MAXIMO L. GALVEZ AND ELPIDIO TIBURCIO, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. MARIANO SEVERO TUASON Y DE LA PAZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS; UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES (UP) AND THE PEOPLE’S …

Appeal taken by Maximo L, Galvez and Elpidio Tiburcio from the order
of the Court of First Instance of Rizal ( Quezon City) in Civil Case
No. Q-3387 dismissing their complaint against the University of the
Philippines and The People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation,
hereinafter referred to as the UP and the PHHC, respectively, for lack
of sufficient cause of action, and on the further grounds that, their
cause of action, if any, is barred by prior judgment, and there is
another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.

On October 16, 1958, appellants as heirs of the late Eladio
Tiburcio, commenced the present action in the Court of First Instance
of Rizal for the annulment of the technical descriptions appearing in
the alleged anterior page of Original Certificate of Title No. 735,
but, in reality, for the recovery of a parcel of land with an area of
more than 400 hectares and damages against Mariano Severo, Maria Teresa
Eriberta, Juan Jose, Demetrio Asuncion, Augusto Huberto, all surnamed
Tuason y de la Paz, and/or their respective heirs, the Register of
Deeds of Rizal, the UP and the PHHC. Their complaint alleged, in
substance, that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in
actual, adverse, open, public, exclusive and continuous possession as
owners of a parcel of land located in Quezon City containing an area of
about 430 hectares, cultivating and ,enjoying its fruits; that when the
PHHC and the UP began exercising rights of dominion over the property,
they investigated the records of the Register of Deeds of Rizal and
discovered that their property was included within the technical
boundaries set out in Original Certificate of Title No. 735 in the name
of the defendants Tuasons by mean’s of detachable sheets of paper
incorporated to the certificate of title; that by virtue of a deed of
donation executed by the Tuasons in favor of themselves, said
certificate was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2680
was issued in their (Tuasons) names; that, subsequently, the latter
sold to appellees, UP and PHHC the property covered by T.C.T. No. 2680.

Appellants’ motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction to restrain appellees from committing further acts of
dispossession was denied. For failure to answer the complaint within
the reglementary period, the Register of Deeds of Rizal was declared in
default.

The PHHC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of
lack of sufficient cause of action, while the UP filed a similar motion
based on the same ground and several others.

On December 5, 1958, the Court issued the appealed order.

During the hearing held in connection with the motions to, dismiss,
the UP presented as Exhibit 1 a certified true copy of the Application
filed by Marcolino Tiburcio on January 27, 1955 with the Court of First
Instance of Rizal for the registration in his name of the property
covered by Spanish Testimonial Title No. 3261054 dated March 25, 1877;
as Exhibit 3 a copy of the Order of the Court of First Instance of
Rizal dated October 17, 1955, dismissing the aforesaid application for
registration, and as Exhibit 4 a copy of the Record on Appeal in Civil
Case No. Q- 2663 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal filed by
Marcelino Tiburcio, in his own behalf and that of the other heirs of
the late Eladio Tiburcio, against the PHHC and the UP for the
reconveyance of the property covered by the Spanish title already
referred to. This action was appealed to Us (106 Phil., 477) and on
December 14, 1958, we affirmed the order of the trial court dismissing
the case.

For its part, the PHHC presented as evidence the Original
Certificate of Title No. 735 issued on July 6, 1914 in the name of the
Tuasons, its predecessors-in-interest, covering the property claimed by
appellants (Exhibit 1—PHHC); a certificate of the Commissioner of Land
Registration to the effect that the document thereto attached is a
duplicate copy of the Decree No. 17431, on the basis of which Original
Certificate of Title No. 735 was issued (Exhibit 2-PHHC); a copy of
Decree No. 17431 showing that the property claimed by appellants was
included in the judgment rendered in favor of the Tuasons (Exhibit
2-A-PHHC); and a certificate showing the technical description of the
property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1356 issued in
favor of the PFHC (Exhibit 3- PHHO). The record, therefore, indubitably
discloses that Marcelino Tiburcio, and the other heirs of the late
Eladio Tiburcio, had filed an application for the registration of the
lands allegedly covered by a title granted to the latter in 1877 by the
Spanish government, to which the Tuasons interposed the corresponding
opposition; that after due hearing, said application was dismissed and
that the order of dismissal became final and executory. Again, the
record further discloses that in 1957, Marcelino Tiburcio, for himself
and in behalf of the heirs of the deceased Eladio Tiburcio, instituted
Civil Case No. Q-2663 against the PHHC and the UP for the reconveyance
of the same lands covered by the Spanish title already referred to, and
that this case was dismissed by the court in its order of December 11,
1957, which order of dismissal was affirmed by Us on December 14, 1958
in 106 Phil, 477.

Lastly, it appears that the property claimed by appellants is a
portion of the bigger parcel registered after proper registration
proceedings in the name of Mariano Severo Tuason and others since the
year 1914.

Clearly, therefore, the question of ownership with respect to the
property in litigation is a matter thrice settled definitely and
conclusively by the courts, and must be deemed well beyond the reach of
review.

With particular reference to appellees, the lower court is right in
observing in the order appealed from that there is no allegation at all
in appellants’ complaint that they are purchasers in bad faith or with
notice of the alleged defect in the title of their vendor, with the
result that the allegations of said pleading are not sufficient to
constitute a cause of action against them.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J. B. L. Barrera, Paredes, and Regala, JJ., concur.