G.R. No. 138772 ; April 10, 2002
GRACE T. MAGDALUYO and ANGELES CANDELARIO, petitioners, vs. GLORIA M. QUIMPO, EDITHA M. PEREZ, ROBERTO T. MIJARES, VENECIA Q. MIJARES, BUTCH MIJARES, NANETTE MIJARES, JOFELDA M. LASERNA, ESTELA M. RIO, HERMINIA M. MARTELINO, GLICERIO T. MIJARES, EDUARDO M. REYES, MILA R. BALLEZA, MARCELA R. TINAGAN, DOMINGO ICATAR, MANOLITA Q. ACEVEDO, DONNA Q. MIJARES, DINDO Q. MIJARES, LEONARDO Q. MIJARES, and VICTORIO Q. MIJARES, respondents.

FACTS

Respondents filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership and declaration of nullity of a document of assignment against petitioners. They claimed to be the lawful owners and possessors of a parcel of land in Kalibo, Aklan, through peaceful, public, adverse, exclusive, and good faith possession for over forty years. They alleged that petitioners unlawfully entered a contested portion (a 462-square meter residential land) by constructing a structure without consent, dispossessing them. Petitioner Grace T. Magdaluyo claimed she acquired rights over the land in 1986 from co-petitioner Angeles Candelario via an Assignment of Right, and that she had a miscellaneous sales application given due course by the Bureau of Lands, paid realty taxes, and possessed the land. Candelario claimed she had been in peaceful, public, open, and continuous possession for over thirty years. Respondents, in reply, stated the land was an accretion to Lot 173 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-2443-34 in their names. A court commissioner’s report established that the disputed lot was part of or within the metes and bounds of the land involved in a prior case, Civil Case No. 2132 (“Rosario Adante versus Roberto Mijares, et al.”), and was 12.80 meters away from respondents’ titled property, Lot 173. The trial court ruled in favor of respondents, declaring them lawful owners and possessors, nullifying the Assignment (Exhibit 18), ordering Magdaluyo to vacate and restore possession, and awarding litigation expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision declaring respondents as the lawful owners and possessors of the disputed land and ordering petitioners to vacate it.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for lack of merit. The Court held that the disputed land was part of a bigger parcel already awarded to respondents in a prior case, Civil Case No. 2132, which had been decided with finality. The decision in that case, affirmed by the Court of Appeals and whose petition for review was denied with finality by the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 114395, July 20, 1994), declared respondents as owners of a portion of the accreted land. The Amended Commissioner’s Report in the present case confirmed that the lot in question was part of or within the metes and bounds of the land involved in that prior litigation. Therefore, the prior final judgment binds the whole world and conclusively settles the issue of ownership in favor of respondents. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s decision.