Dominga Gabas de Velayo vs. Court of Appeals

A cadastral decree, being a judgment in rem, conclusively binds the whole world and constitutes res judicata as to title; where the disputed property was finally adjudicated to specific persons, the original claimant’s other heirs cannot assert co-ownership, and an action for partition filed more than thirty years after such adjudication is barred by laches.

Genoveva Ronquillo died intestate on March 3, 1964, survived by children from two marriages. Her second husband, Tranquilino Gabas, owned a separate parcel of land, and during their marriage they acquired an adjacent parcel. The two parcels were later consolidated as Cadastral Lot No. 4232 with an area of 60,256 square meters. In Cadastral Case No. 15, Genoveva filed an answer in 1936 claiming the lot on behalf of her two children from the second marriage, Raymunda Gabas and Januario Gabas, effectively ceding the lot to them. After several portions were sold to third parties—corresponding to the shares of her other children—the cadastral court, in a decision dated October 17, 1940, adjudicated the remaining portion, Lot 4232-D (18,616 square meters), in equal shares to Raymunda Gabas and Januario Gabas. In 1974, more than ten years after Genoveva’s death, Dominga Gabas de Velayo and the heirs of Valeriano and Adriano Balayong (children of Genoveva’s first marriage) sued Januario Gabas for partition or reconveyance of three-fifths of Lot 4232-D.

• The Original Properties and Family Relationships: Genoveva Ronquillo had two sons, Valeriano (Valerio) Balayong and Adriano Balayong, from her first marriage. During her second marriage to Tranquilino Gabas, she bore three children: Raymunda, Dominga, and Januario Gabas. Tranquilino Gabas owned, as his separate capital, a parcel of land of about 47,918 square meters declared for tax in his name in 1918. During their marriage, the spouses acquired an adjacent parcel of about 22,500 square meters declared in Genoveva’s name in 1929. The two parcels were later consolidated as Cadastral Lot No. 4232 with a total area of 60,256 square meters.

• The Cadastral Case and Genoveva’s Answer: In Cadastral Case No. 15, Director of Lands vs. Ababan, Genoveva Ronquillo filed an answer dated January 19, 1936, stating that Lot No. 4232 was owned in common by her and her children Raymunda, Dominga, and Januario Gabas. She later crossed out Dominga’s name, making it appear that the lot should be registered in the names of Raymunda Gabas and Januario Gabas as co-owners in equal shares. She did not claim the lot for herself but effectively ceded it to those two children.

• Sales of Portions of Lot 4232: Sale to Casiano Cabahug: On January 23, 1936, Genoveva and her son Valerio sold a parcel (claimed as their “share”) to Casiano Cabahug; Raymunda, Dominga, and Januario certified that the land was the result of a partition and belonged to them. Cabahug later sold the land to Domingo Barroga, who filed an answer in the cadastral case claiming ownership.
  Sale to Javier Medina: On December 19, 1936, Genoveva sold a one-hectare portion to her son-in-law Javier Medina (husband of Raymunda) as her separate property acquired while a widow; Valerio, Adriano, Januario, and Dominga signed as witnesses. Januario’s theory, confirmed by Medina’s testimony, was that this portion represented the share of Adriano Balayong and the consideration was received by him.
  Sale to Bonifacio Belayo: On May 16, 1938, Genoveva together with Raymunda, Dominga, and Januario sold a one-hectare portion of Tranquilino’s original separate property to Bonifacio Belayo in a notarial document. This sale was treated as Dominga Gabas’s share, the proceeds having been turned over to her, which explained the cancellation of her name in Genoveva’s cadastral answer.

• The Cadastral Court’s Adjudication: On the basis of the various answers filed, the cadastral court, in its decision dated October 17, 1940, adjudicated the four portions of Lot 4232 as follows: Lot 4232-A to Domingo Barroga; Lot 4232-B to Bonifacio Belayo; Lot 4232-C to Javier Medina; and Lot 4232-D to Raymunda Gabas and Januario Gabas in equal shares. Lot 4232-D, with an area of 18,616 square meters, is the subject of the litigation.

• Possession and Tax Declarations by Januario: As early as 1938, Lot 4232-D was declared for tax purposes in the name of Januario Gabas, with Genoveva as administratrix. In 1970 another tax declaration was issued in his name. He paid the taxes continuously from 1946 to 1974. Januario planted coconuts on the land, supported his mother, and defrayed the expenses of her last illness and burial.

• Death of Genoveva and Filing of the Complaint: Genoveva Ronquillo died intestate on March 3, 1964. On May 14, 1974, more than ten years after her death and thirty-three years after the cadastral adjudication, petitioners Dominga Gabas de Velayo, Valeriano Balayong, and the four children of the deceased Adriano Balayong filed suit against Januario Gabas for recovery of three-fifths of Lot 4232-D and damages, omitting Raymunda Gabas as a defendant.

• Co-ownership and Imprescriptibility: Petitioners argued that Lot 4232-D formed part of Genoveva Ronquillo’s estate; upon her intestate death, all her children became co-owners thereof, and under Articles 400 and 1965 of the Old Civil Code, an action for partition among co-heirs does not prescribe. They further maintained that, as co-owners, prescription could not run in favor of one co-owner against the others.

• Invalidity of Cadastral Decision: Petitioners contended that the cadastral decision of 1940 was void ab initio because the striking out of Dominga Gabas’s name in Genoveva’s answer constituted fraud.

• Prior Disposition of Shares: Respondent Januario Gabas countered that Dominga Gabas, Valeriano Balayong, and Adriano Balayong had already received and sold their respective shares of Lot 4232 during Genoveva’s lifetime—Dominga’s share to Bonifacio Belayo, Valeriano’s to Nazario Jureidini, and Adriano’s to Javier Medina—and that the remainder, Lot 4232-D, was given to him as his share.

• Prescription and Laches: Respondent argued that the action, filed more than thirty years after the cadastral adjudication and more than ten years after Genoveva’s death, was barred by both prescription and laches.

• Res Judicata: Respondent asserted that the 1940 cadastral court decision adjudicating Lot 4232-D to Raymunda Gabas and himself had the effect of res judicata and conclusively determined ownership.

• Res Judicata Effect of Cadastral Decree: Whether the October 17, 1940 cadastral decision operates as res judicata and bars petitioners’ claim.
• Co-ownership Status: Whether petitioners may be considered co-owners of Lot 4232-D, such that their action for partition or reconveyance is imprescriptible.
• Laches: Whether petitioners are guilty of laches in filing their suit more than thirty years after the cadastral adjudication and more than ten years after Genoveva Ronquillo’s death.

• Res Judicata Effect of Cadastral Decree: The cadastral proceeding is a proceeding in rem that binds the whole world, including the petitioners. The decision of October 17, 1940 is valid and has the force of res judicata; it is conclusive upon the title to the four subdivided lots. The allegation of fraud in the cancellation of Dominga Gabas’s name was unsubstantiated—no evidence showed Januario Gabas was responsible, and the preponderance of evidence indicated the cancellation occurred because Dominga’s share had been sold to Bonifacio Belayo.

• Co-ownership Status: Petitioners cannot be regarded as co-owners of Lot 4232-D. Since the rendition of the cadastral judgment in 1940, the disputed lot became the property of Raymunda Gabas and Januario Gabas; it ceased to be the property of Genoveva Ronquillo. Therefore, the assumption that the lot belonged to Genoveva’s estate and that her heirs became co-owners upon her death is erroneous. The legal provisions on imprescriptibility of an action for partition among co-owners (Arts. 400 and 1965, Old Civil Code; Art. 494, New Civil Code) have no application because no co-ownership existed that could be the subject of partition.

• Laches: Even if the claim were considered on the merits, the petitioners’ inaction for more than thirty years from the cadastral adjudication and over ten years from Genoveva’s death constituted laches, justifying dismissal of the complaint. The principal bar, however, is the res judicata effect of the cadastral decree.

• Cadastral Proceeding as Judgment In Rem and Res Judicata — A cadastral case is a proceeding in rem; its final decision binds the whole world and has the force of res judicata on the question of ownership of the lots adjudicated. (Cano vs. De Camacho, 43 SCRA 390). In this case, the 1940 decree conclusively established that Lot 4232-D belonged exclusively to Raymunda Gabas and Januario Gabas, extinguishing any claim by Genoveva or her other heirs.

• Inapplicability of Prescription Rules Among Co-owners When Co-ownership Has Ceased — Under Article 494 of the Civil Code, no prescription runs in favor of a co-owner against his co-owners as long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. This protection, however, does not extend to situations where the property is no longer held in common, as when a final judicial decree has awarded exclusive ownership to specific persons. The cadastral decree terminated any co-ownership; thus, the rules on imprescriptibility of partition did not apply.

• “The decision of the cadastral court as to the ownership of the four subdivision lots of Lot No. 4232 has the force of res judicata. The cadastral proceeding, as a proceeding in rem, is binding on the whole world including the petitioners.”

• “Those legal provisions have no application to this case because since the rendition of the judgment of the cadastral court on October 17, 1940 the disputed lot became the property of Raymunda Gabas and Januario Gabas. It ceased to be the property of Genoveva Ronquillo. The petitioners cannot be regarded as co-owners thereof.”

• Cano vs. De Camacho, G.R. No. L-28172, February 29, 1972, 43 SCRA 390 — Followed. The Court relied on this decision for the principle that a final decree in a cadastral proceeding is binding on the whole world and conclusive on the question of ownership of the lots adjudicated.

• Castrillo vs. Court of Appeals, 119 Phil. 822, 828 — Distinguished. The petitioners invoked this case for the rule that co-owners are trustees for each other and that prescription does not run between them. The Court held that doctrine inapplicable because, by virtue of the cadastral decree, the parties were not co-owners.

• Article 494, Civil Code — Provides that no prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs as long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. The Court ruled this provision inapplicable because the cadastral decree extinguished any co-ownership over Lot 4232-D before the suit was filed.

• Articles 400 and 1965, Old Civil Code — Petitioners relied on these provisions stating that a co-owner may demand partition at any time and that the action does not prescribe. The Court held they had no application because the property had ceased to be held in common since 1940.

Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, and De Castro, JJ., concur. (Justices Guerrero and De Castro were designated to sit in the Second Division.)