G.R. No. L-34362 November 19, 1982
MODESTA CALIMLIM AND LAMBERTO MAGALI IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DOMINGO MAGALI, petitioners,
vs.
HON. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN, BRANCH I, and FRANCISCO RAMOS, respondents.
FACTS: Sometime in 1961, a
judgment for a sum of money was rendered in favor of Independent Mercantile
Corporation against a certain Manuel Magali by the Municipal Court of Manila in
Civil Case No. 85136. However, when the Sheriff issued the final Deed of Sale
on January 25, 1963, it was erroneously stated therein that the sale was with
respect to "the parcel of land described in this title" (referring to
TCT No. 9138) and not only over the rights and interest of Manuel Magali in the
same. The execution of the said final Deed of Sale was annotated at the back of
said title. On February 23, 1967, Independent Mercantile Corporation filed a
petition in the respondent Court to compel Manuel Magali to surrender the
owner's duplicate of TCT No. 9138 in order that the same may be cancelled and a
new one issued in the name of the said corporation. On November 21, 1967,
petitioner Modesta Calimlim, surviving spouse of Domingo Magali, upon learning
that her husband's title over the parcel of land had been cancelled, filed a
petition with the respondent Court, sitting as a cadastral court, praying for
the cancellation of TCT No. 68568. An opposition to the said petition was filed
by Independent Mercantile Corporation. After the parties submitted their
respective Memoranda, the respondent Court issued an Order dated June 3, 1968
dismissing the petition. The herein petitioners did not appeal the dismissal of
the petition they filed in LRC Record No. 39492 for the cancellation of TCT No.
68568. Instead, on January 11, 1971, they filed the complaint. Private
respondent Francisco Ramos filed a Motion To Dismiss Civil Case No. SCC-180 on
the ground that the same is barred by prior judgement or by statute of
limitations. Resolving the said Motion, the respondent Court, in its Order
dated April 21, 1971, dismissed Civil Case No. SCC- 180 on the ground of
estoppel by prior judgment. A Motion for Reconsideration filed by the
petitioners was denied by the respondent Judge in his Order of September 2,
1971. A second Motion for Reconsideration was similarly denied in the Order
dated September 29, 197 1. (Rollo, pp. 16-17.) Hence, this Petition
ISSUE: WON the action is barred
by prior judgement or by statute of limitations
HELD: The SC rules that in order to avail the defense of res judicata the decision must be held by a court who has jurisdiction to hear and try the case. If there is lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit or of the parties, the judgment or order cannot operate as an adjudication of the controversy. It is settled that the RTC, acting as a land registration court, has limited jurisdiction. It cannot take on issues pertaining to an ordinary civil action. Issues raised by the petitioner refer to the ownership of the of the property. In short, the petition raised a highly controversial matter which is beyond the judicial competence of a cadastral court to pass upon or to adjudicate. Also, the petitioner cannot be faulted with laches since it is only 2 years and a half has passed since the dismissal of the petition. It is neither fair nor legal to bind a party by the result of a suit or proceeding which was taken cognizance of in a court which lacks jurisdiction over the same irrespective of the attendant circumstances
No comments:
Post a Comment