G.R. No. L-32723. October 28, 1977
JUAN DACASIN, JOSE MARAMBA, MARIA MARAMBA, SORAHAYDA MARAMBA, FLORDELIZA MARAMBA AND FILIPINAS MARAMBA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, FELIPE CAPUA, SINFOROSA PADILLA, G…
GUERRERO, J.:
Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 42404-R entitled “Felipe Capua, et al.,
Plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Juan Dacasin, et al., Defendants-Appellees”
reversing the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan which
adjudicated the ownership of the land in controversy to the plaintiffs.
The original action instituted in the case at bar sought the
recovery of title and ownership over the land described in the complaint filed
by the plaintiffs Felipe Capua, Sinforosa Padilla, Gualberto Calulot and
Olimpia Lomibao (herein respondents) against the defendants Juan Dacasin, Jose
Maramba, Maria Maramba, Sorahayda Maramba, Flordeliza Maramba and Filipinas
Maramba (herein petitioners), docketed as Civil Case No. 1455, Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan.
The facts as found by the Court of Appeals are as follows:
“IT RESULTING: That the
antecedents are quite complicated and it will be the task of this Court to
simplify; sometime prior to January 19, 1943 the property in question, a parcel
of rural land in the barrio of Patayac, Municipality of Sta. Barbara, Province
of Pangasinan described in paragraph 2 of the complaint was being possessed by
Jose Maramba, Exh. 4; in that
month and year a certain Sabina Capua with companions grabbed possession of the
property; and since then possessed; sometime afterwards on a date not very
clear in the record, Jose Maramba filed Civil Case No. 895 of the Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan against Sabina Capua and companions for reivindicacion; but that notwithstanding, Sabina
remained; while Jose Maramba had his own declaration of land tax, it will
appear that Sabina also had her own, see Exh. F; while that Civil Case No. 895
was pending, Sabina sold the property unto Gualberto Calulot on 21 April, 1950
Exh. A and Gualberto took over; there is no evidence that Gualberto was
informed or came to know of the pending litigation between Jose Maramba and
Sabina Capua; at any rate by decision dated 1 (September), 1952, the Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan declared Jose Maramba absolute owner and condemned
Sabina and companions to vacate and deliver to Maramba; unfortunately decision
was not executed within the reglementary period of five (5) years from the time
it had become final pursuant to the Rules; and for his part several years later
specifically on 27 May, 1960, Exh. C Gualberto sold the same property unto now
plaintiffs spouses Felipe Capua and Sinforosa Padilla; and these last came in
to possess thereafter; meantime the prevailing party in Civil Case No. 895 Jose
Maramba having died, his heirs and successors-in-interest sometime afterwards
on 2 August, 1961, Exh. 1, sold the property to herein defendant Juan Dacasin
and his wife; it was at this stage where the trouble came to brew because Jose
(Maramba) having tried to possess and thwarted in his efforts by Felipe Capua,
went to the Court in Civil (Case) No. 895 and secured a writ of possession on 3
October, 1960, Exh. G and possession was unto him delivered by the Sheriff on 4
October, 1960, Exh. G-1; from then on actual possession came to be a seesaw; notwithstanding the writ,
Felipe Capua tried to come in once again; (Jose Maramba) asked to punish him
for contempt but the Pangasinan Court by order of 5 February, 1961 held that
there could be no contempt because the writ of possession having been issued
more than 5 years from the date the judgment had become final became a nullity
under Rule 39, Sec. 6 and so it
was that the Pangasinan Court restored Felipe Capua to possession; with that development, the heirs of Jose Maramba filed
Civil (Case) No. D-1292 in the Pangasinan Court on 22 February, 1962 against
Sabina Capua and companions in the old Civil Case No. 895 for revival of the
judgment, Exh. X; and in answer to that Sabina alleged that she had already
disposed of the property more than ten (10) years previous to Gualberto Calulot
who in turn had sold afterwards to Felipe Capua, Exh. Y; and the Pangasinan
Court after hearing the case for revival of judgment revived it by decision of
21 March, 1963 against Sabina Capua and her old companions in Civil No. 895;
now in anticipation of repercussions that would have to be produced by that
judgment, Felipe Capua began the present hostilities by filing together with
his wife and his original vendors Gualberto Calulot and wife the present Civil
Case No. 1456 against Juan Dacasin and the heirs of Jose Maramba asking that
he, Felipe Capua and his wife be declared the absolute owners of the property,
by virtue of his purchase in good faith and by the continuous possession from
21 April, 1950 of his immediate predecessor-in-interest Gualberto Calulot
succeeded by himself on 27 May, 1960 under Exh. C; and defendant Juan Dacasin,
et al. in due time filed their answer on 30 April, 1963 alleging that he was
the true owner, and that the question of ownership was already judicially
settled in Civil (Case) No. 895; and in the trial of the case both parties
sought to sustain their respective positions by oral and documentary proofs;
the gist of plaintiff’s position sought to be developed in his evidence being
that he was the true owner notwithstanding Civil No. 895 because of his long
continued possession tacked with that of his predecessors-in-interest while
defendants sought to show the reverse, that the holding on the issue of
ownership was already impossible to evade having been finally settled in Civil
(Case) No. 895 in favor of their predecessor-in-interest Jose Maramba.”
After trial, judgment was
rendered in favor of the petitioners Juan Dacasin, et al. in the following wise
and manner:
“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court rules
that defendant Juan Dacasin is the true and lawful owner of that certain parcel
of land described in the above-entitled complaint, having shown that this
title thereto has been acquired in good faith from unpolluted sources, and is
therefore entitled to the full and complete possession of the same. The plaintiffs are hereby ordered to respect
defendants’ possession and to refrain from further molesting defendant Juan
Dacasin in the enjoyment of said property.
The preliminary injunction issued by this Court is hereby dissolved and
the counterbond filed by the defendant Juan Dacasin is ordered
cancelled. The plaintiffs are also
ordered to pay the defendants, jointly and severally, the amount of P500.00 spent by them in defending
this suit. The claim made by the
defendants for damages in the amount of P5,000.00, the same not having been
satisfactorily proven, is hereby denied.
Finally, the plaintiffs are also ordered to pay the costs of this
proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
Dagupan City, July 8, 1968.
SIXTO
A. DOMONDON
Judge”
Not satisfied with the
decision of the trial court, the plaintiffs appealed to the appellate
court. On July 17, 1970, the Court of
Appeals promulgated its decision reversing the judgment appealed from,
adjudicating the ownership of the lot to the defendant spouses Felipe Capua and
Sinforosa Padilla; made the writ of injunction issued by the trial
judge on March 28, 1963 against the defendants permanent; and set aside the
order of the trial judge dated April 29, 1964 dissolving the writ, with costs
against the defendants. Plaintiffs
therein now appeal to this Court in fourteen (14) assignment of errors which
can be reduced to only one issue, that is, whether the decision is in
accordance with law and jurisprudence.
The Court of Appeals held
“that the question of ownership was litigated by the parties’ respective
predecessors-in-interest in Civil Case No. 895 (and) if this were to be the
only point involved there should be no question that Jose Maramba, defendants’
predecessor-in-interest having been declared the true owner of the property as
against Sabina Capua, plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest, the present
litigation must have to be decided in the same manner.” To this holding of
respondent court, We are in full agreement for indeed the judgment in Civil
Case No. 895 filed and docketed in the CFI of Pangasinan on September 8, 1944,
and decided on September 1, 1952 in favor of Jose Maramba, resolved the question of title and ownership
of the property in litigation as follows:
“The Court hereby renders judgment in favor of plaintiff and
against the defendant, declaring the plaintiffs, Jose Maramba, the
absolute owner, with rights of possession and enjoyment of the land in question
and orders the defendant to vacate the same and deliver to the plaintiff the
possession.” (Record on Appeal, p. 61)
We find in this case at
bar the following requisites that concur:
(1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering the
same must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties; (3)
there must be a judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be between
the two cases identity of parties, identity of subject matter and identity of
action. (Santos vs. San Gabriel, 45 SCRA
288; Viray vs. Mariñas, 49 SCRA 44; Benin vs. Tuason, 57 SCRA 531; Pacific
Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Pfleider, 65 SCRA 13).
“The doctrine of res judicata precludes parties from
re-litigating issues actually litigated and determined by a prior and final
judgment. It is a rule pervading every well-regulated system of
jurisprudence, and is put upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of the
common law; the one, public
policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that there
should be an end to litigation; the other, the hardship on the individual that
he should be vexed twice for the same cause.
A contrary doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to the
will and neglect of individuals and prefer the gratification of a litigious
disposition on the part of the suitors to the preservation of public
tranquility and happiness.” (Yusingco, et al., vs. Ong Lian, 42 SCRA 589)
Respondent court,
however, went further, stating that “the trouble is that plaintiff Felipe
Capua has squarely raised the question of his own title obtained thru
acquisitive prescription; paragraph 6, complaint, and it must have to be
admitted that the property being unregistered, ownership therein could be
defeated by acquisitive prescription.” The Court held that
“throughout the intervening period from 1943 to 1960, or for a space of
seventeen (17) years not Jose Maramba but Sabina Capua and after the sale by
Sabina to Gualberto on 21 April, 1950 under Exh. A afterwards Gualberto, were
the ones in possession in the concept of owner of the property, and as
Gualberto in turn was succeeded on 27 May, 1960 by herein plaintiff, Felipe
Capua, pursuant to the document Exh. C, and that possession was exclusive,
adverse and continuous, the said successive possession of, namely Sabina Capua from 1943 to 1950, Gualberto
Calulot from 1950 to 1960 and Felipe Capua herein plaintiff from 1960 up to the
institution of the present case was enough to perfect a title of
ownership.”
We do not agree to this
holding of the Court of Appeals.
1. In the first place, when
Jose Maramba sued Sabina Capua on September 8, 1944 in Civil Case No. 895, the
possession of Sabina Capua was thereby interrupted by the issuance of the
judicial summons (Article 1123, New Civil Code). During the pendency of the litigation, from
September 8, 1944 to September 1, 1952 when judgment was rendered, or a period
of eight (8) years, the
possession of Sabina Capua over the land did not run. It remained interrupted. The land was in custodia legis. The fact that Sabina Capua sold the land on
April 21, 1950 during the pendency of the case to Gualberto Calulot cannot
revive or restore the possession of the vendor, which we repeat was rendered
interrupted by the judicial summons. The
successor-in-interest of Sabina Capua who is the vendee Gualberto Calulot
cannot tack his possession to that of his vendor Sabina Capua not only because
the judicial summons interrupted the latter’s possession but also because she
finally lost in the litigation.
By reason of this interruption, it is not correct to say that
through the intervening periods of 1943 to 1950 (the possession of Sabina
Capua), then from 1950 to 1960 (possession of Gualberto Calulot) and from 1960
to 1963 (possession of Felipe Capua up to the institution of the present suit)
the possession was a continuing and uninterrupted occupancy enough to perfect a
title of ownership, because there was a gap from 1944 to 1952 (interruption due
to judicial summons up to the termination of the litigation).
2. The New Civil Code of the
Philippines took effect on August 30, 1950.
At this point in time, the possession of Sabina Capua was not running
for it had been interrupted by the judicial summons in Civil Case No. 895. Her possession of the land remained
interrupted, passive or suspended up to the date when the judgment was rendered
against her on September 1, 1952.
We hold that the vendee
Gualberto Calulot cannot legally acquire possession during the pendency of the
litigation; it can only commence after the decision is rendered therein, which was
promulgated on September 1, 1952. By
this time, the New Civil Code was already enforced and the possession of
Gualberto Calulot including its legal effects must be governed by the
New Civil Code. Under Article 1131 and
1128, N.C.C., good faith and just title are necessary for ordinary prescription
of real property.
When possession of the
property was taken from Felipe Capua and given to Jose Maramba by the
Provincial Sheriff on October 4, 1960 by virtue of a writ of possession issued
by the court in Civil Case No. 895, Felipe Capua became aware or came to know
that there existed a flaw in his title or mode of acquisition. Felipe Capua may have acquired the land in
good faith on May 27, 1960 when he bought the property from Gualberto Calulot
but his eviction therefrom thru the writ of possession, although later annulled
in January, 1961, made him aware that he possessed the land improperly or
wrongfully. Consequently, Felipe Capua
cannot claim good faith as to ripen his possession to acquisitive prescription.
3. The facts are also undisputed that the deed of sale executed
between Jose Maramba as vendee and Emiliana Abad as vendor in 1958 was duly
registered in the Registry of Deeds as well as the deed of sale executed in
1929 between Emiliana Abad and the original owner Florentino Quinajon. Under the law, Article 709 of the New Civil
Code, titles of ownership or of other rights over immovable property duly
inscribed or annotated in the Registry of Property constitute notice to third
persons and affords protection in favor of him who in good faith relies upon
what appears in the registry. As between
two parties relying on their respective instruments of sale of the same
property, law and justice command that he who has registered his deed must
prevail over his adversary who has not done so.
The rule of caveat emptor requires the purchaser to be aware of
the supposed title of the vendor and he who buys without checking the vendor’s
title takes all the risks and losses consequent to such failure. None of the deeds of sale evidencing the
ownership of Gualberto Calulot and Felipe Capua were registered in the Registry
of Property, hence they cannot prevail over the rights of the petitioner who
holds in his favor the instrument of sale duly registered.
4. The Court has ignored or
failed to consider material evidence found in the records that disproves
clearly and positively respondent Felipe Capua’s claim of acquisitive
prescription, this evidence showing that Felipe Capua’s possession was not in
truth and in fact in the concept of owner during the required period of
time. The deed of sale executed by
Sabina Capua to Gualberto Calulot (Exhibit A) describes the land sold to be
“assessed at P240.00 under Tax No. 17426 for the current year,” that
is, 1950, the deed having been
executed April 21, 1950. When the spouses Gualberto Calulot and
Olimpia Lomibao sold the same property to Felipe Capua under Exhibit C, the
land as described in the deed still bears the same description as in Exhibit A,
that is, “assessed at P240.00 under Tax No. 17426 for the current
year,” i.e. 1960 as the
deed was executed on May 27, 1960. The tax number of the lot in 1950 is the same tax number in 1960. The
name of Sabina Capua as the declared owner remained from 1950 to 1964. The tax receipts,
Exhibits F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, showed that Sabina Capua was the declared
owner. In other words, Gualberto Calulot
had not declared the land in his own name for tax purposes. He had not sought the cancellation of the
tax declaration in the name of Sabina Capua to him as the vendee, hence the
inevitable conclusion is that said Gualberto Calulot did not deem himself the
owner thereof and, therefore, his possession was not in the concept of
owner. This being so, Calulot’s occupancy
failed in one essential requisite of acquisitive prescription, which is
possession in the concept of owner. The
same is true with Felipe Capua. Although
Gualberto Calulot paid taxes on the land for the year in 1958, there is no evidence that he
paid taxes in his name or that he paid taxes any other year before or after
1958.
The claim of the respondents based on acquisitive prescription
is, therefore, without merit. What
remains, therefore, is the sole question of ownership which as respondent court
itself held – if respondents’ claim of acquisitive prescription is defeated –
must unquestionably be rendered in favor of petitioner Jose Maramba and his
co-petitioners by right of res judicata.
(Supra at p. 4)
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the respondent Court of Appeals
is hereby reversed and the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan in Civil Case No. 1455 affirmed, with costs against the respondents.
Petition granted.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, Martin, and Fernandez, JJ., concur.