MARIA FAMA FLORENTIN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LAZARO GALERA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, LAZARO GALERA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Appellant Lazaro Galera appeals from an order of demolition of his
house (issued by the Court of First Instance of La Union, in its Civil
Case No. 471), contending that said order is null and void, having been
issued to enforce a judgment rendered without jurisdiction.

The background of the case can be gleaned from the final decision on
the merits rendered by the Court of First Instance of La Union (Rec. on
Appeal, pp. 1-3) :

“Maria Fama-Florentin filed this complaint against
Lazaro Galera to recover a piece of land of about 11,000 square meters
which is a portion of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
R-T 223 (257), situated at barrio Ambangonan, Municipality of Pugo,
province of La Union. In his written answer the defendant claimed
ownership of the land in question alleging that he and his father had
been in open, continuous, and peaceful possession of the premises for
more than sixty years. He further claimed that the original certificate
of title of the land issued in the name of Fernando Nantes was obtained
by fraud and that Apolinario Fama, the plaintiff’s predecessor in
interest, brought an action for reinvindication before the last Pacific
war but was dismissed by the Court of First Instance of La Union in
1934.

There is no controversy with respect to the identity of
the land, subject of the present litigation. It has been established
that this land is a portion of a bigger parcel which was originally
registered on January 16, 1931 in the name of Fernando Nantes, pursuant
to a free patent granted to him under the provisions of Section 122 of
the Land Registration Act (Exhibit A). Subsequently, the land was sold
to Ilosendo Farales, who, in turn, sold it to Apolinario Fama, the
father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff as daughter of Apolinario Fama
inherited this property covered by the aforesaid certificate of title
(Exhibit B),”

After due trial, the court below rendered judgment as follows (Rec. on Appeal, pp. 6-7):

“In view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders
judgment declaring the plaintiff as the owner and being entitled to the
possession of the land described in the complaint. The Court hereby
orders the defendant to deliver the possession of the aforesaid land to
pay the plaintiff the sum of P150.00 a year from the year 1937 until
the possession thereof is delivered to the plaintiff. With costs
against the defendant. So ordered.”

This judgment became final. Upon motion of the plaintiff (appellee
herein), opposed by defendant-appellant, the court issued, on 8 March
1960, an order requiring appellant to remove his house from the
adjudicated property; otherwise, the same would be ordered demolished.
Reconsideration having been denied, defendant appealed to this Court.
He contends that the findings in the decision showed that the
controverted land was obtained through a Free Patent granted under the
Public Land Law, but had been sold to plaintiff’s predecessor within
five years from the issuance of the patent; that under section 118 of
the Public Land Law (C. A. 141), such sale was void ab initio;
that, therefore, the court, in recognizing and enforcing the title of
plaintiff-appellee, acted without jurisdiction, and its judgment was
null, void, and unenforceable.

Once more, we are faced by an appellant’s inability to distinguish
between absence of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action. The
complaint filed was one for reivindication of title to real property,
and the Court of First Instance of La Union had original jurisdiction
to take cognizance of it under section 44 (b) of the Judiciary
Act-No defect in the summons is alleged. That plaintiff should not be
entitled to recover the land because-.her right was based on a void
conveyance, even if true, did not affect the court’s jurisdiction, but
only the plaintiff’s cause of action, i.e., her right to the remedy
sought. Assuming,, for the sake of argument, that plaintiff’s title was
really void for the reason urged in this appeal (although there is no
categorical finding that the patentee had conveyed the land to
plaintiff’s father within 5 years from the issuance of the patent, and
a previous unsuccessful reivindicatory suit is no adequate proof of
that particular fact), the court’s decision was, at the most, tainted
by an error of law or fact that was curable by appeal, and did not
constitute lack of jurisdiction. The judgment having become final, the
issues that were litigated in the case can not be reopened and are no
longer debatable by the parties in subsequent proceedings, whether
erroneously decided or not. Interest reipublicae ut finis sit litium (Cf. Pineda vs. Court of First Instance of Davao, G. R. No. L-12602, 25 April 1961). 59 Off. Gaz., [33] 5266).

We find no merit in the appeal, and the same is dismissed, with costs against the appellant Lazaro Galera.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.