Ting vs Heirs of Lirio Case Digest GR 168913 March 14, 2007

Ting vs Heirs of Lirio Case Digest

 G.R. No. 168913 ; March 14, 2007 

PRINCIPLE:

1. Section 6 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is not applicable to special proceedings.

  

FACTS: CFI of Cebu granted an application filed by the Spouses Lirio for registration of a certain parcel of land on December 10, 1976 in Land Registration Case (LRC) No. N-983. A certificate of title was thereafter issued to Spouses Lirio.

In 1997, Ting filed with the RTC of Cebu an application for registration of title over the same lot. The herein respondents, heirs of Lirio, filed their Answer calling attention to the December 10, 1976 decision in LRC No. N-983 which had become final and executory on January 29, 1977 and which, they argued, barred the filing of petitioner’s application on the ground of res judicata. Hence, RTC dismissed Ting‘s application on the ground of res judicata. Petitioner then files this present petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner argues that although the decision in LRC No. N-983 had become final and executory on January 29, 1977, no decree of registration has been issued by the Land Registration Authority (LRA); it was only on July 26, 2003 that the "extinct" decision belatedly surfaced as basis of respondents’ motion to dismiss LRC No. 1437-N; and as no action for revival of the said decision was filed by respondents after the lapse of the ten-year prescriptive period, "the cause of action in the dormant judgment passé[d] into extinction." Petitioner thus concludes that an "extinct" judgment cannot be the basis of res judicata.

ISSUE: WON the application for land registration should be barred for being res judicata

HELD: YES.

Reasons:

a. In a registration proceeding instituted for the registration of a private land, with or without opposition, the judgment of the court confirming the title of the applicant or oppositor, as the case may be, and ordering its registration in his name constitutes, when final, res judicata against the whole world. It becomes final when no appeal within the reglementary period is taken from a judgment of confirmation and registration. The land registration proceedings being in rem, the land registration court‘s approval in LRC No. N-983 of spouses Diego Lirio and Flora Atienza‘s application for registration of the lot settled its ownership, and is binding on the whole world including Ting.

b. Ting insists that the duty of the respondent land registration officials to issue the decree is purely ministerial. It is ministerial in the sense that they act under the orders of the court and the decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court and with the data found in the record, and they have no discretion in the matter. However, if they are in doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree, it is their duty to refer the matter to the court. They act, in this respect, as officials of the court and not as administrative officials, and their act is the act of the court. They are specifically called upon to “extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings.”

c. As for Ting‘s claim that under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Courtreading: SEC. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. – A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations, the December 10, 1976 decision became “extinct” in light of the failure of respondents and/or of their predecessors-in-interest to execute the same within the prescriptive period, the same does not lie.

Authority for this theory is the provision in the Rules of Court to the effect that judgment may be enforced within 5 years by motion, and after five years but within 10 years, by an action (Sec. 6, Rule 39.) This provision of the Rules refers to civil actions and is not applicable to special proceedings, such as a land registration case. This is so because a party in a civil action must immediately enforce a judgment that is secured as against the adverse party, and his failure to act to enforce the same within a reasonable time as provided in the Rules makes the decision unenforceable against the losing party. In special proceedings the purpose is to establish a status, condition or fact; in land registration proceedings, the ownership by a person of a parcel of land is sought to be established. After the ownership has been proved and confirmed by judicial declaration, no further proceeding to enforce said ownership is necessary, except when the adverse or losing party had been in possession of the land and the winning party desires to oust him therefrom.