Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

CALIMLIM vs. HON. RAMIREZ G.R. No.

L-34362 November 19, 1982 Independent Mercantile Corporation filed a petition in the respondent Court to compel Manuel Magali to surrender the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 9138 in order that the same may e cancelled and a new one issued in the name of the said corporation. Not eing the registered owner and the title not eing in his possession! Manuel Magali failed to comply with the order of the Court directing him to surrender the said title. This prompted Independent Mercantile Corporation to file an e"#parte petition to declare TCT No. 9138 as cancelled and to issue a new title in its name. The said petition was granted y the respondent Court and the $egister of %eeds of &angasinan issued a new title in the name of the corporation! TCT No. '8('8. &etitioner! upon learning that her hus and's title o)er the parcel of land had een cancelled! filed a petition with the respondent Court! sitting as a cadastral court! praying for the cancellation of TCT No. '8('8 ut the court dismissed the petition. &etitioner thereafter filed in the *$C $ecord No. 39+9, for the cancellation of TCT No. '8('8 ut the same was dismissed therein. &etitioners then resorted to the filing of a complaint in for the cancellation of the con)eyances and sales that had een made with respect to the property! co)ered y TCT No. 9138! against -rancisco $amos who claimed to ha)e ought the property from Independent Mercantile Corporation. &ri)ate respondent -rancisco $amos! howe)er! failed to o tain a title o)er the property in his name in )iew of the e"istence of an ad)erse claim annotated on the title thereof at the instance of the herein petitioners. -rancisco $amos filed a Motion to %ismiss on the ground that the same is arred y prior .udgement or y statute of limitations. $esol)ing the said Motion! the respondent Court dismissed the case on the ground of estoppel y prior .udgment. Issue /0N dismissal of the case is proper on the ground of estoppel y prior .udgment No. It is error to consider the dismissal of the petition filed y the herein petitioner in *$C $ecord No. 39+9, for the cancellation of TCT No. '8('8 as a ar y prior .udgment against the filing of the su se1uent ci)il case. In order to a)ail of the defense of res .udicata! it must e shown! among others! that the .udgment in the prior action must ha)e een rendered y a court with the proper .urisdiction to ta2e cogni3ance of the proceeding in which the prior .udgment or order was rendered. If there is lac2 of .urisdiction o)er the su .ect#matter of the suit or of the parties! the .udgment or order cannot operate as an ad.udication of the contro)ersy. This essential element of the defense of ar y prior .udgment or res .udicata does not e"ist in the case. The petition filed y the petitioners in *$C $ecord No. 39+9, was an apparent in)ocation of the authority of the respondent Court sitting as a land registration court. $eliance was apparently placed on 4ection 11, of the *and $egistration 5ct wherein it pro)ides that a Court of -irst Instance! acting as a land registration court! is a court of limited and special .urisdiction. 5s such! its proceedings are not ade1uate for the litigation of issues pertaining to an ordinary ci)il action! such as! 1uestions in)ol)ing ownership or title to real property.