480 Phil. 502
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
A parcel of land (as shown on plan Psu-2130, G.L.R.O. Record No. ), situated in the Sitio of Talisay, Municipality of Caloocan, Province of Rizal. Bounded on the N., by Estero Palopalo and property of Martin Esguerra; on the NE., by property of Francisco Baello y Hermanos; on the E., by Canal and property of Francisco Baello y Hermanos; on the SE., by Dagat-dagatan; on the SW., by property of Esperanza Baello; and on the W., by Estero Palopalo. Beginning at a point marked “1” on plan, being N. 3 deg. 56’W., 5029.7 m. from Tondo Church …The plan was approved on November 14, 1911. Esperanza Baello died intestate on March 22, 1929 and was survived by her heirs Pedro Baello and Nicanora Baello. Subsequently, the plan was verified anew and approved by the Director of Bureau of Lands on April 24, 1951.[3]thence N. 53 deg. 09’ W., 292.8 m. to point 2;beginning; containing an area of ONE HUNDRED FORTY-SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO (147,972) Square Meters, more or less. All points referred to are indicated on the plan and are marked on the ground as follows: points 1 and 2, by corner of wall; points 4, 5, 6 and 11, by Stones; point 12, by Stone Mon.; and the rest, by Old Corners; bearings true; declination 0 deg. 55’ E.; date of survey, Oct. 23, 1911 and that of the approval, Nov. 14, 1911.[2]
thence N. 6 deg. 47’ W., 155.0 m. to point 3;
thence N. 79 deg. 53’ E., 37.0 m. to point 4;
thence N. 83 deg. 01’ E., 247.5 m. to point 5;
thence N. 65 deg. 43’ E., 51.6 m. to point 6;
thence S. 33 deg. 19’ E., 263.2 m. to point 7;
thence S 49 deg. 42’ N., 29.7 m. to point 8;
thence S. 11 deg. 12’ E., 22.1 m. to point 9;
thence S. 39 deg. 55’ W., 3.6 m. to point 10;
thence S. 23 deg. 56’ E., 137.5 m. to point 11;
thence S. 58 deg. 39’ W., 231.9 m. to point l2;
thence N. 33 deg. 49’ W’ 131.9 m. to the point of
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby confirms the title of the applicants to the land subject of this proceedings, and orders its registration in the names of the applicants in the following proportion, pro indiviso:The Republic of the Philippines, through the Director of Bureau of Lands, did not appeal the decision. After the decision became final and executory, the CFI ordered the Land Registration Commission to issue the appropriate decree. Pursuant to such order, Decree No. 13400 was issued on October 27, 1954 in favor of “Pedro T. Baello, married to Josefa Caiña,” over the two-thirds (2/3) portion of the property, and “Nicanora T. Baello, married to Manuel J. Rodriguez,” over the remaining one-third (1/3) undivided portion thereof.[5] The Register of Deeds thereafter issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. (804) 53839 in favor of Pedro and Nicanora. The property was then subdivided into two (2) parcels: Lot A, with an area of 98,648 square meters covered by TCT No. 181493 in the name of Pedro T. Baello; and Lot B, with an area of 49,324 square meters in the name of Nicanora T. Baello. The subdivision plan was approved by the court on July 27, 1971.[6]Two-Thirds (2/3) to PEDRO T. BAELLO, 68 years, married to Josefa Caiña, Filipino citizen, Doctor, and a resident of 350 A. Mabini, Caloocan, Rizal; andUpon this decision becoming final and executory, let the corresponding decree and title be issued in favor of the applicants with the above personal circumstances.
One-Third (1/3) to NICANORA T. BAELLO, 62 years, married to Manuel J. Rodriguez, proprietress. Filipino citizen, and a resident of 427 Requesens, Sta. Cruz, Manila.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[4]
Pursuant to Section 13 of PD 705 otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, as amended, I hereby declare the portion of the forestlands containing an aggregate area of 44 hectares for permanent forest purposes, as available for fishpond development with an area of 332 hectares under the control and management of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and further declare and certify an aggregate area of 6,762 hectares as alienable or disposable for cropland and other purposes under the administration and control of the Bureau of Lands for disposition under the Public Land Act, located in Caloocan City, Malabon and Navotas, Metro Manila shown and described in BFD Map LC-3111 which is attached hereto and forms an integral part of this order, subject however to the following conditions: …[11]After the Marcos regime was cut short by the EDSA I upheaval, the Baello heirs executed on February 23, 1987 an extrajudicial partition of his estate, including the property covered by TCT No. 181493.
A) P300.00 per square meter, with all expenses for taxes and transfer taxes chargeable to the settlers; orThe petitioner had the property appraised and learned that the fair market value of the developed residential area was P400.00 to P480.00 per square meter, while the value of the commercial area ranged from P1,000.00 to P1,200.00 per square meter.[13] The Legal Counsel of the respondents pointed out to the NHA Board of Directors that the properties of the respondents had been part of the Dagat-Dagatan project of Imelda Marcos, but had not been expropriated by petitioner. The petitioner then rejected the respondents’ offer.
B) P270.00 per square meter, with all expenses and taxes for the account of the NHA.[12]
Six (6) titles were issued in favor of the Baello heirs on August 7, 1989, viz:
- Transfer Certificate of Title No. 191062, containing 1,222 square meters (Exhibit “2”);
- Transfer Certificate of Title No. 191063, containing 4,559 square meters (Exhibit “3”);
- Transfer Certificate of Title No. 191064, containing 24,019 square meters (Exhibit “4”);
- Transfer Certificate of Title No. 191065, containing 12,495 square meters (Exhibit “5”);
- Transfer Certificate of Title No. 191066, containing 1,205 square meters (Exhibit “6”);
- Transfer Certificate of Title No. 191067, containing 2,518 square meters (Exhibit “7”);
- Transfer Certificate of Title No. 191068, containing 3,306 square meters (Exhibits “E” to “K”).[14]
On November 17, 1989, the petitioner filed an Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. C-169 praying that, after due proceedings, judgment be rendered, as follows:
- Transfer Certificate of Title No. 191069, issued on August 7, 1989, containing an area of 4,756 square meters;
- Transfer Certificate of Title No. 191070, issued on August 7, 1989, containing an area of 7,090 square meters;
- Transfer Certificate of Title No. 191071, issued on August 7, 1989, containing an area of 11,361 square meters;
- Transfer Certificate of Title No. 191072, issued on August 7, 1989, containing an area of 39,227 square meters;
- Transfer Certificate of Title No. 191073, issued on August 7, 1989, containing an area of 22,188 square meters;
- Transfer Certificate of Title No. 191074, issued on August 7, 1989, containing an area of 14,029 square meters.[15]
Meanwhile, the respondent heirs filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint in Civil Case No. C-169 on the following grounds:a) After defendants shall have been duly served with summons, to immediately set the case for hearing to ascertain and fix the provisional value of the parcel of land sought to be expropriated herein, and after the deposit requirement of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court had been duly complied with, a writ of possession, control and disposition be promptly issued in favor of the plaintiff to enable it to enter and take immediate possession, control and disposition of the aforementioned parcels of land;Plaintiff further prays for such other relief and remedies which may be just and equitable under the premises.[16]
b) After hearing the objections and defenses interposed by the defendants in their respective responsive pleading/motion to dismiss, an order of condemnation of the aforementioned parcels of land be issued in favor of the plaintiff;
c) After hearing the case on the merits, the just compensation of the parcels of land sought to be expropriated be determined and fixed in accordance with Rule 67 of the Rules of Court;
d) Upon transfer and conveyance of the ownership and titles of the said parcels of land and improvements thereon from the defendants to the plaintiff, free from liens and encumbrances whatsoever, an Order be issued directing the plaintiff to pay the just compensation of the aforementioned parcels of land to defendants.
On September 5, 1990, the trial court issued an Order granting the motion and dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata and lack of cause of action.[18] The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 29042. On August 21, 1992, the appellate court rendered a Decision[19] affirming the Order of the RTC.
- That the expropriation runs counter to the provisions of Article XIII, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution, which provide, among others, that: “x x x x the State shall respect the rights of small property owners;”
- That plaintiff took possession of the property in question in 1976, WITHOUT FIRST filing a complaint of eminent domain and WITHOUT order of condemnation and WITHOUT paying just compensation to the registered owners since 1976 up to the present;
- Plaintiff is barred by estoppel and laches;
- Plaintiff has no cause of action;
- Plaintiff violated the equal protection clause;
- Res judicata;
- Plaintiff, in assessing the market value of the land at P2,000.00 per square meter, seeks to confiscate, not expropriate, the property;
- The purpose for which the property in question is being conducted is not for public use in that it does not inure the welfare of the community at large but is intended to benefit a mere handful of people who could acquire the lots by direct purchase.[17]
The NHA prayed that, after due trial, judgment be rendered in its favor:
- Recently, however, plaintiff discovered that the titles of defendants are null and void, OCT No. (804) 53839 which is the source of all their claims being false and fraudulent. For one, subject property was declared alienable and disposable by the government only lately, i.e., on 17 January 1986, and thus the said OCT could not have been validly issued in 1954. A copy of BFD Administrative Order No. 4-1766 declaring on 17 January 1986 certain tracts of land which include subject property as alienable and disposable is hereto attached as Annex “A.” A certification from the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority identifying subject property to be within the area declared alienable and disposable only on 17 January 1986 is also hereto attached as Annex “B;”[21]
The respondent heirs filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaring Original Certificate of Title No. (804) 53839 and its derivative Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 181493/T-903; 191069; 191070; 191071; 191072; 191073; 191074; 191062; 191063; 191064; 191065; 191066; 191067 and 191068, including any and all other titles subsequently issued or derived therefrom and covering subject property or any portions thereof, null and void;ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Permanently enjoining defendants from taking possession of, or otherwise occupying, the subject property or any portion thereof; if any portion/s of the property has in fact come into possession of defendants, ordering defendants to vacate the same or to otherwise return possession thereof to plaintiff;
ON THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
In the event that defendants are adjudged entitled to the ownership and/or possession of subject property, ordering defendants to refund and pay plaintiff the sum of P45.237 Million representing the necessary and useful expenses on the property which payment has to be made before defendants may get actual possession of the property.
ON THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Ordering defendants to pay plaintiff:Other or further relief or remedy just and equitable in the premises is likewise prayed for. [22]
- Exemplary damages in the sum of P5 Million;
- Attorney’s fees in the sum of P5 Million and litigation expenses in the sum of P1 Million; and
- The cost of suit.
The respondents alleged that the complaint was barred by the decision of the trial court in LRC Case No. 520. They also alleged that the petitioner was estopped from assailing their respective titles, as they were based on the CFI Decision in Civil Case No. C-169, the CA decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 29042 and the resolution of the Court in G.R. No. 107582.A.
THE CAUSE OF ACTION IS BARRED BY A PRIOR JUDGMENT.
B.
THE CLAIM OR DEMAND SET FORTH IN THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT HAS PRESCRIBED AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS ESTOPPED TO QUESTION THE TITLE HEREIN INVOLVED.
C.
THE PLAINTIFF HAS ENGAGED IN FORUM SHOPPING.[23]…
- PLAINTIFF’S CAUSE OF ACTION IS BARRED BY PRIOR JUDGMENT AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION.
- PLAINTIFF IS BARRED BY RES JUDICATA OR BY ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT.
- PLAINTIFF HAS NO LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE.
- THE COMPLAINT STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION.
- COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE CORRECT DOCKET FEES.[24]
Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. - The Court of Appeals shall exercise:Consequently, the trial court should have dismissed outright the petitioner’s complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.… (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts;
The general rule precluding the relitigation of material facts or questions which were in issue and adjudicated in former action are commonly applied to all matters essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation. Thus, it extends to questions “necessarily involved in an issue, and necessarily adjudicated, or necessarily implied in the final judgment, although no specific finding may have been made in reference thereto, and although such matters were directly referred to in the pleadings and were not actually or formally presented. Under this rule, if the record of the former trial shows that the judgment could not have been rendered without deciding the particular matter, it will be considered as having settled that matter as to all future actions between the parties, and if a judgment necessarily presupposes certain premises, they are as conclusive as the judgment itself. Reasons for the rule are that a judgment is an adjudication on all the matters which are essential to support it, and that every proposition assumed or decided by the court leading up to the final conclusion and upon which such conclusion is based is as effectually passed upon as the ultimate question which is finally solved.[29]In the earlier case of Kidpalos vs. Baguio Gold Mining Co.,[30] we reiterated the ruling of the State Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Burlen vs. Shannon,[31] that when a fact has been once determined in the course of a judicial proceeding, and a final judgment has been rendered in accordance therewith, it cannot be again litigated between the same parties without virtually impeaching the correctness of the former decision, which, from motives of public policy, the law does not permit to be done. Explaining further, the Court stated:
The estoppel is not confined to the judgment, but extends to all facts involved in it as necessary steps, or the groundwork upon which it must have been founded. It is allowable to reason back from a judgment to the basis on which it stands, upon the obvious principle that where a conclusion is indisputable, and could have been drawn only from certain premises, the premises are equally indisputable with the conclusion.[32]In this case, there is no identity of causes of action between LRC Case No. 520, on the one hand, and the complaint and the amended complaint in the court a quo, as well as Civil Case No. C-169, on the other. However, the issues in the action of the petitioner in the court a quo had long been resolved with finality in LRC Case No. 520 and Civil Case No. C-169 by the Court of Appeals and this Court.
In accordance with law, the equities involved, and with justice, the government and the State of Alabama are both now estopped from asserting a claim of title and ownership to the area involved, the claim of ownership of at least a part of the original southern end of the island, and the fill thereon made after 1906, having been regarded as the claimant’s property by both sovereigns for so many years.[33]Petitioner is Barred From
In its Order dated September 5, 1990, the trial court declared that the respondents were the owners of the property. The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the RTC in its Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 29042. This Court, in its Resolution in G.R. No. 107582 dated May 3, 1993, denied due course to the petition for the petitioner’s failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any substantial error in its decision. The resolution of the Court has long since become final and executory. The admissions made by the petitioner in its complaint are judicial admissions and cannot be contradicted by it.[37] Moreover, the theory of the petitioner’s action in Civil Case No. C-169, which was acted upon by this Court in G.R. No 107582, cannot now be repudiated.[38] An election of a specific theory for relief operates as bar to the subsequent adoption of a different and wholly inconsistent theory.[39]
- The Defendants are the heirs of deceased Spouses Pedro T. Baello and Josefa Caiña and Spouses Nicanora T. Baello and Manuel J. Rodriguez, and are the owners of that certain parcel of land located in Caloocan City and registered in the names of their deceased parents under “Original Certificate of Title No. (804) 53839.” The defendant heirs are all of legal age, with capacity to sue and be sued, are now the parties in interest/claimants of the aforesaid property.[35]
…
- Plaintiff is authorized by its charter, PD 757 to exercise the right of eminent domain or to acquire by purchase private lands for housing development and related services and facilities, including provision for and development of settlement and resettlement site.
- Plaintiff seeks to expropriate the aforementioned parcels of land for the purpose of developing the aforesaid sites and services project, and which purpose is for public use as defined in PD 1259.
- Plaintiff has no knowledge of any person or persons claiming ownership of the afore-mentioned parcels of land other than the defendants herein.
- Plaintiff is willing and ready to pay the defendants the just compensation of the said parcel of land sought to be expropriated.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT- The subject parcels of land sought to be hereby expropriated have not heretofore been condemned nor reserved for any public use or purpose.
- While plaintiff has offered to purchase from the defendants the said parcels of land on a voluntary basis, no settlement has been concluded between plaintiff and defendants, as the latter demanded exhorbitant price for the lands.[36]
… [A] judgment properly rendered by a court vested with jurisdiction, like the RTC, and which has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, hence, may no longer be modified in any respect except only to correct clerical errors or mistakes. Judgments of courts become final at some definite time fixed by law and that parties, like the petitioners, should not be permitted to litigate the same issue/s over again.[44]We echo the pronouncement of the appellate court in Massaglia v. Commissioner of Internal Audit:[45] “[W]e will not allow the government to deal dishonorably or capriciously with its citizens. It must not play an ignoble part or do a shabby thing.” The Court cannot allow the petitioner to continually deprive the respondents of their property for decades without due process of law.
ART. 526. He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.In this case, no less than the trial court in Civil Case No. C-169 declared that the petitioner not only acted in bad faith, but also violated the Constitution:
He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the foregoing.
And the Court cannot disregard the fact that despite persistent urging by the defendants for a negotiated settlement of the properties taken by plaintiff before the present action was filed, plaintiff failed to give even the remaining UNAWARDED lots for the benefit of herein defendants who are still the registered owners. Instead, plaintiff opted to expropriate them after having taken possession of said properties for almost fourteen (14) years.The aforequoted findings of the trial court were affirmed by the Court of Appeals and by this Court in G.R. No. 107582.
The callous disregard of the Rules and the Constitutional mandate that private property shall not be taken without just compensation and unless it is for public use, is UNSURPRISING, considering the catenna (sic) of repressive acts and wanton assaults committed by the Marcos Regime against human rights and the Constitutional rights of the people which have become a legendary part of history and mankind.
True it is, that the plaintiff may have a laudable purpose in the expropriation of the land in question, as set forth in the plaintiff’s cause of action that – “The parcel of land as described in the paragraph immediately preceding, together with the adjoining areas encompassed within plaintiff’s Dagat-Dagatan Development Project, are designed to be developed pursuant to the Zonal Improvement Program (ZIP) of the Government, as a site and services project, a vital component of the Urban III loan package of the International Bank for Rehabilitation and Development (World Bank), which is envisioned to provide affordable solution to the urban problems of shelter, environmental sanitation and poverty and to absorb and ease the impact of immigration from rural areas to over-crowded population centers of Metro Manila and resident middle income families who do not have homelots of their own with the Metro Manila area. x x x.”
But the reprehensible and scary manner of the taking of defendants’ property in 1976, which, in a manner of speaking, was seizure by the barrel of the gun, is more aptly described by the defendants in the following scenario of 1976, to wit:1.01. Sometime in the mid-seventies, a truckload of fully-armed military personnel entered the Baello property in Caloocan City [then covered by OCT No. (804) 55839] (sic) and, at gunpoint, forcibly ejected the family’s caretaker. The soldiers, thereafter, demolished a two-storey residence and destroyed all fishpond improvements found inside the property.Evidently, plaintiff’s seizure of defendants’ property is an audacious infringement of their rights to DUE PROCESS.
1.02. From this period up till the end of the Marcos misrule, no decree, no court order, no ordinance was shown or made known to the defendants to justify the invasion, assault, and occupation of their property. Worse, defendants were not even granted the courtesy of a letter or memorandum that would explain the government’s intention on the subject property.
1.03. The military’s action, coming as it does at the height of martial law, elicited the expected response from the defendants. Prudence dictated silence. From government news reports, defendants gathered that their land was seized to complement the erstwhile First Lady’s Dagat-Dagatan project. Being a pet program of the dictator’s wife, defendants realized that a legal battle was both dangerous and pointless.
1.04. Defendants’ property thus came under the control and possession of the plaintiff. The NHA went on to award portions of the subject property to dubious beneficiaries who quickly fenced their designated lots and/or erected permanent structures therein. During all this time, no formal communication from the NHA was received by the defendants. The plaintiff acted as if the registered owners or their heirs did not exist at all.
1.05. The celebrated departure of the conjugal dictators in February 1986 kindled hopes that justice may at least come to the Baellos. Verbal inquiries were made on how just compensation can be obtained from the NHA considering its confiscation of the subject property. The representations proved fruitless.…
The immediate taking of possession, control and disposition of property without due notice and hearing is violative of due process (Sumulong vs. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461).
On the matter of issuance of writ of possession, the ruling in the Ignacio case as reiterated in Sumulong vs. Guerrero states:“[I]t is imperative that before a writ of possession is issued by the Court in expropriation proceedings, the following requisites must be met: (1) There must be a Complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and in substance; (2) A provisional determination of just compensation for the properties sought to be expropriated must be made by the trial court on the basis of judicial (not legislative or executive) discretion; and (3) The deposit requirement under Section 2, Rule 67 must be complied with.”Here, it is even pointless to take up the matter of said requisites for the issuance of writ of possession considering that, as stated, NO complaint was ever filed in Court AT THE TIME of the seizure of defendants’ properties.…
Recapitulating – that the plaintiff’s unlawful taking of defendants’ properties is irretrievably characterized by BAD FAITH, patent ARBITRARINESS and grave abuse of discretion, is non-arguable. [47]