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.