G.R. No.

80294-95 September 21, 1988

CATHOLIC VICAR APOSTOLIC O TH! "O#NTAIN PROVINC!, petitioner,
vs.
CO#RT O APP!ALS, H!IRS O !G"I$IO OCTAVIANO AN$ %#AN VAL$!&, respondents.
Valdez, Ereso, Polido & Associates for petitioner.
Claustro, Claustro, Claustro Law Ofce collaborating counsel for petitioner.
Jaie !. de Leon for t"e #eirs of Egidio Octa$iano.
Cotabato Law Ofce for t"e #eirs of Juan Valdez.

GANCA'CO, J.:
The principal issue in this case is whether or not a decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated a long
time ago can properly be considered res %udicata by respondent Court of Appeals in the present two cases
between petitioner and two private respondents.
Petitioner questions as allegedly erroneous the Decision dated August 3, !"# of the $inth Division of
%espondent Court of Appeals
1
in CA&'.%. $o. ()*" +Civil Case $o. 3,(# -*!./ and CA&'.%. $o. ()*!
+Civil Case $o. 3,)) -*0!./, both for %ecovery of Possession, which a1rmed the Decision of the 2onorable
$icodemo T. 3errer, 4udge of the %egional Trial Court of 5aguio and 5enguet in Civil Case $o. 3,(# -*!.
and Civil Case $o. 3,)) -*0!., with the dispositive portion as follows6
728%839%8, 4udgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant, Catholic :icar Apostolic
of the ;ountain Province to return and surrender <ot 0 of Plan Psu&!*3)# to the plainti=s.
2eirs of 4uan :alde>, and <ot 3 of the same Plan to the other set of plainti=s, the 2eirs of
8gmidio 9ctaviano -<eonardo :alde>, et al... 3or lac? or insu1ciency of evidence, the
plainti=s@ claim or damages is hereby denied. Aaid defendant is ordered to pay costs. -p. 3,,
%ollo.
%espondent Court of Appeals, in a1rming the trial court@s decision, sustained the trial court@s conclusions
that the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated ;ay *,!## in CA&'.%. $o. 3""3(&%, in the two cases
a1rmed by the Aupreme Court, touched on the ownership of lots 0 and 3 in questionB that the two lots
were possessed by the predecessors&in&interest of private respondents under claim of ownership in good
faith from !(, to !)B that petitioner had been in possession of the same lots as bailee in commodatum
up to !), when petitioner repudiated the trust and when it applied for registration in !,0B that
petitioner had Cust been in possession as owner for eleven years, hence there is no possibility of acquisitive
prescription which requires ( years possession with Cust title and 3( years of possession withoutB that the
principle of res %udicata on these Dndings by the Court of Appeals will bar a reopening of these questions of
factsB and that those facts may no longer be altered.
Petitioner@s motion for reconsideation of the respondent appellate court@s Decision in the two
aforementioned cases -CA '.%. $o. C:&()*" and ()*!. was denied.
The facts and bac?ground of these cases as narrated by the trail court are as follows E
... The documents and records presented reveal that the whole controversy
started when the defendant Catholic :icar Apostolic of the ;ountain Province
-:FCA% for brevity. Dled with the Court of 3irst Fnstance of 5aguio 5enguet on
Aeptember ), !,0 an application for registration of title over <ots , 0, 3, and
* in Psu&!*3)#, situated at Poblacion Central, <a Trinidad, 5enguet, doc?eted
as <%C $&!, said <ots being the sites of the Catholic Church building,
convents, high school building, school gymnasium, school dormitories, social
hall, stonewalls, etc. 9n ;arch 00, !,3 the 2eirs of 4uan :alde> and the 2eirs
of 8gmidio 9ctaviano Dled their AnswerG9pposition on <ots $os. 0 and 3,
respectively, asserting ownership and title thereto. After trial on the merits,
the land registration court promulgated its Decision, dated $ovember #,
!,), conDrming the registrable title of :FCA% to <ots , 0, 3, and *.
The 2eirs of 4uan :alde> -plainti=s in the herein Civil Case $o. 3,)). and the
2eirs of 8gmidio 9ctaviano -plainti=s in the herein Civil Case $o. 3,(#.
appealed the decision of the land registration court to the then Court of
Appeals, doc?eted as CA&'.%. $o. 3""3(&%. The Court of Appeals rendered its
decision, dated ;ay !, !##, reversing the decision of the land registration
court and dismissing the :FCA%@s application as to <ots 0 and 3, the lots
claimed by the two sets of oppositors in the land registration case -and two
sets of plainti=s in the two cases now at bar., the Drst lot being presently
occupied by the convent and the second by the women@s dormitory and the
sister@s convent.
9n ;ay !, !##, the 2eirs of 9ctaviano Dled a motion for reconsideration
praying the Court of Appeals to order the registration of <ot 3 in the names of
the 2eirs of 8gmidio 9ctaviano, and on ;ay #, !##, the 2eirs of 4uan :alde>
and Pacita :alde> Dled their motion for reconsideration praying that both <ots
0 and 3 be ordered registered in the names of the 2eirs of 4uan :alde> and
Pacita :alde>. 9n August 0,!##, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for
reconsideration Dled by the 2eirs of 4uan :alde> on the ground that there was
Hno su1cient merit to Custify reconsideration one way or the other ...,H and
li?ewise denied that of the 2eirs of 8gmidio 9ctaviano.
Thereupon, the :FCA% Dled with the Aupreme Court a petition for review on
certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing his -its. application
for registration of <ots 0 and 3, doc?eted as '.%. $o. <&*,"30, entitled
@Catholic :icar Apostolic of the ;ountain Province vs. Court of Appeals and
2eirs of 8gmidio 9ctaviano.@
3rom the denial by the Court of Appeals of their motion for reconsideration the
2eirs of 4uan :alde> and Pacita :alde>, on Aeptember ", !##, Dled with the
Aupreme Court a petition for review, doc?eted as '.%. $o. <&*,"#0,
entitled, #eirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez $s. Court of Appeals, :icar,
2eirs of 8gmidio 9ctaviano and Annable 9. :alde>.
9n 4anuary 3, !#", the Aupreme Court denied in a minute resolution both
petitions -of :FCA% on the one hand and the 2eirs of 4uan :alde> and Pacita
:alde> on the other. for lac? of merit. Ipon the Dnality of both Aupreme Court
resolutions in '.%. $o. <&*,"30 and '.%. $o. <& *,"#0, the 2eirs of 9ctaviano
Dled with the then Court of 3irst Fnstance of 5aguio, 5ranch FF, a ;otion 3or
8Jecution of 4udgment praying that the 2eirs of 9ctaviano be placed in
possession of <ot 3. The Court, presided over by 2on. Aalvador 4. :alde>, on
December #, !#", denied the motion on the ground that the Court of Appeals
decision in CA&'.%. $o. 3""#( did not grant the 2eirs of 9ctaviano any
a1rmative relief.
9n 3ebruary #, !#!, the 2eirs of 9ctaviano Dled with the Court of Appeals a
petitioner for certiorari and mandamus, doc?eted as CA&'.%. $o. (""!(&%,
entitled #eirs of Egidio Octa$iano $s. #on. &al$ador J. Valdez, Jr. and Vicar. Fn
its decision dated ;ay ,, !#!, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.
Ft was at that stage that the instant cases were Dled. The 2eirs of 8gmidio
9ctaviano Dled Civil Case $o. 3,(# -*!. on 4uly 0*, !#!, for recovery of
possession of <ot 3B and the 2eirs of 4uan :alde> Dled Civil Case $o. 3,))
-*0!. on Aeptember 0*, !#!, li?ewise for recovery of possession of <ot 0
-Decision, pp. !!&0(, 9rig. %ec...
Fn Civil Case $o. 3,(# -*!. trial was held. The plainti=s 2eirs of 8gmidio 9ctaviano
presented one -. witness, 3ructuoso :alde>, who testiDed on the alleged ownership of the
land in question -<ot 3. by their predecessor&in&interest, 8gmidio 9ctaviano -8Jh. C .B his
written demand -8Jh. 5E5&* . to defendant :icar for the return of the land to themB and the
reasonable rentals for the use of the land at P(,(((.(( per month. 9n the other hand,
defendant :icar presented the %egister of Deeds for the Province of 5enguet, Atty. $icanor
Aison, who testiDed that the land in question is not covered by any title in the name of
8gmidio 9ctaviano or any of the plainti=s -8Jh. ".. The defendant dispensed with the
testimony of ;ons.7illiam 5rasseur when the plainti=s admitted that the witness if called to
the witness stand, would testify that defendant :icar has been in possession of <ot 3, for
seventy&Dve -#). years continuously and peacefully and has constructed permanent
structures thereon.
Fn Civil Case $o. 3,)), the parties admitting that the material facts are not in dispute,
submitted the case on the sole issue of whether or not the decisions of the Court of Appeals
and the Aupreme Court touching on the ownership of <ot 0, which in e=ect declared the
plainti=s the owners of the land constitute res %udicata.
Fn these two cases , the plainti=s arque that the defendant :icar is barred from setting up
the defense of ownership andGor long and continuous possession of the two lots in question
since this is barred by prior Cudgment of the Court of Appeals in CA&'.%. $o. (3""3(&% under
the principle of res %udicata. Plainti=s contend that the question of possession and ownership
have already been determined by the Court of Appeals -8Jh. C, Decision, CA&'.%. $o.
(3""3(&%. and a1rmed by the Aupreme Court -8Jh. , ;inute %esolution of the Aupreme
Court.. 9n his part, defendant :icar maintains that the principle of res %udicata would not
prevent them from litigating the issues of long possession and ownership because the
dispositive portion of the prior Cudgment in CA&'.%. $o. (3""3(&% merely dismissed their
application for registration and titling of lots 0 and 3. Defendant :icar contends that only the
dispositive portion of the decision, and not its body, is the controlling pronouncement of the
Court of Appeals.
2
The alleged errors committed by respondent Court of Appeals according to petitioner are as follows6
. 8%%9% F$ APP<KF$' <A7 93 T28 CAA8 A$D 'E& J()*CA+AB
0. 8%%9% F$ 3F$DF$' T2AT T28 T%FA< C9I%T %I<8D T2AT <9TA 0 A$D 3 78%8 ACLIF%8D 5K PI%C2AA8
5IT 7FT29IT D9CI;8$TA%K 8:FD8$C8 P%8A8$T8DB
3. 8%%9% F$ 3F$DF$' T2AT P8TFTF9$8%A@ C<AF; FT PI%C2AA8D <9TA 0 A$D 3 3%9; :A<D8M A$D
9CTA:FA$9 7AA A$ F;P<F8D AD;FAAF9$ T2AT T28 39%;8% 97$8%A 78%8 :A<D8M A$D 9CTA:FA$9B
*. 8%%9% F$ 3F$DF$' T2AT FT 7AA P%8D8C8AA9%A 93 P%F:AT8 %8AP9$D8$TA 729 78%8 F$ P9AA8AAF9$
93 <9TA 0 A$D 3 AT <8AAT 3%9; !(,, A$D $9T P8TFTF9$8%B
). 8%%9% F$ 3F$DF$' T2AT :A<D8M A$D 9CTA:FA$9 2AD 3%88 PAT8$T APP<FCATF9$A A$D T28
P%8D8C8AA9%A 93 P%F:AT8 %8AP9$D8$TA A<%8ADK 2AD 3%88 PAT8$T APP<FCATF9$A AF$C8 !(,B
,. 8%%9% F$ 3F$DF$' T2AT P8TFTF9$8% D8C<A%8D <9TA 0 A$D 3 9$<K F$ !) A$D 4IAT TFT<8 FA A P%F;8
$8C8AAFTK I$D8% A%TFC<8 3* F$ %8<ATF9$ T9 A%T. 0! 93 T28 CF:F< C9D8 39% 9%DF$A%K
ACLIFAFTF:8 P%8AC%FPTF9$ 93 ( K8A%AB
#. 8%%9% F$ 3F$DF$' T2AT T28 D8CFAF9$ 93 T28 C9I%T 93 APP8A<A F$ CA '.%. $9. (3""3( 7AA
A33F%;8D 5K T28 AIP%8;8 C9I%TB
". 8%%9% F$ 3F$DF$' T2AT T28 D8CFAF9$ F$ CA '.%. $9. (3""3( T9IC28D 9$ 97$8%A2FP 93 <9TA 0
A$D 3 A$D T2AT P%F:AT8 %8AP9$D8$TA A$D T28F% P%8D8C8AA9%A 78%8 F$ P9AA8AAF9$ 93 <9TA 0
A$D 3 I$D8% A C<AF; 93 97$8%A2FP F$ '99D 3AFT2 3%9; !(, T9 !)B
!. 8%%9% F$ 3F$DF$' T2AT P8TFTF9$8% 2AD 588$ F$ P9AA8AAF9$ 93 <9TA 0 A$D 3 ;8%8<K AA 5AF<88
59% %978%. F$ C9;;9DATI;, A '%ATIFT9IA <9A$ 39% IA8B
(. 8%%9% F$ 3F$DF$' T2AT P8TFTF9$8% FA A P9AA8AA9% A$D 5IF<D8% F$ '99D 3AFT2 7FT29IT %F'2TA
93 %8T8$TF9$ A$D %8F;5I%A8;8$T A$D FA 5A%%8D 5K T28 3F$A<FTK A$D C9$C<IAF:8$8AA 93 T28
D8CFAF9$ F$ CA '.%. $9. (3""3(.
(
The petition is bereft of merit.
Petitioner questions the ruling of respondent Court of Appeals in CA&'.%. $os. ()*" and ()*!, when it
clearly held that it was in agreement with the Dndings of the trial court that the Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated ;ay *,!## in CA&'.%. $o. 3""3(&%, on the question of ownership of <ots 0 and 3, declared
that the said Court of Appeals Decision CA&'.%. $o. 3""3(&%. did not positively declare private respondents
as owners of the land, neither was it declared that they were not owners of the land, but it held that the
predecessors of private respondents were possessors of <ots 0 and 3, with claim of ownership in good faith
from !(, to !). Petitioner was in possession as borrower in commodatum up to !), when it
repudiated the trust by declaring the properties in its name for taJation purposes. 7hen petitioner applied
for registration of <ots 0 and 3 in !,0, it had been in possession in concept of owner only for eleven
years. 9rdinary acquisitive prescription requires possession for ten years, but always with Cust title.
8Jtraordinary acquisitive prescription requires 3( years.
4
9n the above Dndings of facts supported by evidence and evaluated by the Court of Appeals in CA&'.%. $o.
3""3(&%, a1rmed by this Court, 7e see no error in respondent appellate court@s ruling that said Dndings
are res %udicata between the parties. They can no longer be altered by presentation of evidence because
those issues were resolved with Dnality a long time ago. To ignore the principle of res %udicata would be to
open the door to endless litigations by continuous determination of issues without end.
An eJamination of the Court of Appeals Decision dated ;ay *, !##, 3irst Division
5
in CA&'.%. $o. 3""3(&%,
shows that it reversed the trial court@s Decision
)
Dnding petitioner to be entitled to register the lands in
question under its ownership, on its evaluation of evidence and conclusion of facts.
The Court of Appeals found that petitioner did not meet the requirement of 3( years possession for
acquisitive prescription over <ots 0 and 3. $either did it satisfy the requirement of ( years possession for
ordinary acquisitive prescription because of the absence of Cust title. The appellate court did not believe
the Dndings of the trial court that <ot 0 was acquired from 4uan :alde> by purchase and <ot 3 was acquired
also by purchase from 8gmidio 9ctaviano by petitioner :icar because there was absolutely no
documentary evidence to support the same and the alleged purchases were never mentioned in the
application for registration.
5y the very admission of petitioner :icar, <ots 0 and 3 were owned by :alde> and 9ctaviano. 5oth :alde>
and 9ctaviano had 3ree Patent Application for those lots since !(,. The predecessors of private
respondents, not petitioner :icar, were in possession of the questioned lots since !(,.
There is evidence that petitioner :icar occupied <ots and *, which are not in question, but not <ots 0 and
3, because the buildings standing thereon were only constructed after liberation in !*). Petitioner :icar
only declared <ots 0 and 3 for taJation purposes in !). The improvements oil <ots , 0, 3, * were paid for
by the 5ishop but said 5ishop was appointed only in !*#, the church was constructed only in !) and
the new convent only 0 years before the trial in !,3.
7hen petitioner :icar was notiDed of the oppositor@s claims, the parish priest o=ered to buy the lot from
3ructuoso :alde>. <ots 0 and 3 were surveyed by request of petitioner :icar only in !,0.
Private respondents were able to prove that their predecessors@ house was borrowed by petitioner :icar
after the church and the convent were destroyed. They never as?ed for the return of the house, but when
they allowed its free use, they became bailors in coodatu and the petitioner the bailee. The bailees@
failure to return the subCect matter of coodatu to the bailor did not mean adverse possession on the
part of the borrower. The bailee held in trust the property subCect matter of commodatum. The adverse
claim of petitioner came only in !) when it declared the lots for taJation purposes. The action of
petitioner :icar by such adverse claim could not ripen into title by way of ordinary acquisitive prescription
because of the absence of Cust title.
The Court of Appeals found that the predecessors&in&interest and private respondents were possessors
under claim of ownership in good faith from !(,B that petitioner :icar was only a bailee in coodatuB
and that the adverse claim and repudiation of trust came only in !).
7e Dnd no reason to disregard or reverse the ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA&'.%. $o. 3""3(&%. Fts
Dndings of fact have become incontestible. This Court declined to review said decision, thereby in e=ect,
a1rming it. Ft has become Dnal and eJecutory a long time ago.
%espondent appellate court did not commit any reversible error, much less grave abuse of discretion, when
it held that the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA&'.%. $o. 3""3(&% is governing, under the principle of
res Cudicata, hence the rule, in the present cases CA&'.%. $o. ()*" and CA&'.%. $o. ()*!. The facts as
supported by evidence established in that decision may no longer be altered.
728%839%8 A$D 5K %8AA9$ 93 T28 39%8'9F$', this petition is D8$F8D for lac? of merit, the Decision
dated Aug. 3, !"# in CA&'.%. $os. ()*" and ()*!, by respondent Court of Appeals is A33F%;8D, with
costs against petitioner.
A9 9%D8%8D.