CALALANG VS.

REGISTER OF DEEDS 1992

GR 76265
GR 83280

1. Lot 671-A is the lot subject of the convtoversy

2. The petitioners are individual lot owners who claim to have bought their respective portions
from Amando Clemente in the 1950's.
a. Amando Clemente is alleged to be the registered owner of said land who converted it into
a subdivision known as Clemville Subdivision.
3. Lot 671-A is actually part of a bigger parcel known as Lot 671 which is claimed by respondent
Iglesia ni Kristo (INK), which bought said property from Lucia dela Cruz in 1975.
4. Lucia Dela Cruz was adjudged the rightful owner of Lot 671 in the case of dela Cruz v. dela
Cruz.(remember this ha) INK began fencing the whole area and placed the following sign "NO
TRESPASSING”
a. Briefly, the dela Cruz v. dela Cruz case is an action for reconveyance founded on breach
of trust filed by Augustina dela Cruz, et al. against Lucia dela Cruz and INK
5. The validity of the sale of Lucia to the INK was thereby upheld and the title of INK to the
subject realty — (Lot 671) was validated as well.
6. Petitioner Virginia Calalang alleged that she is the registered owner of a portion of Lot 671.
a. She allegedly came to know of INK's claim only when a prospective buyer inspected the
land on August 1986 and saw the "no trespassing" sign
b. Petitioner Calalang lost no time in inquiring into the status of the land and learned about
the pending consulta case (LRC 1978) filed before the Administrator of the National Land
Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NLTDRA).
c. This consulta came about when the Register of Deeds doubted the registrability of the
documents presented before it in the light of his findings that the land affected was
covered by two (2) sets of titles issued in the names of different owners
d. On September 9, 1986, the petitioner filed a Motion to Intervene requesting the
Administrator to conduct an investigation of the supposed anomaly committed in
connection with the reconstitution of TCT No. RT-58 in the name of Lucia dela Cruz.
i. This was denied by the Administrator invoking our ruling in dela Cruz v. dela Cruz
to the effect that TCT RT-58 in the name of respondent Lucia dela Cruz is the
valid title.

In G.R. No. 83280,

7. the petitioners alleged that they and/or their predecessors in interest were issued their
corresponding titles to the lots purchased from Amando Clemente in the 1950's yet
A. From the time they acquired their Torrens Title they and they alone to the exclusion of INK
exercised all acts of undisturbed, peaceful and uninterrupted ownership and possession
including the payment of their realty taxes

8. 1985, INK started to enclose the entire Clemville Subdivision.

a. INK also destroyed the concrete/hollow block fence surrounding the lot of petitioner de
Castro and started the construction of housing structures therein

9. “petitioners titles which were issued some ten years earlier than that of respondent's
emanated from a reconstituted TCT No. RT-52. This reconstituted TCT No. RT-52 was the
subject of a case, `De la Cruz v. De la Cruz", 130 SCRA 66 [1984], wherein the Honorable
Supreme Court declared the said reconstituted title null and void”

10. The petitioners argue that the dela Cruz case could not be applied to them since they were not
parties in that case nor were they ever notified of such case pending between the parties.

a. Since they acquired their properties from an entirely different person, Amando Clemente
and not from any of the heirs of Policarpio de la Cruz(PII ni lucia de la cruz), they could not
be considered privies to any of them.

ISSUE:
Is the De la Cruz vs. De la Cruz decision applicable and binding to the present controversy?
RULING:

With this Court's ruling promulgated in 1984, it is our considered view that the petitioners can
not raise anew the question of ownership of Lucia de la Cruz over Lot 671 which had been
determined by the Court of Appeals and affirmed by the Supreme Court in the de la Cruz case
The Court's ruling has long been final and the issue on ownership of Lot 671 finally disposed of several
years ago.

INK's title over Lot 671 which necessarily included Lot 671-A had already become incontrovertible and
indefeasible. To reopen or to question the legality of INK's title would defeat the purpose of our
Torrens system which seeks to insure stability by quieting titled lands and putting to a stop
forever any question of the legality of the registration in the certificate or questions which may
arise therefrom. (de la Cruz v. de la Cruz, supra.) In fairness to INK, as registered owner it is entitled to
rest secure in its land title.

Inevitably, the dela Cruz ruling should be applied to the present petitions since the facts on
which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before us now (RES
JUDICATA)

Petition denied
CALALANG VS. ROD (actually MR ni siya sa 1992 decision so sequel rani sha)
FACTS:
1. “when the Piedad Estate was subdivided (with Lot No. 671 as one of the resulting parcels)
a. whoever was in possession of a particular lot was given priority and/or preference in
the acquisition thereof provided that the price and the cost of titling would be paid;
b. that Policarpio de la Cruz and his wife Luciana Rafael were originally in possession
of the land;
c. that they had three children, Maximo, Filomeno and Lucia de la Cruz;
d. that on April 25, 1940, Lot No. 671 was segregated from the totality of the Piedad
Estate, covered by OCT No. 614 and a separate title was issued in the name of
Eugenia de la Paz and Doreteo de la Cruz
e. ; a deed of sale over Lot No. 671 was executed by Eugenia de la Paz and Dorotea de
la Cruz (the registered owners) in favor of defendant- appellant Lucia de la Cruz;
f. the corresponding certificate of title was issued to Lucia de la Cruz; that in 1971,
Lucia de la Cruz obtained from the land registration court a reconstituted title (TCT
No. RT-59 over Lot No. 671),
g. the transfer certificate of title previously issued to her in 1943 having been lost;
h. that subsequently, Lot No. 671 was subdivided into three (3) lots, each of which was
issued a separate title (Lot 671-A; B; C);
i. meanwhile TCT No. 40355 (already previously issued to and in the names of Eugenia
de la Paz and Dorotea de la Cruz) continued to exist;
j. that when the title was transferred from the Rizal Registry to the Quezon City Registry,
from the latter Registry assigned to this TCT a new number, RT-52;
k. that this same lot (No. 671) was later subdivided into two lots, each with a title both
in the names of Eugenia de la Paz and Dorotea de la Cruz;
l. that the second lot was sold on December 17, 1952 to one Narcisa Vda. de Leon;
m. that on May 6, 1964, Narcisa Vda. de Leon transferred the same lot 671-B to Nieves Paz
Eraña;
n. Nieves Paz Eraña filed for `quieting of title' against Lucia de la Cruz, et al.,
i. praying that TCT No. RT-58. (the reconstituted title of Lucia de la Cruz), as well
as all titles derived therefrom, be declared null and void;
ii. Lucia de la Cruz sold a portion of Lot 671-C to Iglesia

2. Apparently, there is no mention of Amando Clemente in the above recital of facts.

a. TCT No. 16212 was issued for Lot 671- A in the name of Amando Clemente on August 9,
1951 per report of the Acting Administrator of the NLTDRA.
b. Amando Clemente's TCT No. 16212 emanated from TCT No. 40355 in the name of
Eugenia dela Paz and Dorotea dela Cruz.
c. Thus, Amando Clemente's predecessors-in- interest are Eugenia dela Paz and Dorotea
dela Cruz whom the Court found to have lost their rights over Lot 671 by virtue of the
sale made to Lucia dela Cruz

3. The Register of Deeds correctly observed that this is a clear case where there is a duplication
or overlapping of titles issued to different names over the same land which thereby compelled
him to file the consulta case with the NLTDRA:

4. Lucia dela Cruz's reconstituted title (RT-58) which was divided into 3 lots, Lot 671- A, Lot 671-
B and Lot 671-C and was subsequently sold to INK

5. Eugenia dela Paz and Dorotea dela Cruz's reconstituted title (RT-52) which was divided into 2
lots, Lot 671-A and Lot 671-B

6. Since it is the act of registration which transfers ownership of the land sold, Lot 671 was
already owned by Lucia dela Cruz as early as 1943. Amando Clemente's alleged title
meanwhile which was issued on August 9, 1951 was very much later.

7. Thus, the petitioners, who merely stepped into the shoes of Amando Clemente cannot
claim a better right over said land. "Prior est temporae, prior est in jura" (he who is first in time
is preferred in right).

a. The fact that Amando Clemente possessed a certificate of title does not necessarily
make him the true owner. And not being the owner, he cannot transmit any right to
nor transfer any title or interest over the land conveyed
RULING :

1. RES JUDICATA NA ANG DELA CRUZ VS. DELA CRUZ CASE. (which held na valid ang ownership ni LUCIA
dela cruz over the lot so therefore valid ang sale niya ni INK)

"When a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long
as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law
or estate."

The Court's ruling has long been Final and the issue on ownership of Lot 671 finally disposed of several
years ago. This declaration must be respected and followed in the instant case applying the principle
of res judicata or, otherwise, the rule on conclusiveness of judgment.

The less familiar concept of less terminological usage of res judicata as a rule on conclusiveness of judgment
refers to the situation where the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to the matters
actually determined therein or which were necessarily included therein. (De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 187
SCRA 165 [1990]).

Inevitably, the de la Cruz ruling should be applied to the present petitions since the facts on which
such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before us now. Even the petitioners
substantially adopt the same findings of facts in their pleadings. The factual inquiry with regards to the
history of Lot 671 has already been laid to rest and may no longer be disturbed ...

2. PROCEEDING IN REM, CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE TO THE WHOLE WORLD

petition for reconstitution of title by Lucia dela Cruz which the court held to be valid was a
proceeding in rem.

It is well established that in rem proceedings such as land registration constitutes constructive notice
to the whole world.

INK was also issued a Torrens Title over Lot 671 as a result of the sale made to it by the rightful
owner, Lucia dela Cruz in 1975.

Under the Torrens System of registration, the Torrens Title became indefeasible and incontrovertible
one year from its final decree. A Torrens Title is generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the
land referred to therein.

. INK's title over Lot 671 which necessarily included Lot 671-A had already become incontrovertible and
indefeasible. To reopen or to question the legality of INK's title would defeat the purpose of our Torrens
system

all transfer certificates of title derived from reconstituted title of Eugenia de la Paz and Dorotea
de la Cruz be annulled in order to prevent the proliferation of derivative titles which are null and
void.

The legality or validity of INK's title over Lot 671 has been settled.

3. furthermore, GR 76265 stemmed from a letter in consulta, while GR 83280 arose from an injunction
suit

From this, ang remedy sought by petitioner was certiorati, ana si SC wrong na sha kay it should have
been an appeal to the CA.

FURTHERMORE, this amounts to a collateral attack on the title of INK which is not allowed. Since a title
should only be altered, modified or cancelled in a direct proceeding.