filed and dismissed, is no longer sanctioned by and is violative of Section 55 of Act Number 496.

On the first issue, the Court held that the action is likewise barred by the prior judgments in the two reconveyance cases. There is bar by prior judgment when, between the first case and the second case sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of cause of action. The Court found all three present: the same Gregorio Gitgano sued the same Rosalia Diano; the subject matter was the same Lot Number 2359-D; and the cause of action in all three cases was the alleged fraudulent registration of that lot. The dismissal of the second reconveyance case, though grounded on prior judgment, was a judgment on the merits, because the issue of fraudulent registration was raised by both parties and heard by the court. The Court laid down the governing rule:

If both parties have been heard and have introduced testimony, or had an opportunity to do so, and the court, upon consideration of the law and facts as thus presented, dismisses the action, it is not a mere non-suit, but a judgment on the merits and a bar to any further suit on the same cause of action.

A plaintiff who deliberately selects his forum and then unsuccessfully presents his proofs is bound by the adverse judgment in a second suit involving the identical issues already decided. Litigation must end sometime and somewhere.

Doctrine

First, under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, a decree of registration becomes indefeasible and conclusive after one year from its entry, and it can no longer be opened or attacked even on the ground of fraud. The remedy of a person deprived of land by a fraudulent decree is not to set aside the decree but to bring an ordinary action for reconveyance, or for damages if the land has passed to an innocent purchaser for value.

Second, under the rule on bar by prior judgment, a final judgment is an absolute bar to a subsequent action where there is identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of cause of action. A dismissal after both parties have been heard, or had the opportunity to be heard, is a judgment on the merits and bars any further suit on the same cause of action.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, with costs against the petitioner, thereby affirming the dismissal of the action to annul the amendatory judgment.

Remember This

Memorize this line: after one year, a decree of registration becomes indefeasible, and the remedy is reconveyance, not annulment. Examiners use this case to test the one-year limit on attacking a decree and the three-fold identity required for bar by prior judgment.