PABLO DEL ROSARIO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. VALENTIN MALLARI ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Pablo
del Rosario brought this action in the Court of First Instance of
Tarlac principally to seek the annulment of certain deeds of sale
executed by him in favor of Valentin Mallari and by the latter in favor
of Agustin Cuyugan. The following remedies were prayed for in the
complaint:

“(a) That the said deed
of sale of the said lot No. 818 and its improvements supposed to have
been signed by Pablo del Rosario in favor of Valentin Mallari on
November 14, 1923, be declared fraudulent, null and void ab initio;

“(b)
That the supposed deed of sale of the same land and its improvements
signed by Valentin Mallari in favor of Agustin Cuyugan on January 11,
1928, be also declared null and void;

“(c) That
the register of deeds of Tarlac be ordered to cancel the said transfer
certificate of title No. 1930 in the name of Agustin Cuyugan, and all
annotations or inscriptions in his office relative to said lot No. 818
and its improvements in favor of either Valentin Mallari or Agustin
Cuyugan;

“(d) That the register of deeds of
Tarlac be ordered to issue another certificate of title of the said lot
No. 818 with its improvements in favor of Pablo del Rosario, married to
Maria Asuncion, and residing at Concepcion, Tarlac, P. I., free from
any lien;

“(e) That the possession of the said lot No. 818 with its improvements be legally restored to the herein plaintiff;

“(f)
That all the defendants be condemned to pay, jointly and severally, to
the plaintiff the sum of two thousand pesos (P2,000), Philippine
currency, as damages; and the further sum of two thousand pesos
(P2,000), Philippine currency, as damages, a year until the possession
of the said lot No. 818 and its improvements, his belongings, and his
house shall be legally restored to the herein plaintiff; and

“(g) For costs and equitable relief.”

After the trial, the court absolved all the defendants, with costs, and
the above-named plaintiff appealed from said judgment.

The
appellant and Pedro N. Liongson each claimed lot No. 818 in the
Cadastral Proceeding of Tarlac, G. L. R. O. Record No. 187. The court
ordered its registration in the name of Pablo del Rosario, and upon
appeal, said order was affirmed by this court.^[1]

After the record had been remanded to the Court of First Instance of
Tarlac, the appellee, Mallari, alleging to be the owner of the
aforementioned lot No. 818 by virtue of the deed of sale, Exhibit H,
alleged to have been executed in his favor by Del Rosario on November
14, 1923, filed a motion in court praying that immediately after the
issuance of the final decree of the court thereof, the register of
deeds of Tarlac be directed to issue a certificate of title in favor of
Bel Rosario, then to cancel the same, and in lieu thereof to issue
another certificate of title in his (Mallari’s) name. Del Rosario was
not notified of such motion but the court sustained it and granted the
relief sought therein.

On January 11, 1928, Mallari resold
said lot No. 818 to the other appellee, Agustin Cuyugan, for the sum of
P28,000, executing the corresponding deed of sale. In view of this last
transfer, Mallari and Cuyugan succeeded in having the register of deeds
of Tarlac issue certificate of title No. 37921 in favor of Del Rosario,
cancel the same, and issue transfer certificate of title No. 1930 in
favor of Cuyugan without first issuing any certificate of title in
favor of Mallari.

Upon being informed of the cancellation of
his certificate of title and the issuance of another in favor of
Cuyugan, Del Rosario filed a motion in the cadastral proceeding for the
revocation of the order providing for the aforementioned cancellation
and the issuance of the new transfer certificate of title. He alleged
as his grounds that he was not notified of the motion to that effect
and that the deed of sale, Exhibit H, alleged to have been executed by
him in favor of Mallari, was false and fraudulent. The court
accordingly set a date for the hearing of the motion and the
presentation of evidence but as Del Rosario did not appear or present
his evidence on that date, the court denied his motion and confirmed
its previous order authorizing the register of deeds to cancel Del
Rosario’s certificate of title and to issue a new one in favor of
Mallari. Pablo del Rosario then appealed from said orders to this court
and his appeal was registered under G. R. No. 30425.^[1]
After a review of the appeal, this court affirmed the orders appealed
from, holding that even if the first order were defective, it was
ratified and confirmed by the second, and that Del Rosario had
expressly waived the presentation of evidence to support his allegation
that the deed of sale executed by him in favor of Mallari was
fraudulent.

After receiving his transfer certificate of
title No. 1930, Agustin Cuyugan filed a motion in the said cadastral
proceeding praying that he be placed in possession of the land in
question. Neither was Del Rosario notified of this motion but, in spite
of such omission, the court issued the corresponding writ of
possession. Del Rosario then applied for a writ of certiorari in this
court, which was registered under G. R. No. 33169.^[2]
He alleged as his grounds that he had not been notified of the motion
for a writ of possession; that Cuyugan was not entitled to the
possession of the land; that the deeds of sale executed in favor of
Cuyugan and Mallari were fraudulent and that the court should not have
issued the writ of possession on the ground that its order for the
hearing of his other motion and the presentation of evidence therein
was still in force and the question of fraud still pending. After
hearing and consideration of the petition for the writ of certiorari,
the same was denied by this court, with costs, on the ground, as
already stated in the decision in case G. R. No. 30425, that Del
Rosario had voluntarily refused to present evidence to substantiate his
allegation of fraud and that the trial court’s order directing the
issuance of certificate of title in favor of Mallari and giving the
possession of the land to Cuyugan, were valid and had become final.

With respect to the appeal now under consideration, the trial court
found that the evidence showed that Mallari did not fraudulently obtain
the deed of sale, Exhibit H, and that the other deed of sale executed
by him in favor of Cuyugan is likewise valid.

The appellant assigns the following alleged errors in the judgment appealed from:

“I. The trial court erred in not declaring fraudulent, false and null and void ab initio
the sale for P6,000 of the land in question, lot No. 818, evidenced by
the deed, Exhibit H, alleged to have been executed on November 14,
1923, by the plaintiff herein, Pablo del Rosario, in favor of the
defendant, Valentin Mallari.

“II. The trial court erred in
not declaring that the defendant, Valentin Mallari, never considered
himself a true owner and absolute possessor of the land in question,
lot No. 818, by reason of the fraud committed by him in the execution
of the document, Exhibit H.

“III. The trial court erred
in not declaring that whatever real right the defendant, Valentin
Mallari, might have acquired over lot No. 818 by virtue of his alleged
deed of sale Exhibit H was extinguished; and likewise erred in not
holding that the Torrens Title to said lot, obtained by Pablo del
Rosario, is superior to any other previous title of Valentin Mallari.

“IV.
The trial court erred in not declaring that the defendant, Valentin
Mallari, as well as his attorney Salvador Barrios, are actually in
estoppel by laches in insisting in their futile claim that the alleged
deed of sale of the land in question, Exhibit H, was duly executed by
Pablo del Rosario in favor of Mallari.

“V. The trial court erred in not applying in this case the doctrine of stare decisis
with respect to the alleged rights and interests of the defendant,
Valentin Mallari, in the land in question, lot No. 818, the possession
and ownership of which was discussed and definitely decided in
cadastral case No. 9, G. L. R. O. Record No. 187 of the Court of First
Instance of Tarlac; and likewise erred in not declaring that the
question of ownership of lot No. 818 constitutes res adjudicata
between Pablo del Rosario and his alleged successor in interest,
Valentin Mallari. “VI. The trial court erred in declaring that the
defendant, Valentin Mallari, did not take possession of the land in
question because the plaintiff, Pablo del Rosario, would not turn it
over to him.

“VII. The trial court erred in declaring
that the evidence presented by the plaintiff, Pablo del Rosario, is not
sufficient to overcome the presumption that Exhibit H, as a public
document, was duly executed and that the same is genuine, valid and
effective, basing its decision on the cases of Asido vs. Guzman (37 Phil., 652), and Naval vs. Enriquez (3 Phil., 669).

“VIII. The trial court erred in declaring that there is nothing in the
record which would cast a doubt to the testimony of the notary,
Barrios, and in holding that he is not capable of committing the
falsification imputed to him by the plaintiff, based on the latter’s
mere opinion.

“IX. The trial court erred in not declaring fraudulent, and null and void ab initio
the alleged sale of the land in question for P28,000 evidenced by the
document, Exhibit 33, alleged to have been executed on January 11,
1928, by the defendant, Mallari, in favor of his co-defendant Agustin
Cuyugan; and likewise erred in not holding that the transfer
certificate of title No. 1930 corresponding to said lot No. 818, issued
in the name of Agustin Cuyugan, is illegal and null and void.

“X.
The trial court erred in not holding that the defendant, Agustin
Cuyugan, is a negligent purchaser in bad faith of the land in question.

“XI. The trial court erred in not ordering the defendants
to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff herein the sum of P2,000
as damages for each agricultural year from February 5, 1930, when the
latter was ousted from the land in question, to the date the same,
together with the building thereon, is returned to the aforementioned
plaintiff.

“XII. The trial court erred in not granting
the motion for a new trial filed by the plaintiff and in absolving the
defendants from the complaint herein, with costs against the plaintiff.”

The first ten assignments of error all deal with the appellant’s
contention that the deed of sale executed by him in favor of Valentin
Mallari is fraudulent and that the transfer certificate of title No.
1930 issued in favor of Cuyugan is null and void, having been obtained
through a motion of which he had never been notified. To refute all of
them, suffice it to say that the questions raised in this appeal have
already been discussed and decided in cases Nos. 30425 and 33169
mentioned at the beginning of this decision. Furthermore, if the
judgments rendered in those two cases do not constitute res judicata for lack of identity of cause of action, they are, nevertheless, binding upon the appellant under the doctrine of stare decisis.
The same questions now raised by the appellant have been discussed in
both cases wherein this court held valid the trial court’s orders by
virtue of which the certificate of title issued in favor of the said
appellant was cancelled and in lieu thereof transfer certificate of
title No. 1930 was issued in favor of Cuyugan who was given possession
of the lot No. 818. To permit the appellant to maintain the action upon
which the present appeal is based would be tantamount to considering
and deciding for the third time the very same questions already
discussed and decided. This procedure is untenable in good practice,
for if it were followed litigations in the courts would never cease.

Even taking for granted that the judgments rendered by this court in
cases Nos. 30425 and 33169 are not binding upon the plaintiff Del
Rosario in the case at bar, we agree with the trial court that the
evidence presented herein does not support his claim that the sale of
the land in question effected by him in favor of Mallari was
fraudulent; and that a clear preponderance of evidence establishes
beyond a doubt that the transfer thereof was made legally and with the
aforementioned plaintiff’s full knowledge.

The rest of the
assignments of error are mere corollaries of the previous ones and need
no further discussion in view of the fact that the preceding
conclusions, which are adverse to the appellant’s claim, have already
been reached. The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs
against the appellant. So ordered.

Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real, and Vickers, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] G. R. No. 26701. Director of Lands vs. Aguilar, promulgated December 13, 1927, not reported.

^[1] Director of Lands vs. Aguilar, promulgated December 28, 1929, not reported.

[2] Del Rosario vs. Recto and Cuyugan, promulgated December 6, 1930, not reported.