EN BANC

[G.R. No. 13334. March 18, 1919.]

LEONCIO ZARATE, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE DIRECTOR
OF LANDS, objector-appellee.

Aurelio Cecilio for appellant.

Solicitor-General Paredes for appellee.
SYLLABUS

1.APPEAL AND ERROR; "LAW OF THE CASE." — When an appellate

court has once declared the law in a case, such declaration continues to be the law of
that case even on a subsequent appeal. Such a rule is necessary to enable an appellate
court to perform its duties satisfactorily and efficiently, and as a matter of policy in
order to end litigation.
DECISION

MALCOLM, J p:

In a decision of this Court in the case of Zarate vs. Director of Lands, now
appearing in volume 34 of the Philippine Reports, at page 416, the dispositive part
reads:
"The judgment of the Court of Land Registration is hereby
modified and it is declared that the applicant has the right to register
title to all of the lands described in the application, with the exception
of that portion claimed as a homestead by Apolonio Gamido, which
homestead shall be excluded from registration by the applicant
provided the Court of Land Registration shall find that said Apolonio
Gamido has obtained a patent for said land; but if the Court of Land
Registration finds that said Gamido has not yet obtained a patent
therefor, then the court shall register title in favor of the applicant to
all lands described in the application."
On the return of the record to the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija,
which court after the dissolution of the Court of Land Registration had jurisdiction, an
order was issued by the judge, finding that a homestead patent had been issued to
Apolonio Gamido and consequently directing the exclusion of this portion of the land
described in the main decision in Zarate vs. Director of Lands [supra]. The applicant
appeals from this order, although his contention is not well grounded, resulting
principally through an erroneous conception of the original decision of this court as
written in English. In other words, Gamido having complied with the express mandate
of the appellate court, his homestead should remain his property. As was said by the
United States Supreme Court in the case of St. Louis Smelting and Refining Co. vs.
Kemp ([1881], 104 U. S., 636), "The patent of the United States is the conveyance by
which the nation passes the title to portions of the public domain."
We are not insensible to the fact that the decision in Zarate vs. Director of
Lands [supra] announced the doctrine that "Under Act No. 926, a patent issued under
the homestead Law has all the force and effect of a Torrens title acquired under Act
No. 496; and that being the case . . . we must respect the title so secured, provided it be
a fact that the patent has been secured in any of said homestead proceedings," and that
this doctrine has been modified (or reversed) by the later decisions of this court. (See
for instance De los Reyes vs. Razon [1918], 38 Phil., 480.) Recognition of the
expression "Law of the Case" saves the situation.
A well-known legal principle is that when an appellate court has once
declared the law in a case, such declaration continues to be the law of that case even on
a subsequent appeal. The rule made by an appellate court, while it may be reversed in
other cases, cannot be departed from in subsequent proceedings in the same case. The
"Law of the Case," as applied to a former decision of an appellate court, merely
expresses the practice of the courts in refusing to reopen what has been decided. Such a
rule is "necessary to enable an appellate court to perform its duties satisfactorily and
efficiently, which would be impossible if a question, once considered and decided by it,
were to be litigated anew in the same case upon any and every subsequent appeal."
Again, the rule is necessary as a matter of policy in order to end litigation. "There would
be no end to a suit if every obstinate litigant could, by repeated appeals, compel a court
to listen to criticisms on their opinions, or speculate of chances from changes in its
members." (See Great Western Tel. Co. vs. Burnham [1895], 162 U. S., 339, 343;
Roberts vs. Cooper [1857], 20 How., 467, 481; Messinger vs. Anderson [1912], 225 U.
S., 436.)
The phrase "Law of the Case" is described in a decision coming from the
Supreme Court of Missouri in the following graphical language:
"The general rule, nakedly and badly put, is that legal
conclusions announced on a first appeal, whether on the general law
or the law as applied to the concrete facts, not only prescribed the
duty and limit the power of the trial court to strict obedience and
conformity thereto, but they become and remain the law of the case
in all after steps below or above on subsequent appeal. The rule is
grounded on convenience, experience, and reason. Without the rule
there would be no end to criticism, reagitation, reexamination, and
reformulation. In short, there would be endless litigation. It would be
intolerable if parties litigant were allowed to speculate on changes in
the personnel of a court, or on the chance of our rewriting
propositions once gravely ruled on solemn argument and handed
down as the law of a given case. An itch to reopen questions
foreclosed on a first appeal, would result in the foolishness of the
inquisitive youth who pulled up his corn to see how it grew. Courts
are allowed, if they so choose, to act like ordinary sensible persons.
 The administration of justice is a practical affair. The rule is a
practical and a good one of frequent and beneficial use." (Mangold
vs. Bacon [1911], 237 Mo., 496, 512.)
Judgment is affirmed with costs against appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Carson, Street, Avancena and Moir, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions

TORRES, J., with whom concurs ARAULLO, J., concurring:

It has not been proven by the petitioner that the land occupied by Apolonio Gamido was his
own property, and in view of the fact that the said land is not public land, it can not be the
object of a homestead application, and for this reason it follows that the judgment appealed
from should be affirmed with costs.