G.R. No. 245914 , June 16, 2021
Gregorio Sanson and Ma. Lourdes Tirol, Petitioners, vs. Daniel M. Tapuz, Aurora T. Madriaga, Josiel M. Tapuz Sr., Exequiel M. Tapuz, Orly M. Tapuz, Edina T. Gajisan, Nemia T. Carmen, Expedito M. Tapuz, Jr., Susita T. Magbanua, Medina T. Esmane, Nobo M. Tapuz, Delilah T. Lecerio and Salvacion T. Laroco, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents, heirs of Antonio Tapuz, filed a complaint against petitioners Gregorio Sanson and Ma. Lourdes Tirol, heirs of Ciriaco Tirol, Sr., for Declaration of Non-Existence and/or Nullity of Transfer Certificate of Title T-351383, OCT No. R0-2222 (19502)-45, Decree 512210, LRC 43694, TCT 26086 and All Sources of TCT T-35183, Recovery of Possession and Damages, and Recognition of Lawful Ownership by Virtue of Continuous, Open, and Exclusive Possession for more than Fifty (50) years. Respondents alleged their predecessor-in-interest, Antonio Tapuz, possessed several parcels of land in Boracay for over 50 years. They claimed petitioners’ predecessor, Ciriaco Tirol, Sr., expediently obtained titles through the reconstitution of non-existent ones, specifically OCT No. RO-2222(19502), which they argued was void on its face for various reasons including an erroneous technical description, issuance during wartime in 1943, and transcription inconsistencies. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of failure to state a cause of action, failure to implead indispensable parties, and res judicata, citing prior cases (CA-G.R. SP No. 02859, Civil Case No. 5262, and CA-G.R. SP No. 76964) where the validity of OCT RO-2222(19502) was upheld. The Regional Trial Court granted the motion to dismiss based on res judicata. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s dismissal, finding no res judicata and ruling that the complaint stated a cause of action. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s order of dismissal, specifically on the grounds of: (1) res judicata; and (2) failure to state a cause of action.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
1. On Res Judicata: The Supreme Court held that res judicata was inapplicable. For res judicata to apply, there must be, among other elements, identity of parties and identity of causes of action between the prior and present cases. The Court found no identity of parties. The prior case, CA-G.R. SP No. 76964, was an annulment of judgment case filed by different parties (the Republic and others) against the heirs of Ciriaco Tirol. In contrast, the present case (Civil Case No. 8751) was filed by the heirs of Antonio Tapuz against specific heirs of Ciriaco Tirol. The interests represented were different. Furthermore, there was no identity of causes of action. The cause of action in CA-G.R. SP No. 76964 was annulment of judgment of Civil Case No. 5262 (a quieting of title case), while the cause of action in the present case is the declaration of nullity of a certificate of title and recovery of possession based on alleged void titles and acquisitive prescription.
2. On Failure to State a Cause of Action: The Supreme Court held that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action. A cause of action exists if the complaint alleges facts which, if true, would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Respondents’ complaint alleged that OCT RO-2222(19502) was void on its face for specific reasons (e.g., erroneous technical description, issuance in 1943 during chaos, transcription discrepancies) and that petitioners’ derivative titles were consequently void. It also alleged respondents’ ownership through open, continuous, adverse, and exclusive possession for over 50 years. These allegations, if proven, could warrant the reliefs sought, including nullification of titles and recovery of possession. The validity of the titles and the claim of prescription are matters of defense best resolved in a full-blown trial, not in a motion to dismiss. The Court also noted that the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not apply if the title was void from the beginning.