Property – Right to Accession: Cynthia Cruz Khemani v. The Heirs of Anastacio Trinidad

Facts: Parties: Khemani – (Petitioner) purchaser of land from Pena

Pena – (Petitioner) seller of land to Khemani, obtained the land from Jesus LarrabasterLarrabaster (not a party) – obtained the and from public domain thru National Land Settlement AdministrationTrinidad – (Respondent) alleged to have claim over the land purchased by the petitioner Khemani

Cynthia Khemani here is the registered owner of Lot 107 which was purchased from Jose Pena which the later acquired from one Larrabaster to whom the said land was awarded by NLSA.

Before all of these controversies arose, it must be noted that the land in dispute has already been decided upon in a previous case which involved Jose Pena. Lot No. 107 constituted a part of Lot 355 before. Such land (Lot 355 inclusive of Lot No. 107) was sold to Jose Pena. Pena requested the BoL (Bureau of Lands) to adjust the area of the lot awarded to him due to accretion (from 1500 square meters to 3,616.93 square meters) but the BoL denied such request since it stated that the accretion belonged to the government. BoL subdivided the land into three (Lot 107 to Mendoza, Lot 108 to Pena and Lot 109 to Roxas). Subsequently, appealed was made to the Office of the President with regard to the decision rendered by BoL.

The Office of the President however decided and held that the entire area of Lot 355 belonged to Pena and not to the government.

Mendoza (another third party) filed a special action for certiorati claiming that he was denied due process when the Office of the President decided to award the lot to Pena. He asserted ownership over them on the strength of a Miscellaneous Sales Application. This case was elevated to the Supreme Court which was decided upon in favor of Pena.

Anastacio Trinidad herein are claiming ownership and allege that their predecessors in interest have openly, publicly, peacefully and adversely possessed said subject land in the concept of an owner since 1950. They further claim that they applied for a Miscellaneous Sales Application over the land which was approved by the BoL.

The heirs of Pena motioned to dismiss the case alleging that the predecessors in interest were mere "informal settlers" who had been allowed by Mendoza (the former adverse claimant to the land) to occupy it and that since there was already a decision in the previous case, that this was res judicata.

In their answer, respondents claim that they are not barred since they were not parties to the case and there is no identity of causes of action.

The RTC denied the motion to dismiss. They filed a petition for certiorari to the CA which held that certiorari is not the proper remedy

and that there is no re judicata.

Issue: To whom shall the accretion belong? Whether or not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy in assailing the

order of the RTC in denying the motion to dismiss. Whether or not there is res judicata

Ratio:

The accretion shall belong not to the Government.It appears from the records that in the case in 1989, the BOL issued a Patent on September 20, 1993 in favor of the Peña Heirs which became the basis for the issuance of OCT No. P-33658 covering Lot No. 107. However, as held in the case, Lot No. 107—as accretions to the original lot (Lot No. 355) awarded to Larrabaster on July 10, 1950—“ no longer belonged to the Government, the subdivision thereof by the BoL into three lots as well as the allocation of the said lots to other individuals was beyond the scope of its authority.” As a result, while Lot No. 107 may no longer be acquired under the provisions of the Public Land Act, it does not absolutely foreclose the possibility that, as a private property, a portion thereof (the Disputed Property) may have been acquired by respondents through acquisitive prescription under the Civil Code. These matters, however, are the proper subject of a separate action should one be filed subject, of course, to such claims and defenses that either party may have under relevant laws.

The filing of petition for certiorari is proper. It has been settled that an order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither terminates nor disposes a case. As such, the general rule is that an order denying a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a certiorari case. But there are exceptions to this general rule. It is allowed when the ground is improper venue, lack of jurisdiction or res judicata as in the case at bar.

There is no res judicata in this case since there is no identity of parties and causes of action. Res Judicata literally means a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing settled by judgment. It is said that there is res judicata when the ff. requisites concur: 1. Former judgment is final 2. It is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties 3. It is a judgment or an order on the merits 4. There is between the first and the second actions – identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. The cause of action in the first case was the alleged grave abuse of discretion of the Office of the President in awarding the lands to Pena and in the second, the basis is on their adverse possession of the land in the concept of an owner for over 40 years and the alleged fraudulent issuance of a patent and certificate of title to Pena. The parties in the two cases have their own rights and interests in relation to the subject matter in litigation. According to PD1529, a person deprived of his land through actual fraud may institute an action to reopen or review a decree of registration within one year from entry of such decree. In this case, the patent was issued in favor of Pena on Sept 20, 1993 and the filing for review of decree was instituted on January 27, 1994 or well within the prescribed one year period. Also, under the petitioners name in the title, a Notice of Lis Pendens, it cannot be said that petitioner is an innocent purchaser for value as well aware of respondents claim over the property. Even if they filed it after 2 year, they may still file an action based on an implied trust which prescribes in ten years from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property. Under the circumstances, it would be more in keeping with the standard of fairness to have a full blown trial where the evidentiary matters are thrashed out.