V. HEARING, JUDGMENT, AND DECREE OF REGISTRATION

B. EFFECT OF PRIOR DECISION

CACHERO VS. MARZAN 196 SCRA 601 (1991)

G.R. No. L-53768 May 6, 1991

PATRICIA CASILDO CACHERO and the HEIRS OF TOMAS CACHERO (Alejandria

Cachero-Estilong, Lolita Cachero-Teodoro, Severa Cachero-Simplinam, Bernardo

Cachero, and Luzviminda Cachero-Balinag),applicants-appellees, vs.BERNARDINO

MARZAN, HILARIO MARZAN, CIPRIANO PULIDO, MAGNO MARZAN and GUILLERMO

HIPOL, oppositors. ADELINA PULIDO GENOVA, and the HEIRS OF PAULINA NUDO

AND FELIX GENOVA (Cornelio Genova, Herminia Genova, Carmelita Genova, Josefina Genova and Margarita Genova), petitioners-appellants.

FACTS:

The Spouses Cachero filed a case in the CFI of La Union against the respondents for

recovery of possession and ownership of 2 parcels of land in Barrio Basca, Aringay, La

Union. The lower court rendered judgment declaring the petitioners owners of the subject land. The judgment became final and executory.

About 7 years later the Spouses Cachero filed for the registration under the Torrens

Act of the subject land (109,480 sq. m.) identified as Lot No. 6860 of the Cadastral Survey

and another parcel of land (50,412 square meters) identified as Lot No. 6859 of the same

Cadastral Survey, both lots being situated in Sitio Iriw, Basca Aringay, La Union. Subsequently, Atty. Yaranon filed oppositions in said case in behalf of the respondents

Tomas Cachero died before judgment and was substituted by his children. The

judgment was rendered in favor of the spouses finding that the spouses and their

predecessors-in-interest had been in continuous and notorious possession of subject lots for

more than 60 years in concept of owners except for a one-hectare portion of Lot No. 6860

which the Cacheros had sold to Bernardino Marzan; that Tomas Cachero had inherited said

lots from his late father, Simeon Cachero; and that the applicant spouses had been religiously paying the realty taxes on the parcels of land as owners thereof.

The respondents thru their counsel, Atty. Yaranon, filed a motion for reconsideration

on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction over the case and that the subject lands,

which have been the subject of cadastral proceedings, showed that neither the Cacheros nor

their predecessors-in-interest had ever entered a claim for either lot. The Cacheros opposed

the motion and argued that by the time the motion for reconsideration was filed, the judgment sought to be reconsidered had already become final. The motion was denied.

About 7 months after the filing of the motion for reconsideration, persons not parties

to the registration proceedings filed a " petition for review of judgment and/or decree." They

alleged that they were the owners of the land designated as Lot No. 6859 which they

purchased sometime in 1929 and that they have been in continuous possession thereof

since then. They also alleged that the petitioners fraudulently omitted to give them notice of

their application for registration and that in the earlier cadastral survey, Lots Numbered

6859 and 6860 had been declared public land for lack of any original claimant and at the

cadastral hearing only the Director of Lands, the Director of Forestry, and they had filed

"cadastral answers". The petition prayed for the re-opening, review and setting aside of the

judgment and for the accord to them of an opportunity to prove their asserted contentions.

The petition for review was denied. The Registration Court ruled that the according

to the report of the chief surveyor of the Land Registration Commission, there was no

decree of registration issued as regards the subject lots. It also ruled that the movants had failed to show fraud on the Cacheros' part.

Paulina Nodo and Felix Genova subsequently died and were substituted by their

heirs.

These Genova heirs filed an amended petition which was also denied by the

Registration Court. Then, they appealed the case to the Court of Appeals which forwarded it

to the Supreme Court, holding that the former had no appellate jurisdiction over the matter. The CA also declared that the Genovas are third persons who came into the case.

ISSUE: WON the cadastral proceedings should be deemed as a bar to the Registration

Proceedings.

HELD: NO

The cadastral case mentioned commenced before the outbreak of the Pacific war. It

had been abandoned and had not been continued or resumed after the war, thus, it had

ceased to exist. Hence, said compulsory cadastral proceedings under the Cadastral Act

cannot be invoked and set up as a bar to the registration proceedings under the Torrens Act

initiated more than twenty years later by the Cacheros.

A cadastral proceeding which had long discontinued and abandoned, and which had

resulted in no judgment or final order affecting the lands involved in a subsequent

registration act under Act496, cannot be invoked and set up as a bar to the latter

proceedings. There being no final adjudication in the cadastral proceeding, there is no

reason to apply the doctrine of res judicata.