Property Right to Accession: Cynthia Cruz Khemani v.

The Heirs of
Anastacio Trinidad
Facts:
Parties:
Khemani (Petitioner) purchaser of land from Pena
Pena (Petitioner) seller of land to Khemani, obtained the land from
Jesus Larrabaster
Larrabaster (not a party) obtained the and from public domain thru
National Land Settlement Administration
Trinidad (Respondent) alleged to have claim over the land purchased
by the petitioner Khemani
Cynthia Khemani here is the registered owner of Lot 107 which was
purchased from Jose Pena which the later acquired from one Larrabaster to
whom the said land was awarded by NLSA.
Before all of these controversies arose, it must be noted that the land in
dispute has already been decided upon in a previous case which
involved Jose Pena. Lot No. 107 constituted a part of Lot 355 before. Such
land (Lot 355 inclusive of Lot No. 107) was sold to Jose Pena. Pena requested
the BoL (Bureau of Lands) to adjust the area of the lot awarded to him
due to accretion (from 1500 square meters to 3,616.93 square meters) but
the BoL denied such request since it stated that the accretion belonged to
the government. BoL subdivided the land into three (Lot 107 to Mendoza, Lot
108 to Pena and Lot 109 to Roxas). Subsequently, appealed was made to the
Office of the President with regard to the decision rendered by BoL.
The Office of the President however decided and held that the entire area of
Lot 355 belonged to Pena and not to the government.
Mendoza (another third party) filed a special action for certiorati
claiming that he was denied due process when the Office of the
President decided to award the lot to Pena. He asserted ownership over
them on the strength of a Miscellaneous Sales Application. This case was
elevated to the Supreme Court which was decided upon in favor of Pena.
Anastacio Trinidad herein are claiming ownership and allege that their
predecessors in interest have openly, publicly, peacefully and adversely
possessed said subject land in the concept of an owner since 1950. They
further claim that they applied for a Miscellaneous Sales Application over the
land which was approved by the BoL.
The heirs of Pena motioned to dismiss the case alleging that the
predecessors in interest were mere "informal settlers" who had been
allowed by Mendoza (the former adverse claimant to the land) to
occupy it and that since there was already a decision in the previous
case, that this was res judicata.
In their answer, respondents claim that they are not barred since they were
not parties to the case and there is no identity of causes of action.
The RTC denied the motion to dismiss.
They filed a petition for certiorari to the CA which held that certiorari is not
the proper remedy and that there is no re judicata.

Issue:
To whom shall the accretion belong?
Whether or not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy
in assailing the order of the RTC in denying the motion to dismiss.
Whether or not there is res judicata
Ratio:
The accretion shall belong not to the Government.
It appears from the records that in the case in 1989, the BOL issued a Patent
on September 20, 1993 in favor of the Pea Heirs which became the basis for
the issuance of OCT No. P-33658 covering Lot No. 107.
However, as held in the case, Lot No. 107as accretions to the original lot
(Lot No. 355) awarded to Larrabaster on July 10, 1950 no longer
belonged to the Government, the subdivision thereof by the BoL into
three lots as well as the allocation of the said lots to other
individuals was beyond the scope of its authority. As a result, while
Lot No. 107 may no longer be acquired under the provisions of the Public
Land Act, it does not absolutely foreclose the possibility that, as a private
property, a portion thereof (the Disputed Property) may have been acquired
by respondents through acquisitive prescription under the Civil Code. These
matters, however, are the proper subject of a separate action should one be
filed subject, of course, to such claims and defenses that either party may
have under relevant laws.
The filing of petition for certiorari is proper. It has been settled that an
order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which
neither terminates nor disposes a case. As such, the general rule is that
an order denying a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a certiorari
case. But there are exceptions to this general rule. It is allowed when the
ground is improper venue, lack of jurisdiction or res judicata as in the
case at bar.
There is no res judicata in this case since there is no identity of parties
and causes of action. Res Judicata literally means a thing judicially acted
upon or decided; a thing settled by judgment. It is said that there is res
judicata when the ff. requisites concur: 1. Former judgment is final 2. It is
rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties 3. It is a judgment or an order on the merits 4. There is between the
first and the second actions identity of parties, subject matter and causes of
action. The cause of action in the first case was the alleged grave
abuse of discretion of the Office of the President in awarding the lands to
Pena and in the second, the basis is on their adverse possession of the land in
the concept of an owner for over 40 years and the alleged fraudulent
issuance of a patent and certificate of title to Pena. The parties in the two
cases have their own rights and interests in relation to the subject matter in
litigation.
According to PD1529, a person deprived of his land through actual fraud
may institute an action to reopen or review a decree of registration
within one year from entry of such decree. In this case, the patent
was issued in favor of Pena on Sept 20, 1993 and the filing for review of
decree was instituted on January 27, 1994 or well within the prescribed one
year period. Also, under the petitioners name in the title, a Notice of

Lis Pendens, it cannot be said that petitioner is an innocent purchaser

for value as well aware of respondents claim over the property. Even if
they filed it after 2 year, they may still file an action based on an
implied trust which prescribes in ten years from the date of the issuance
of the certificate of title over the property. Under the circumstances, it
would be more in keeping with the standard of fairness to have a full
blown trial where the evidentiary matters are thrashed out.