SPOUSES FELIX ABAD AND ELENA R. ABAD, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES NEAL DAYAP AND PROFETIZA M. DAYAP, RESPONDENTS.

The decision of the Court
of Appeals* in CA-G.R. CV No. 09424 which reversed the decision of Branch 101 of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Civil Case No.
Q-35941 is assailed in this petition for review on certiorari.

A certain piece of real
property designated by the Bureau of Lands as Lot B, VS-04-000182 is the center
of dispute in this case.  To fully
understand the facts from which the controversy arose, it is indispensable to
include in Our discussion Civil Case No. Q-27582 which by supervening events
became tightly intertwined with the case at bar.

To begin, about two
decades ago, four persons, namely, Herminigildo Aquino, Juanito Dichoso, Damian Garcia and herein petitioner Felix Abad agreed among themselves to contribute to a certain
fund in order to purchase from Cres Pilias and Narciso Adaya a parcel of land situated in Diliman,
Quezon City described as follows:

“Lot
2-E, Blk. E-1 of Psd-67763, containing an area of
441-6 square meters, more or less at Malaya Avenue,
Subdivision.”^[1]

To conform with the rules
and regulations of the People’s Homesite and Housing
Corporation (PHHC), Cres Pilias
and Narciso Adaya executed
a Deed of Assignment naming Herminigildo Aquino as the only assignee of the said parcel of land.

To the end that the
rights of all the other co-owners will be protected, Aquino
executed an affidavit on October 10, 1969 stating among others that although he
is the sole assignee in the Deed of Assignment executed jointly by Cres Pilias and Narciso Adaya, in truth and in
fact, Juanito Dichosa,
Damian Garcia and herein petitioner Felix Abad are
also assignees as they have contributed equally to the amount corresponding to
the payments made on the property; that he voluntarily recognizes and
acknowledges the above-named persons as his co-owners of the property; and that
after the corresponding transfer certificate of title is issued in his name, he
would execute the necessary deed of absolute sale to each co-owner.^[2]

On April 18, 1972,
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 175968 was finally issued in the name of the Aquino spouses covering the lot which was purchased by the
four co-owners.  In pursuance of his
legitimate claim over the property and as earlier agreed upon by everyone
concerned, petitioner Felix Abad went to see Herminigildo Aquino to ask the
latter to execute the necessary document (deed of sale) that will cause the
issuance of title in his (petitioner’s)
name.  In violation of the agreement and
in contravention of the affidavit that he himself
signed, Aquino refused.  This being the case, petitioner had to insure
that his interest over the property would be protected by having his adverse
claim duly annotated at the back of TCT No. 175968.  Petitioner Felix Abad
also sent letters to Aquino requesting for a conference so that the document would be executed but the same were never answered.^[3]

Hence, petitioner Felix Abad filed
Civil Case No. Q-27582 with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City to compel the Aquino spouses to execute the
requisite instrument recognizing his co-ownership over the property and for the
Register of Deeds to issue a transfer certificate of title in his favor over
his portion thereof.

On November 29, 1982,
the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. Q-27582 rendered a decision ordering
the Aquino spouses or, in their default, the Branch
Clerk of Court, to sign, execute and deliver after the judgment has become final
and executory, a registerable
deed of sale in favor of petitioner
Felix Abad over the portion pertaining to him in
accordance with the survey conducted by the Bureau of Lands, that is:

“A parcel of land (Lot
B, VS-04-000182, L.R.C., record No.______), situated in the district of Diliman, Quezon
City, island
of Luzon.  Bounded on the N., along lines 7-1-2 by old Course of Culiat Creek (Now Dried), on the E., along lines 2-3-4-5 by
Lot C, VS-04-000182, on the S., along line 5-6 by Masaya Interior Street, and on
the W., along line 6-7 by Lot A, VS-04-000182. 
Beginning at a point marked ‘1’ on plan, being N., 8 deg. 45′ W.,
1728.32 m. from BLIM #10, Quezon City;

thence N., 49 deg. 29′ E., 6.06 m. to point 2;

thence S., 12 deg. 11′ W., 0.89 m. to point 3;

thence S., 28 deg. 15′ W., 4.39 m. to point 4;

thence S., 0 deg. 44′ E., 7.88 m. to point 5;

thence N., 83 deg. 38′ E., 4.92 m. to point 6;

thence N., 2 deg. 53′ W., 8.56
m. to point 7;

thence N., 76 deg. 44′ E., 2.95 m. to point of origin;

beginning, containing an area of FIFTY FIVE
SQUARE METERS, all points referred to are indicated on the plan and are marked
on the ground by old P.S. cyl., conc.,
mons., 15 x 60 cm., bearing true date of original survey, December 1910 to June 1971
to April 3, 1963 and was
approved on November 10, 1981.”^[4]

The Regional Trial Court
in the above-mentioned case (Civil
Case No. Q-27582) also ordered
the Register of Deeds to issue in favor of petitioner Felix Abad
a transfer certificate of title over the portion conveyed to him on the basis
of the aforestated deed of sale.

Unfortunately, the contest over the property in question did not
end there.  After the decision in Civil
Case no. Q-27582 was rendered, petitioners Abad
spouses learned that private respondents Dayap
spouses intended to build a fence around the area already allocated to the
former by virtue of the above decision. 
Hence, petitioners Abad spouses filed another
case, Civil Case No. Q-35941, this time against private respondents Dayap spouses, for injunction with prayer for a writ of
preliminary injunction, to enjoin the latter from building the said fence.  In their Answer, private respondents Dayap
spouses admitted the allegations of petitioners Abad
spouses with respect to their act of fencing the area.  However, private respondents claimed that the
lot belonged to them as it was within the property they bought from Herminigildo Aquino.

Considering that both parties were asserting their right over the
same piece of property, the lower court ordered the Bureau of Lands to make a
survey that would determine the identity of the land claimed by each party
based on the titles and other documents of ownership submitted in court.

After conducting a verification survey, the Bureau of Lands
submitted a report informing the court that the construction made by the
private respondents Dayap spouses is entirely within
Lot B, VS-04-000182 which was the same land already assigned to petitioner
Felix Abad by virtue of Civil Case No. Q-27582.^[5]

On February
16, 1984, the lower
court rendered a decision in favor of petitioners Abad
spouses with the following dispositive portion:

“WHEREFORE, premises above-considered, judgment is hereby
rendered ordering defendants and/or their agents to desist and refrain from making any construction,
interfering or disturbing plaintiffs in their possession of the subject land afore-described.

With cost against defendants, including the surveyor’s fee.

SO ORDERED.”^[6]

In arriving at its
decision, the lower court took into consideration the decision in Civil Case
No. Q-27582.

On appeal to the Court of
Appeals, the decision of the lower court was reversed.  The appellate court criticized the Regional
Trial Court in Civil Case No. Q-27582 for adjudicating to petitioners Lot B,
VS-04-000182.  The Court of Appeals went
on to say that Civil Case No. Q-27582 cannot bind private respondents as they
were not included as parties to the case.

Hence, this petition for
review on certiorari with the following assignments of error.

“First Assignment of
Error

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN
IT RENDERED A DECISION BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON
CITY, BRANCH 31, (NOW REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON
CITY BRANCH 89) WHICH IS NOT ON APPEAL BEFORE IT.

Second Assignment of Error

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN
IT IGNORED THE DOCTRINE OF THE LAW OF THE CASE.

Third Assignment of Error

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN
IT FOUND FOR THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AND AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.”^[7]

The above-enumerated
assignments of error will be taken up together for being closely related with
one another.

Firstly, petitioners aver
that instead of deciding the issue regarding the propriety of the injunctive
relief issued in Civil Case No. Q-35941 which was the case on appeal before it,
the Court of Appeals erroneously ruled on the actuations of the Regional Trial
Court in Civil Case No. Q-27582^[8] which on the other hand, were not in issue
before it.^[9] Petitioners contend that the ruling of the
Court of Appeals was baseless inasmuch as Civil Case No. Q-35941 was
entirely separate from Civil Case No. Q-27582 and also because the theory on
which the appellate court proceeded involved factual considerations neither
touched upon in the pleadings or made the subject of evidence
at the trial.^[10]

A perusal of the records
of this case would reveal that the Court of Appeals committed a glaring error in ruling on a case which was not on appeal before it.  We find that the appellate court indeed went
beyond its realm of authority when
it criticized the proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-27582, questioning the
assignment of the subject lot to herein petitioners and even hinted at the
impropriety of the same.^[11]

The pronouncements made
by the Court of Appeals regarding Civil Case No. Q-27582 are uncalled-for.  As already mentioned, the case was not on
appeal before it and the Regional Trial Court had its own basis for arriving at
its decision in favor of herein petitioners Abad
spouses as against the defendant in that case, Herminigildo
Aquino.  The
duty of the Court of Appeals was to rule on whether or not petitioners were
properly granted their prayer for injunction as against the private
respondents.  Whether or not the trial
court in Civil Case No. Q-27582 committed a mistake in arriving at its decision
is an issue that is beyond its authority to decide.

What makes the error of
the Court of Appeals more apparent is that the decision in Civil Case No.
Q-27582 had long become final and duly executed.  The appellate court need not be reminded of
the well-entrenched principle that a decision, once final and executory, can no longer be altered or modified even by the
court which rendered it, otherwise there would be no end to litigation.^[12] In Litton Mills, Inc. vs. Galleon Trade Inc.,^[13] We
made it clear that once a judgment has become final, the issues therein should
be laid to rest.  If the trial court
itself which rendered the decision which has become final could no longer
reopen the issues that have already been settled therein, then all the more
should the prohibition apply to an appellate court called upon to decide on a
different case.  At this juncture, We
reiterate that the main role of courts of justice is to assist in the
enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order, by
settling justiciable controversies with finality.^[14]

Nonetheless, private respondents maintain that the only reason
why the Court of Appeals cited Civil Case No. Q-27582 is that it was also
mentioned in the decision of the
lower court in Civil Case No. Q-35941 which was brought to it on appeal.  Private respondents add that they cannot be
bound by the decision in the other case as they were not parties to it.

In response to the above-written arguments of private
respondents, We note that the word “cite” seems to have been used to
mislead this Court into believing that Civil Case No. Q-27582 was mentioned by
the Court of Appeals in its
decision with less significance than what appears to be.  However, the decision of the Court of Appeals
would itself reflect its clear intention to openly declare its own finding that
the decision in the said case, not appealed to it, was wrong.

Regarding the point that not only the Court of Appeals but even the
lower court in Civil Case No. Q-35941 included in its decision the other case,
We are of the opinion that the Regional Trial Court had to take into
consideration the decision in Civil
Case No. Q-27582 because in deciding whether or not to grant herein petitioners their prayer for injunction, it had to be established first
whether or not petitioners had a better right to the property than
private respondents did.  Civil Case No. Q-27582 came into the picture as it
provided the answer the court
was in search of since by virtue
of that case, petitioners acquired a strong document (torrens
title) evidencing their ownership of the property as compared to the
inconclusive documents offered by private respondents.

Had the private
respondents presented incontestable proof supporting their claim of ownership over the property, then the lower court may have decided Civil Case No. Q-35941 in a different manner, regardless of the outcome in Civil
Case No. Q-27582.  However, weighing all the evidence on hand, the lower court found
it reasonable and fair to decide
for petitioners as their assertion was backed by a torrens
title whereas private respondents miserably failed to convince the court of
their claim.  Hence, the lower court
said:

“x x x
Unless defendants could show, which they failed even to allege indubitably,
that they have a better and stronger right than the plaintiffs over the subject
parcel of land, then the remedy
sought by plaintiffs must lie.”^[15]

It is not true that the
lower court based its decision entirely on Civil Case No. Q-27582
though, admittedly, the outcome in the said case contributed much in convincing
the lower court that petitioners must be granted their prayer for
injunction.  Furthermore, there is
nothing in the decision of the lower court which categorically states that
private respondents are bound by the decision in Civil Case No. Q-27582.  To repeat, the decision was only brought up
to prove that petitioners had a better right to the property, hence, their
prayer for injunction against private respondents who were planning to make
additional constructions, had to be granted.

As to the other
allegations of private respondents – they all sum up to the claim that they are
the rightful owners of the property. 
To support their stand, they present the following:  (1) they purchased
the lot in question from Herminigildo Aquino in good faith and for value as evidenced by the Deed
of Sale executed by the latter in their favor; and (2) they are the ones in
possession of the property.

The issue of ownership
having been tackled by the Court of Appeals and there being a need to settle
once and for all the issue of who has a better right to the property as between
the petitioners and private respondents, We make the following ruling:

With respect to the allegation
of private respondents that they purchased the property in question from Herminigildo Aquino in good faith
and for value in 1972 — We hold that such sale could not have covered a
definite portion of the land under co-ownership.  It has been established on record that
from 1969, the property in question was co-owned by Herminigildo
Aquino and three other persons including petitioner Felix Abad.  In 1972, such co-ownership still existed and
even the Court of Appeals does not deny the fact of such co-ownership.  It is well-settled that a co-owner has no
right to sell a divided part, by metes and bounds, of the real estate owned in
common.15 This doctrine was reiterated in Mercado Vs. Liwanag,^[16] where it was held that a co-owner may not convey
a physical portion of the land owned in common. 
Applying the foregoing principles, We hold, therefore, that Aquino, a mere co-owner, could not have validly sold to
private respondents a specific part of the land he owned in common with
petitioner and two others as described in the Deed of Sale executed by him in
favor of private respondents.  Private
respondents, therefore, cannot claim title to that definite portion of the land
owned in common, wherein they have made and were about to begin other constructions
at the time the complaint for injunction was filed by petitioners in the lower
court.

With regard to the
contention of private respondents that they have a better right to the property
since they have occupied and are presently in possession of the same, it is but
proper to reiterate the well-established rule that mere possession cannot
defeat the title of a holder of a registered torrens
title to real property.^[17] It is indeed questionable that up to now,
private respondents merely have in their possession a deed of absolute sale
executed way back in 1972 to evidence their claim of ownership.  Petitioners, on the other hand, have
the affidavit proving their right as co-owner of the lot, their adverse claim
annotated at the back of the torrens title of Aquino, and a final judgment in their favor.  The transfer certificate of title covering
the disputed lot is now in the name of petitioner spouses.  Such title is entitled to respect and great
weight until somebody else can show a better right to the lot.

Of course, this Decision is
without prejudice to any right private respondents may have against
Herminigildo Aquino.  All constructions built by private
respondents in good faith may be removed by them following the provisions in the Civil Code on builders in good
faith.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 09424 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and
the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. Q-35941 is hereby REINSTATED.  The case
is hereby remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City for immediate execution.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

* Penned by Associate Justice
Santiago M. Kapunan and concurred in by Associate Justices
Arturo B. Buena and Eduardo R. Bengzon.

^[1]
Page 5, Rollo.

^[2]
Page 6, Rollo.

^[3]
Page 7, Rollo.

^[4]
Pages 25 and 26, Rollo.

^[5]
Page 97, Rollo.

^[6]
Page 99, Rollo.

^[7]
Pages 13, 19 and 20, Rollo.

^[8]
Page 75, Rollo.

^[9]
Page 78, Rollo.

^[10]
Ibid

^[11]
Page 29, Rollo.

^[12]
Heirs of Remigio Tan, et al. vs. The
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 71033, July 29, 1988.

^[13]
G.R. No. L-40867, July 26, 1988.

^[14]
Heirs of Remigio Tan, et al. vs. The Hon.
Intermediate Appellate Court, supra.

^[15]
Page 99, Rollo..

15 Lopez vs. Ilustre, 5 Phil. 567 (1906).

^[16]
L-14429, June 20, 1962.

^[17]
J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 93 SCRA 146 (1979).