Está en la página 1de 2

G.R. No.

169272 July 11, 2012


NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHAIS OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PAS!UAL
FA!TS"
On December 11, 2000, the petitioner filed a complaint with the RTC for "qietin! of title, in"nction,
annlment of alias writ of e#ection, with pra$er for temporar$ restrainin! order, preliminar$
prohibitor$ in"nction, and dama!es" a!ainst %ilverio %on!can and&or his heirs, the %ecretar$ of the
Department of 'nvironment and (atral Resorces(DENR), and the Re!ional '#ective Director of
the D'(R, Re!ional Office (o. 2, T!e!arao, Ca!a$an. The petitioner alle!ed that it is the lawfl
and absolte owner of two )2* parcels of land, +nown as Cadastral ,ot (os. - and -.1, to!ether with
the two/store$ bildin! thereon, sitated in 0ictor$ %r, %antia!o Cit$, acqired thro!h a sale in
11.2 from 3rmando 0alde4 and 'mma 0alde4, respectivel$, who, in trn, acqired ownership from
5arcelina Ordo6o. T#$ %$&'&'o($) #*+ ,$$( '( o%$(, -o(&'(uou. *(+ *+/$).$ %o..$..'o( 0o) *
%$)'o+ o0 1o)$ &#*( &#')&y 2304 y$*)., and a clod e#ists on its title becase of an invalid
December 7, 1189 decision of the :rea of ,ands. This invalid decision re"ected the miscellaneos
sales applications of the petitioner;s predecessors/in/interest for the lots, and ordered all those in
privit$ with them )specificall$ incldin! the petitioner* to vacate the lots and to remove their
improvements thereon. The D'(R %ecretar$ affirmed on <ebrar$ 2, 1181 the :rea of ,ands;
December 7, 1189 decision. Recorse to the Office of the =resident (OP) had been navailin!, and
the D'(R Re!ional Office (o. 2 issed on December 10, 111. and >ne ., 2000 alias writs of
e#ection prsant to the O=;s decision. ?n its >ne 20, 2001 order, the RTC denied the motion to
dismiss, findin! that the :rea of ,ands; December 7, 1189 decision was not $et final and
e#ector$ since the O=;s rlin! on the appeal was "navailable." The respondent elevated his case
to the C3 via a Rle .9 petition for certiorari, qestionin! the propriet$ of the RTC;s denial of his
motion to dismiss.
?n its December 21, 2007 decision, the C3 set aside the RTC;s order and dismissed the complaint
for qietin! of title for failre to state a case of action. ?t fond that the respondent;s admission of
the :rea of ,ands; adverse December 7, 1189 decision preclded the respondent;s claim over the
lots. The :rea of ,ands; decision, bein! final and e#ector$, is bindin! and conclsive pon the
petitioner. 'ven assmin! that the O=;s rlin! on the appeal was still "navailable," the RTC shold
have dismissed the complaint for prematrit$@ *( *-&'o( &o 5u'$& &'&l$ '. (o& &#$ %)o%$) )$1$+y
0)o1 *( *+/$).$ +$-'.'o( '..u$+ ,y *( *+1'('.&)*&'/$ *6$(-y '( &#$ $7$)-'.$ o0 '&. 5u*.'8
9u+'-'*l 0u(-&'o(.
?%%A'B C&( petitioner;s complaint for qietin! of title shold be dismissed for failre to state a case
of action
D',DB
Ees. The petitioner;s stats as possessor and owner of the lots had been settled in the final and
e#ector$ December 7, 1189 decision of the :rea of ,ands that the D'(R %ecretar$ and the O=
affirmed on appeal. Ths, the petitioner is not entitled to the possession and ownership of the lots.
>risprdence teaches s that the decisions and orders of administrative a!encies, sch as the
:rea of ,ands, rendered prsant to their qasi/"dicial athorit$, pon finalit$, have the force and
bindin! effect of a final "d!ment within the prview of the doctrine of res judicata.
The fondation principle pon which the doctrine rests is that the parties o!ht not to be permitted to
liti!ate the same isse more than once@ that # # # a ri!ht or fact FthatG has been "diciall$ tried and
determined b$ a Ftribnal orG cort of competent "risdiction # # # shold be conclsive pon the
parties and those in privit$ with them in law or estateF, so lon! as it remains nreversedG.
12
3ccordin!l$, the petitioner is now barred from challen!in! the validit$ of the final and e#ector$
:rea of ,ands; December 7, 1189 decision.
/////////////
Ander 3rticles 72. and 722 of the Civil Code, &#$)$ *)$ &:o 224 '(+'.%$(.*,l$ )$5u'.'&$. '( *(
*-&'o( &o 5u'$& &'&l$B )1* that the plaintiff or complainant has a le!al or an eqitable title to or interest
in the real propert$ sb"ect of the action@ and )2* that a deed, claim, encmbrance or proceedin! is
claimed to be castin! clod on his title.