Benjamin M. Dacanay for petitioner.

VOL. 212, AUGUST 14, 1992 623

RESOLUTION
Adez Realty, Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 100643. August 14, 1992.* BELLOSILLO, J.:
ADEZ REALTY, INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs.HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE
PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 79, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Morong, Rizal, THE The petition filed on December 28, 1990, by Adez Realty Incorporated before the Court of Appeals,
PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, Morong, Rizal, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, Quezon City, docketed therein as CA-G.R. SP No. 23773, sought to annul the order of the Regional Trial Court
and AGUEDO EUGENIO, respondents. of Morong, Rizal, dated November 20, 1984, allowing the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 12662. The petition likewise sought to set aside in effect the decision of the Court of
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgment; Finality of judgment becomes a fact upon the Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392 dated July 31, 1990.
lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected.—It has been repeatedly held
On April 30, 1991, respondent Court of Appeals1dismissed the petition for lack of merit. On
that finality of judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no
June 26, 1991, petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied. The respondent court, in
appeal is perfected. The decision therefore of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392 had
dismissing the petition, said that: (a) the petition is a reiteration of the issues raised before it2 earlier
attained finality, there being no appeal nor motion for reconsideration interposed.
in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392, promulgated July 31, 1990, and since nomotion for reconsideration or
Same; Same; Same; Once a decision becomes final, the court can no longer amend,
appeal by certiorari with the Supreme Court was filed, the same became final and executory, and
modify, much less set aside the same.—Likewise, it is settled jurisprudence that once a decision
consequently entered in the judgment book on October 11, 1990; and, (b) the Regional Trial Court
becomes final, the Court can no longer amend, modify, much less set aside the same. In fact,
of Morong, Rizal, had jurisdiction over the subject matter, the issue then being one of venue and
in Dueñas v. Mandi, We held that the “trial court and the appellate court may have committed an
not of jurisdiction, which can be waived if not timely objected to in a motion to dismiss, pursuant
error in the assignment or partition of the eight parcels of land to the parties in this case, but
to Sec. 4, Rule 4, of the Rules of Court.
considering that their judgments are now final, the error, assuming that one was committed, can
Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, where petitioner raises
no longer be amended or corrected.” In Icao v. Apalisok, We ruled that even the subsequent
four (4) issues which nevertheless may be simplified into the following: whether the Regional Trial
discovery of an erroneous imposition of a penalty will not justify correction of the judgment after it
Court of Morong, Rizal, may acquire jurisdiction over reconstitution proceedings involving real
has become final. We have also declared that, subject to settled exceptions, once a judgment
property situated in Quezon City, and whether publication of the notice of the petition in two (2)
becomes final, all the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest. To allow
successive issues of the Official Gazette and its posting in the bulletin board of the Regional Trial
the Court to amend or reverse a decision which has attained finality will result in endless Court of Morong, Rizal, is sufficient compliance with Sec. 13 of R.A. No. 26.
litigations.Indeed, every litigation, CA-G.R. CV No. 21392 included, must come to an end.
Wittingly or unwittingly, petitioner fails to refute the ruling of respondent appellate court that
Same; Same; Res Judicata; A party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting a
the issues presented in the instant case had been previously raised before and decided upon by
different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392, which decision became final and executory, and
same cause of action shall not be twice litigated.—Verily, petitioner’s action to annul the order of
in fact already entered in the judgment book by reason of petitioner’s failure to seasonably file an
the trial court allowing reconstitution duplicates its earlier motion to set aside the said order, which
appeal or a motion for reconsideration. This is fatal.
was granted but later reversed by the appellate court—which reversal became final and executory
It has been repeatedly held that finality of judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the
due to petitioner’s failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period. A party cannot, by reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected.3 The decision therefore of the Court of
varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392 had attained finality, there being no appeal nor motion for
operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated.
reconsideration interposed. Likewise, it is settled jurisprudence that once a decision becomes
Land Registration; Land registration proceedings are proceedings in rem, not in final, the Court can no longer amend, modify, much less set aside the same. 4 In fact, in Dueñas
personam.—Besides, as early as 1910, in Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, We already ruled that land
v. Mandi,5We held that the “trial court and the appellate court may have committed an error in the
registration proceedings are proceedings in rem, not in personam,and therefore it is not necessary
assignment or partition of the eight parcels of land to the parties in this case, but considering that
to give personal notice to the owners or claimants of the land sought to be registered, in order to their judgments are now final, the error, assuming that one was committed, can no longer be
vest the courts with power or authority over the res. Thus, while it may be true that no notice was
amended or corrected.” In Icao v. Apalisok,6 We ruled that even the subsequent discovery of an
sent by registered mail to petitioner when the judicial reconstitution of title was sought, such failure,
erroneous imposition of a penalty will not justify correction of the judgment after it has become
however, did not amount to a jurisdictional defect.
final. We have also declared that, subject to settled exceptions, once a judgment becomes final,
Same; Same; Notice of hearing by proper publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to
all the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest. 7 To allow the Court to
clothe the court with jurisdiction and the mere fact that a person purporting to have a legitimate
amend or reverse a decision which has attained finality will result in endless litigations. 8 Indeed,
claim in the property did not receive personal notice is not sufficient ground to invalidate the every litigation, CA-G.R. CV No. 21392 included, must come to an end.
proceedings.—In Register of Deeds of Malabon v. RTC, Malabon, Metro Manila, Br. 170, We said
Moreover, petitioner already had the opportunity to set aside the questioned order of the trial
that “[t]he purpose of the publication of the notice of the petition for reconstitution in the Official
court when its Motion to Set Aside and/or Annul the Order of Reconstitution, filed more than a year
Gazette is to apprise the whole world that such a petition has been filed and that whoever is
after the issuance of the questioned order, was granted by the trial court, however erroneous may
minded to oppose it for good cause may do so within thirty (30) days before the date set by the
be the procedure pursued and the consequent relief granted. Petitioner then simply failed to
court for hearing the petition. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as
maintain vigilance over its perceived rights when it did not file a timely appeal from the adverse
a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.” Thus, notice of
decision of the appellate court, thus allowing the said decision to become final. Besides, as early
hearing by proper publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to clothe the court with jurisdiction,
as 1910, in Grey Alba v. De la Cruz,9 We already ruled that land registration proceedings are
and the mere fact that a person purporting to have a legitimate claim in the property did not receive
proceedings in rem, not in personam, and therefore it is not necessary to give personal notice to
personal notice is not sufficient ground to invalidate the proceedings.
the owners or claimants of the land sought to be registered, in order to vest the courts with power
or authority over the res.10 Thus, while it may be true that no notice was sent by registered mail to
PETITION for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals. Herrera, J. petitioner when the judicial reconstitution of title was sought, such failure, however, did not amount
to a jurisdictional defect.11 In Register of Deeds of Malabon v. RTC, Malabon, Metro Manila, Br.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. 170,12 We said that “[t]he purpose of the publication of the notice of the petition for reconstitution
in the Official Gazette is to apprise the whole world that such a petition has been filed and that
whoever is minded to oppose it for good cause may do so within thirty (30) days before the date
set by the court for hearing the petition. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole
world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.” Thus, notice
of hearing by proper publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to clothe the court with
jurisdiction, and the mere fact that a person purporting to have a legitimate claim in the property
did not receive personal notice is not sufficient ground to invalidate the proceedings.
Shorn of its finery, CA-G.R. SP No. 23773 merely re-echoes the issues raised in CA-G.R.
CV No. 21392 which has become res judicata. Verily, petitioner’s action to annul the order of the
trial court allowing reconstitution duplicates its earlier motion to set aside the said order, which
was granted but later reversed by the appellate court—which reversal became final and executory
due to petitioner’s failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period. A party cannot, by
varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the
operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated. 13
Be that as it may, there appears to be no cogent reason to disturb, as to other matters, the
findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals in its decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 21392,
promulgated July 31, 1990, the same having become final and executory. Accordingly, We affirm
the assailed decision promulgated April 30, 1991, and resolution issued June 26, 1991, by
respondent Court of Appeals.
Meanwhile, the Court adverts to the Petition for Review filed in behalf of petitioner Adez
Realty, Inc., by ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY. On pages 2-4 of the Petition, counsel purports
to quote, as he does, the questioned decision when he alleges—
“The facts of the case, as found by the Court of Appeals, are the following:
xxxx
‘After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered the questioned order dated November 20,
1984, without notice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty, granting the applicant’s
petition for reconstitution in the name of the deceased Elias Eugenio’ ” (italics supplied)

However, the phrase “without notice to the actual occupants of the property, Adez Realty, in the
above quoted second paragraph on page 3 of the Petition for Review, is not found in the decision
penned by Associate Justice Manuel C. Herrera for respondent Court of Appeals. It now appears
as part of a material statement of fact in the decision of the court a quo when actually it is not. This
to Us is a prima facie case of attempting to mislead14 this Court, a serious offense which
constitutes willful disregard of a lawyer’s solemn duty to act at all times in a manner consistent
with truth.
ACCORDINGLY, the challenged decision and resolution of respondent Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 23773 are AFFIRMED and the instant petition is DISMISSED.
ATTY. BENJAMIN M. DACANAY is ordered to SHOW CAUSE within five (5) days from notice
why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for intercalating a material fact in the judgment of the
court a quo thereby altering and modifying its factual findings with the apparent purpose of
misleading this Court in order to obtain a favorable judgment, and thus failing to live up to the
standards expected of a member of the Bar.
Costs against petitioner Adez Realty Incorporated.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz (Chairman), Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Decision and resolution affirmed; petition dismissed.

Note.—A final judgment on the merits is conclusive as to matters put in issue and actually
determined by the Court (Heirs of the late Santiago Maningo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 183
SCRA 691).

——o0o——