Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49778:gr-149609-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:43:20+00:00

Document:
HEIRS OF TAMA TAN BUTO, represented by JAYNOL TAMA TAN BUTO, Petitioners, v. ERNESTO T. LUY, Respondent.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision1 dated April 30, 2001 and the Resolution2 dated August 17, 2001 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 62961.
This case involves the ownership of a parcel of land with an area of seven thousand nine hundred eighty-three (7,983) square meters, located at Barrio Makar, General Santos City, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-35185 presently in the name of Ernesto T. Luy (Luy).
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the registration and adjudication of the aforementioned parcel of land, with all improvements existing thereon, is hereby decreed in favor of TAMA TAN BUTO, 55 years old, married to Ulana Baliwan, resident of Kindap, Kiamba, Cotabato, Philippines. The Register of Deeds of the Province of Cotabato is hereby directed to cancel Original Certificate of Title No. V-160 in the name of Eligio T. Leyva.
WHEREFORE, let a writ of execution be issued against private respondents, his heirs, and assigns, and successors-in-interests.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court hereby orders the cancellation of the remaining titles of Eligio Leyva and all derivative titles of certain persons/entities listed above from the fraudulent title of Eligio Leyva. The Register of Deeds of General Santos [City] is directed to cancel the titles listed in this resolution and in lieu thereof, he/she should issue titles in the name of the Heirs of TAMA TAN BUTO. Collaterally, let a writ of possession be issued in favor of petitioner and his heirs against all occupants of the lands, and the Sheriff is directed to place the Heirs of TAN BUTO in actual possession of the land.
Considering that, as repeatedly stated, the decision of the registration court was the subject of an earlier reversal via the decision of this court promulgated on March 15, 1968, the resolution of [the] respondent judge issued on December 14, 2000, which ordered the cancellation of petitioner's certificate of title and issuance of a writ to place private respondents in possession of the premises, is obviously without legal basis. Put a little differently, respondent judge did not have any jurisdiction to issue the same as in fact the whole registration proceedings have effectively been voided and set aside.
It may be stated in this connection that a sales patent issued in accordance with the Public Land Act and registered in conformity with the provisions of the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) becomes irrevocable and enjoys the same privileges as Torrens title issued thereunder (Samonte v. Sambillon, 107 Phil. 198 ). A certificate of title cannot be the subject of collateral attack (Trinidad v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 204 SCRA 524 ).
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The resolution of respondent judge dated December 14, 2000 and [the] writ of possession dated January 9, 2001, and writ of demolition which may have been subsequently issued, are hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent Sheriff and respondent heirs of Tama Tan Buto, and all persons acting for and in their behalf, are hereby ENJOINED from entering petitioner's property, blockading or barring people or any kind of motor vehicle from entering or leaving the same, and disturbing the business activities of petitioner therein. Respondent Register of Deeds is enjoined from canceling TCT No. T-35185 of petitioner and from issuing, in lieu thereof, a transfer certificate of title to the heirs of Tama Tan Buto. Costs against private respondents.
A motion for reconsideration was timely filed by the heirs of Buto. However, the same was denied in a Resolution29 dated August 17, 2001. Hence, this recourse.
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the heirs of Buto are barred by res judicata.
The heirs of Buto can no longer question the decision of the CA dated March 15, 1968 which has long become final and executory. The judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction operates as res judicata and bars subsequent cases filed by the same parties and their successors-in-interest, involving the same subject matter and cause of action.
In this case, there is a concurrence of all these requisites.
As mentioned above, the CA Decision dated April 6, 1968 is an offshoot of the decision of the CFI in LRC Case No. N-62 dated February 27, 1961. Based on a finding of fraud, the trial court cancelled OCT No. V-160 in the name of Leyva, and adjudicated the land to Buto. On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court. The CA pronounced that the finding of fraud by the trial court in the procurement of registration of the subject parcel of land was unfounded. The appellate court ruled that the participation of Buto in the auction sale conducted by the Bureau of Lands is acquiescence by him that the land belonged to the public domain. Due to Buto's participation in the said auction sale, he was placed in estoppel and may no longer insist on his claim of ownership over the land.
The requirement of identity of cause of action is met in the present petition. The heirs of Buto are invoking the same ground of fraud to nullify Sales Patent No. V-1113 which was the basis for the issuance of OCT No. V-160 in the name of Leyva. As previously stated, the parcel of land consisting of 7,983 square meters in TCT No. T-35185 in the name of Luy, was part of the 54,558 square meters of land covered by OCT No. V-160 in the name of Leyva. Leyva subdivided the land in OCT No. V-160, and had transfer certificates of title covering the subdivided lots issued in his name. By virtue of a valid contract of sale between Leyva and Luy, TCT No. T-34648 in the name of Leyva was cancelled, and thereafter, TCT No. T-35185 was issued to Luy.
All these allegations of the heirs of Buto cannot be sustained. They are merely conjectures unsupported by evidence. The findings of facts of the CA are deemed conclusive upon this Court. Any question with regard to the findings of the appellate court should have been timely brought on appeal or other appropriate remedy provided for by law. Any question as to the soundness or validity of a decision of any court of this land which has already attained finality may no longer be reviewed by this Court.
The primary and fundamental purpose of the Torrens System of registration is to finally settle the titles to land and put to stop any question of legality of title thereto. That being the purpose of the law, there would be no end to litigation if every property covered by torrens title may still be relitigated in a subsequent land registration proceedings. Pursuant to this purpose, a homestead patent once registered under the Land Registration Act, can not be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding, and any title issued thereon is null and void. The same may be said of a sales patent. Once a certificate of title is issued under the Land Registration Act in lieu of a sales patent, the land is considered registered under the Torrens system and the title of the patentee become indefeasible.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby DENIED. Cost against petitioners.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, with Associate Justices Cancio C. Garcia (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Elvi John S. Asuncion, concurring; rollo, pp. 26 - 30.
3 Deed of Absolute Sale; rollo, p. 257.
4 Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-35185 issued by the Register of Deeds of General Santos City; id. at 211-212.
10 Penned by District Judge Juan A. Sarenas; rollo, pp. 261-275.
12 Penned by Associate Justice Nicasio Yatco, with Associate Justices Salvador V. Esguerra and Eulogio S. Serrano, concurring; rollo, pp. 159-168.
16 Entry of Judgment issued by the Court of Appeals; id. at 169.
20 The then Court of First Instance of Cotabato, First Branch; id. at 540-553.
21 Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, General Santos City.
22 Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Jose S. Majaducon; rollo, pp. 359-362.
30 San Diego v. Cardona, 70 Phil. 281, 283 (1940).
32 In CA-G.R. No. 30813-R, the case is entitled "Tama Tan Buto v. Director of Lands and Eligio T. Leyva."
33 Filinvest Land, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142439, December 6, 2006.
36 YbaÃ±ez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68291, March 6, 1991, 194 SCRA 743.
37 OCT No. V-160 in the name of Eligio T. Leyva, rollo, p. 437.
38 113 Phil. 144 (1961).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.