________________ 59 G.R. No. L-14223. November 23, 1960. See footnote 56. ante. 595 VOL. 57, JUNE 28, 1974 595 Benin vs. Tuason x x x x "But granting that the plaintiffs-appellants herein are not privies of the defendants Santiago in the former litigation over this same property (S.C.G.R. No. L-5079), still the pronouncement of this Court, made in the former case, to the effect that the Spanish document (Annex A) issued in favor of Ynocencio Santiago (ancestor of appellants herein) was neither a titulo de informacion posesoria nor a title by composicion con el estado, and, therefore, vested no ownership over the land therein described in favor of Ynocencio Santiago, holds and applies to herein appellants, since the quality or the legal effect of the document does hot depend upon the person who invoke it. "If the late Ynocencio Santiago did not become the owner of the disputed property by virtue of the document Annex A, then appellants herein, as heirs of Ynocencio, have not acquired such ownership either. It follows that the first and second causes of action of their complaint, predicated as they are on the assumption that such ownership and its consequential rights resulted from Annex A, must necessarily fail. Not being owners, they can complain of no invasion of dominical rights." It will thus be noted that in the afore-mentioned decision in the Santiago case, even if Albina Santiago and her co-plaintiffs were not considered privies to the defendants in Civil Case No. Q-27, and even if they were not parties in that previous case, this Court nevertheless applied to them the judgment (G. R. No. L-5079) in that previous case where it was pronounced that the document, Annex A of the complaint of Albina Santiago, et al., was neither a titulo de informacion posesoria nor a title by composicion con el estado, and it did not establish the right of ownership of their predecessor in interest, Inocencio Santiago, Albina Santiago and her co-plaintiffs had based their claim of ownership on that
document (Annex A). 60 This Court held in that previous case that the document was unavailing against Transfer Certificate of Title No. 119 of J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and against Original Certificate of Title No. 735. ________________ 60 In G.R. No. L-5079 (J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Geronimo Santiago), 99 Phil. 617, Geronimo Santiago and his co-defendants who were co-owners with Albina Santiago and her co-plaintiffs, also based their claim of ownership on the document (Annex A to the complaint of Albina Santiago, et al.). 596 596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Benin vs. Tuason And so. following the logic of this Court in its decision in the Santiago case, in the three cases at bar We hold that even if the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3621, except the heirs of Elias Benin, are not privies to Elias Benin and were not parties in Civil Case No. Q-156; even if the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3622, except Jose Alcantara, are not privies to Jose Alcantara and were not parties in Civil Case No. Q-156; and even if the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3623, except Pascual Pili, are not privies to Pascual Pili and were not parties in Civil Case No. Q156,
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 69 pages?
- Fall '19
- Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Trial court, Cadastre, land registration