FLORDELIZA L. VALISNO AND HONORIO D. VALISNO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUDGE ANDRES B. PLAN, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ISABELA, SECOND BRANCH, AND VICENCIO …

Valisno versus Plan

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by the spouses Flordeliza and Honorio Valisno against Judge Andres Plan, the presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Isabela, Second Branch, and against the private respondent Vicencio Cayaba. The Valisnos ask the Supreme Court to annul two orders of the respondent judge in a land registration case: the order dismissing their opposition to Cayaba's application for registration on the ground of res judicata, and the order denying their motion for reconsideration. The case matters because the Court uses it to settle a procedural question that had divided the bench for decades: whether a prior final judgment may be raised in a motion to dismiss an opposition in a land registration proceeding. In answering that question, the Court abandons an older ruling and affirms that res judicata operates in registration cases.

Procedural History

The story begins with an ordinary civil action. The Valisnos sued Cayaba for recovery of possession of two parcels of land before the Court of First Instance of Isabela. The trial court decided in their favor and declared them owners. Cayaba appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court, dismissed the Valisnos' complaint, and found that the land they described was not the land Cayaba occupied. The Valisnos then brought a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, but the Court denied the petition due course, so the appellate decision became final.

Later, Cayaba filed an application for registration of title over the same lands before the Court of First Instance of Isabela, relying on his deed of sale and on the appellate decision. The Valisnos filed an opposition. Cayaba moved to dismiss the opposition on the ground of res judicata, and the respondent judge granted the motion. The judge also denied the Valisnos' motion for reconsideration. The Valisnos then filed this petition for certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining order, and the Supreme Court gave the petition due course. Cayaba failed to file his brief, and the case was submitted for decision without it.

Facts

On August 21, 1964, the Valisno spouses purchased two parcels of land in Cauayan, Isabela, from the legal heirs of Agapita Blanco. They declared the lands in their name for taxation purposes and possessed them as owners, placing a caretaker, Fermin Lozano, on the property.

On August 12, 1968, Vicencio Cayaba, claiming ownership under a deed of sale executed in his favor and in favor of Bienvenido Noriega by the heirs of Doctor Epifanio Verano, ousted the caretaker from the land and built a six-door apartment on it. In January 1970, the Valisnos sued Cayaba for recovery of possession. The trial court ruled for the Valisnos, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the land described in the complaint was completely different from the land Cayaba occupied, and that the Valisnos had failed to identify the property. The Supreme Court denied the Valisnos' petition for review, and that decision became final.

Cayaba then applied to register title to the lands in his name, and the Valisnos opposed. The respondent judge dismissed their opposition on the ground of res judicata, and denied reconsideration. Hence this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not a motion to dismiss an opposition may be filed and granted in a land registration proceeding under the Land Registration Act.
• Whether or not the principle of res judicata may be set up to defeat an opposition in a land registration case, contrary to the earlier ruling in Abellera versus Farol.
• Whether or not the requisites of res judicata are present between the prior civil action for recovery of possession and the subsequent application for registration of title.
• Whether or not the dismissal of the opposition deprived the Valisnos of their day in court.

Applicable Provisions

The decision refers to the Land Registration Act, which does not provide for a motion to dismiss, and to Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which allows the Rules of Court to apply in land registration proceedings in a suppletory character. The Court states the rule as follows:

Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, however, allows the application of the rules contained therein in land registration proceedings in a suppletory character or whenever practicable and convenient.

This provision is the basis for allowing a motion to dismiss, and the defense of res judicata raised through it, in a registration case.

The Court also quotes Article 434 of the New Civil Code, which the Court of Appeals had applied in the earlier case:

Article 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim.

This article explains why the Valisnos lost the earlier action: they failed to identify the land they claimed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that while the Land Registration Act does not provide for a motion to dismiss, Rule 132 allows the Rules of Court to apply suppletorily, and the Court had already sustained such a dismissal in Duran versus Oliva for the expeditious termination of a registration case. The opposition, the Court explains, partakes of the nature of an answer with a counterclaim, and the applicant may move to dismiss it. The irregularity the petitioners complain of stems from the infrequent use of the motion, not from its being unauthorized.

On the second issue, the Court re-evaluates Abellera versus Farol, which had ruled that a prior judgment cannot be set up in a motion to dismiss. The Court notes that Justice Paras had dissented there, citing earlier cases holding that a final judgment in an ordinary civil case determining ownership is res judicata in a registration case. The Court then abandons Abellera versus Farol, reasoning that it would be useless to allow evidence of ownership when the final result must favor the party invoking res judicata, and that a registration court cannot in effect annul a final judgment of a court of general jurisdiction.

On the third issue, the Court finds all the requisites of res judicata present: the former judgment is final, rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, on the merits, and there is identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action. The inclusion of Cayaba's co-owner Noriega does not change the parties, because a co-owner may defend the interests of the co-ownership. The subject matter is the same land. The causes of action are the same, because the first action, though captioned for recovery of possession, was in the nature of an accion reinvidicatoria, and registration of title is likewise based on ownership. The Court states the rule:

But the employment of two different forms of action, does not enable one to escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated.

On the fourth issue, the Court holds that the Valisnos were not denied their day in court, because their claim was fully aired and ventilated in the earlier civil case and in the appeal.

Doctrine

A motion to dismiss may be filed and granted in a land registration proceeding, because Rule 132 of the Rules of Court applies suppletorily, and the Rules allow the expeditious termination of the case.

Res judicata may be set up to defeat an opposition in a land registration case. The ruling in Abellera versus Farol, which held otherwise, is abandoned.

The requisites of res judicata are: the former judgment must be final; it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties; it must be a judgment on the merits; and there must be identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause of action.

An action for recovery of possession that raises the issue of ownership is in the nature of an accion reinvidicatoria, and it shares the same cause of action as an application for registration of title, because both are based on ownership. The difference is only in the form of action, and that difference does not permit a party to litigate the same cause twice.

It is not required that the two courts have equal jurisdiction; it is enough that the court which rendered the first judgment on the merits validly acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties.

Disposition

The petition is dismissed, with costs against the petitioners, and the dismissal of the Valisnos' opposition is affirmed.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that res judicata may be raised in a motion to dismiss an opposition in a land registration case, and the ruling in Abellera versus Farol is abandoned. Examiners use this case to test the suppletory application of the Rules of Court in land registration and the identity of cause of action between an accion reinvidicatoria and an application for registration of title.