GREGORIO MONTINOLA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. MONSERRAT BARRIDO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Appeal taken by Gregorio J. Montinola and Matilde Montinola,
assisted by her husband Alfredo Samson, from an order of the Court of
First Instance of .Negros Occidental dated June 13, 1958 dismissing the
complaint they filed against Monserrat, Eliarte, Democrito, all
surnamed Barrido, C. N. Hodges and the Register of Deeds of said
province.

It appears that in Cadastral Case No. 26, G.L.R.O. record No. 214 of
the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, lots 391 and 392 of
the Cadastral Survey of the municipality of Manapla were claimed, on
the one hand, by the late Gregorio Montinola, predecessor in interest
of appellants, and on the other, by the late Pablo and Luis Barrido,
predecessor in interest of appellee Barridos. On September 5, 1921
while the said proceedings were pending, Pablo Barrido, in his behalf
and’ in that of his brother Luis, then a minor residing in the United
States, executed a deed of sale in favor of Gregorio Montinola
conveying to the latter their rights and interests over said lots.
Relying upon the promise made by the attorneys of the vendors that they
would take the necessary steps to have the corresponding title issued
in his1 name, the vendee withdrew his claim when the lots were called
for hearing on August 30, 1923. Many years there after, or more
specifically on October 4, 1941, decision was rendered by the court
adjudicating the lots aforesaid to Pablo and Luis Barrido. In due. time
appellants, as heirs of Gregorio Montinola, who had died in 1933, filed
a motion for new trial. This was granted by the court on November 25,
1941. On December 16 of the same year Pablo and Luis Barrido filed a
motion for the reconsideration of said order, which motion remained
unresolved until October 23, 1957 when the court denied it after a
reconstitution of the records of Cadastral Case No. 26 made on petition
of appellants.

The petition for reconstitution wa3 filed on December 5, 1947. In
the course of the hearing held in connection therewith, the Barridos
appeared and objected to the reconstitution, and in support of their
opposition they offered as Exhibit 1 a copy of an alleged court order
dated January 19, 1942 granting their motion for reconsideration
mentioned heretofore. The court, however, rejected said exhibit on the
ground that it could not be taken and accepted as a faithful and true
copy of the alleged order. This ruling was, on appeal, affirmed by the
Court of Appeals on November 16, 1950 in CA-G. R. No. 4761-R. J

It appears, however, that pursuant to an order of the court issued
upon an ex-parte petition filed by the Barridos sometime in April,
1947, the Chief of the General Land Registration Office issued decree
No. 353 of May 3, 1947 in connection with the registration of the lots
in question, including lot No. 301 of the same cadastral survey, in the
names of Pablo and Luis. Barrido in equal shares. At that time, as
already stated; the record of Cadastral Survey No. 26 had not yet been
reconstituted, the petition for this purpose having been filed only on
December 5,1947. In accordance with said decree, Original Certificate
of Title No. I-N was issued on May 9,1947 by the Office of the Register
of Deeds of Negros Occidental, but it was subsequently canceled by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1586 in the names of Luis and Pablo
Barrido. On July 9, 1947 this transfer certificate of title was in turn
cancelled by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 1746 and 1747 issued in
the names of their heirs, the Barridos involved in this case.

On December 11,1951 appellants filed Civil Case No. 721 in the Court
of First Instance of Negros Occidental against the Barridos and the
Register of Deeds of said province to recover the ownership and
possession of lots 391 and 392. Upon motion of the therein defendants
the court dismissed the case in an order dated June 28, 1957, the
pertinent portions of which read as follows:

“Se desprende de los escritos de alegaciones, en
particular de las de la demanda enmendada, que la cuestion del dominio
y titulo de los Lotes Nos. 391 y 392 objeto de esta causa, se halla
controvertida entre las mismas partes en el Expediente Cadastral No.
26, G.L.R.O. Cad. Rec. No. 214, cttya contencion no ha sido hasta ahora
definitivamente resuelta por este Juzgado en el ejercicio de su
jurisdicon y competencia original y exclusive, como tribunal de
catastro.

“Bajo tales hechos, el Juzgado es de opinion que
este tribunal, en el ejercicio de su jurisdicci6n general, carece de
jurisdicddn y competencia para conocer de esta causa con el fin de
resolver la cuestion. sobre.la. adjudicaciin^ del dominio y titulo de
las propiedades en ella envueltas a favor de los demandantes, tal como
estos piden en su demanda enmendada.

“POR TANTO, y estimando
bien fundadas las razones alegadas en la mocion de los referidos
demandados, se ordena el sobreseimiento de esta causa, sin especial
pronunciamiento en cuanto a las costas.”

On September 16, 1957 the Barridos sold the lot in question to C. N.
Hodges and the transfer certificates of title in their names were canceled and a new transfer certificate of title was issued in the
name of the vendee.

On November 22, 1957 appellants commenced the present action in the
Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental to have said court declare
illegal and improper the certificates of title mentioned heretofore,
including the one Issued in the name of Hodges, and to recover damages.

On February 28, 1958 the Barridos filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the present action was barred by a prior judgment; that the
action had already prescribed; that the court had no jurisdiction over
the subject matter; and lastly, that there was another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause. Resolving said motion
after due hearing the lower court issued the appealed order sustaining
it and dismissing the complaint, with costs.

Upon the uncontested facts involved in this case we are of the opinion that the order of dismissal must be reversed.

The lower court’s contention that the order of dismissal issued in
Civil Case No. 721 bars the present action is untenable. The order
aforesaid was predicated principally on the opinion of the court that,
in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, it had no jurisdiction
over the subject matter of said civil case because it was exactly the
same matter involved in Cadastral Proceedings No. 26 where a new trial
had been granted and was yet to be held. A dismissal on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction does not constitute res judicata.

The contention of the lower court that the cause of action of
appellants had already prescribed is likewise without merit for the
obvious reason that, up to the present, the question of title over lots
391 and 392 of the Cadastral Survey of Manapla is still unresolved. In
other words, the question involved in the present cases still before
the lower court awaiting final trial and appropriate adjudication.

While we agree with the lower court that the issue involved in the
present action is the same question of ownership over the
above-mentioned lots pending trial and adjudication in the cadastral
proceedings already referred to, we are of the opinion that,
considering all the facts and circumstances involved, especially the
fact that the Barridos have allegedly sold said lots to C. N. Hodges,
the lower court, instead of dismissing the present case, should have
ordered it consolidated—for a joint trial and adjudication with said
cadastral proceedings still pending new trial.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the order of dismissal appealed from is
hereby set aside, and the record of this case is remanded to the lower
court for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.