Saturday, July 21, 2018

CAMPIT V GRIP A G.R. No. 195443, September 17, 2014

FACTS Subject of this case is a 2.7360-hectare agricultural land situated in Pangasinan, presently occupied by respondents Isidra B. Gripa, Pedro Bardiaga, and Severino Bardiaga, represented by his son Rolando Bardiaga, but covered with a title issued in the petitioner’s name. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the property from his father Jose Campit in 1977. On the other hand, respondents Isidra Gripa, Pedro Bardiaga and Severino Bardiaga (as represented by his son, Rolando Bardiaga) claimed to be the rightful owners of the subject property. The Court, in these cases, cancelled the titles of the petitioner and his father Jose because they were obtained through the misrepresentation of the petitioner’s grandfather, Isidro Campit. The respondents further contended that they have long desired to divide the subject property among themselves, but the petitioner adamantly refused to surrender his title to the property to them, or to the Register of Deeds, despite their formal demand. Due to the petitioner’s continued refusal to surrender the subjected title, the respondents filed a new action for annulment and cancellation of title with the RTC. The petitioner opposed the respondents’ action and argued that the court’s decision which declared his title null and void, could no longer be enforced because its execution was already barred by the Statute of Limitations, as the said decision was never executed within 10 years. Noting that the action filed by the respondents was not one for revival of judgment, the RTC proceeded to hear the case And ruled in favor of the respondents and ordered Juanario Campit to surrender the said Transfer of Certificate within a period of fifteen (15) days from finality of this decision to the Register of Pangasinan for its cancellation and ordered the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan to cancel the said in the event that Juanario Campit fails to surrender the same within the period given to him, and to revive the title issued in the name of Mariano Campit. Petitioner file an appeal with Court of Appeals. CA affirmed the decision of RTC and held that not being the true owner of the subject property, the subsequent issuance of a certificate of title to the defendant appellant does not vest him ownership over the subject land. Registration of real property under the Torrens System does not create or vest title because it is not a mode of acquiring ownership. The petitioner moved to reconsider, but the CA denied his motion in a resolution. The filing of the present petition for review on certiorari with this Court. ISSUE Whether or not the petitioner’s Transfer of Certificate is valid. HELD No. The issue on the validity of the petitioner’s title to the subject property has long been settled in the past Civil case, where the court, in its decision had found and declared the petitioner’s title null and void by reason of fraud and misrepresentation. A matter adjudged with finality by a competent court having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter already constitutes res judicata in another action involving the same cause of action, parties and subject matter. The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and constitutes as an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action. Thus, the validity of petitioner’s title, having been settled with finality could no longer be reviewed in the present case. Decision however, was not executed or enforced within the time allowed under the law. Under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a final and executory judgment may be executed by the prevailing party as a matter of right by mere motion within five (5) years from the entry of judgment, failing which the judgment is reduced to a mere right of action which must be enforced by the institution of a complaint in a regular court within ten (10) years from finality of the judgment. It appears that no motion or action to revive judgment was ever filed by the respondents. The court cannot, however, allow the petitioner to maintain his title and benefit from the fruit of his and his predecessors’ fraudulent acts at the expense of the respondents who are the rightful owners of the subject property. The Torrens system of registration cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can it be used as a shield for the commission of fraud, or to permit one to enrich oneself at the expense of others. Similarly, the defendant-appellant was not able to show that his predecessor-in interest, Jose Campit, claimed ownership or was ever in possession of the said land. The defendant-appellant has admitted that he has paid realty tax covering the subject land only once when he applied for the issuance of title in his favor. The Court find the respondents’ filing of Civil Case to be proper and not barred by the time limitations set forth under the Rules of Court in enforcing or executing a final and executory judgment.

No comments:

Post a Comment