VENCILAO V. VANO
FACTS
Three consolidated cases are resolved, given that there are same parties and parcels of land in question.
1) In the first case, the heirs of the late Juan Reyes filed an application for registration of the subject parcel of land, which resulted in an OCT. After the heirs tried to take possession of the property, a reconveyance of property was filed against them by Vencila et al., asserting that:
a. They have acquired the land by purchase or inheritance – and in OCEN possession for 30 years
b. The parcels of land that they own were by mistake part of Juan Reyes’ estate
2) The second case involved the death of the administratix of the estate of the owners/heirs of the land. After her death, a TCT was issued in the name of Pedro Luspo, and another was issued in the name of several persons. A writ of possession was issued by the trial court against petitioners.
3) The third case involved one of the registered owners of the land who filed a petition for complaint against the occupants who refused to vacate the land and sign the Sheriff’s return.
The heirs of Juan Reyes moved to dismiss the case of reconveyance stating that the other parties had no cause of action and that they were barred by prior judgement already.
The lower court denied the motion to dismiss, then set aside the same order, and then reversed itself partially (some cases were dismissed, some were not -- since there were several petitioners). The parties whose cases were dismissed appealed to the SC.
These petitioners contend that they were not claimants-oppositors nor defeated oppositors in the said land registration case, as their names don’t appear in the amended application for registration. They argue that they have occupied the parcels of land for more than 30 years which began long before the application for registration and that even after registration, they continued to possess the land.
ISSUE/S:
1) Whether or not res judicata is applicable in an action for reconveyance
2) Whether or not the writ of possession may be issued against them considering that the petitioners were not the defeated parties in the registration case
RULING
1. No. Res judicata applies to all cases and proceedings, including land registration and cadastral proceedings. A final judgment is conclusive even in subsequent cases involving the same parties and their successors-in-interest as long as the ff. requisites are present:
a. The former judgment must be final
b. Rendered by a court having jurisdiction on the subj matter and of the parties (CFI Bohol had jurisdiction)
c. The judgment was based on the merits
d. There is identity of parties, subj matter, and cause of action between the first and second actions (Land registration and action for reconveyance)
2. Yes. A writ of possession may be issued not only against a person who has been defeated in a registration case but also against anyone unlawfully and adversely occupying the land or any portion thereof during the land registration proceedings up to the issuance of the final decree.
Note: In a registration case, the judgment confirming the title of the applicant and ordering its registration in his name necessarily carries with it the right of ownership (right to possess-may be obtained through writ of possession).
On the issue of contempt, the court ruled that the occupants were not guilty. Contempt only applies when after the sheriff dispossess or eject the occupants, they enter/attempt to enter the property. It was the sheriff’s and not the petitioners’ fault that there was delivery of possession was unsuccessful.
