EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. L-21493-94. April 29, 1966.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs.

WILFREDO G. CAINGLET, defendant-appellee.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A.

Torres and Solicitor I. Montano-De los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.
Wilfredo G. Cainglet for and in his own behalf, defendant and appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. CADASTRAL PROCEEDING; NATURE OF PROCEEDING; EFFECT OF

FINAL JUDGMENT. — A final judgment in a cadastral proceeding —
proceeding in rem — is binding and conclusive upon the whole world. Reason
is that public policy and public order demand not only that litigations must
terminate at some definite point but also that titles over lands under the
Torrens system should be given stability for on it greatly depends the
stability of the country's economy.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT SUBJECT TO
EXCEPTIONS; REMEDY OF AGGRIEVED PARTY. — The conclusiveness of
judgment in the registration of lands is not absolute. Public policy dictates
that those unjustly deprived of their rights over real property by reason of
the operation of the registration laws be afforded remedies. Thus, the
aggrieved party may file a suit for reconveyance of property or a personal
action for recovery of damages against the party who registered his property
through fraud, or in case of insolvency of the party who procured the
registration through fraud, an action against the Treasurer of the Philippines
for recovery of damages from the Assurance Fund. Through these remedial
proceedings, the law, while holding registered titles indefeasible, allows
redress calculated to prevent one from enriching himself at the expense of
others. Necessarily, without setting aside the decree of title, the issues
raised in the previous registration case are relitigated for purposes of
reconveyance of said title or recovery of damages.
3. ID.; FALSE ASSERTIONS IN SWORN ANSWER; AUTHORITY OF
STATE TO PROSECUTE FOR PERJURY THE GUILTY PARTY. — In the same way,
therefore, the State may criminally prosecute for perjury the party who
obtains registration through fraud, such as by stating false assertions in the
sworn answer required of applicants in cadastral proceedings. Section 116 of
the Land Registration Act is applicable to cadastral proceedings under Act
2259, by virtue of Section 11 thereof. From its wording, Section 116 applies
to all and does not distinguish between those who make false statements,
and those whose statements were not given credence by the land
registration court. This is rightly so, for to give immunity from prosecution to
those successful in deceiving the registration court would, in effect, be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 putting a premium on perjury and making the punishment therefor
dependent upon the non- realization of the object of its commission.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY OR FALSIFICATION NOT
A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON TITLE. — The prosecution for falsification or
perjury is a proceeding in personam which inquires into the criminal liability
of the accused. Not being an attack on the validity of the cadastral titles, any
judgment rendered therein would leave said titles undisturbed.

DECISION

BENGZON, J.P., J : p

On December 13, 1962 Wilfredo G. Cainglet was prosecuted before the

Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur for falsification of public and/or
official documents in Criminal Cases Nos. 2239 and 2231 under two
informations which we quote hereunder:

"That on or about April 22, 1959, in the municipality of Ipil,

province of Zamboanga del Sur, Philippines, and in other places
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused
Wilfredo G. Cainglet, a private individual, in order to deceive the
Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur in rendering a decision
in Cadastral Case No. N-19, LRC Cad. Rec. No. N-184 declaring Lot No.
8492, Pls-248 and its improvements as the private property of the
herein accused, thru false and fraudulent representations, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with full knowledge of
the falsity of its contents, prepare and/or caused to be prepared the
hereinbelow described document, to wit:
"Judicial form No. 106, otherwise known as an Answer
under Section 9 of Act. No. 2259, duly subscribed and sworn to
before Notary Public Andres Bersales, a person duly authorized
by law to administer oath, wherein the accused deliberately
made the following untruthful statement of facts: (1) That he is
the owner of Lot 8492, Pls-248; (2) That he is the owner of the
buildings and improvements existing on the land; (3)That he has
been in possession of said land as owner for over 3 years; (4)
That the said land was acquired by occupation from a
predecessor in interest; (5) that his predecessor in interest has
been in possession thereof for almost 30 years; (6) That there is
no person having interest to the said land ; which allegation of
facts as contained in the above-mentioned document are
necessary and essential, as required under Section 9 of Act. No.
2259, otherwise known as the Cadastral Act, in order that any
person claiming to have an interest on the land subject of the
cadastral proceedings, may present his claim and thus
preventing the Court from declaring the land as public land;
once the above document was accomplished, the herein
accused, with full knowledge of the falsity of any and all his
allegations and knowing fully well that he has never possessed nor
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 occupied the land at anytime, as in fact, the land is possessed and
actually occupied by Mindet Elon since before the war, did then and
there file and/or caused the same to be filed in Cadastral Case No.
19, LRC Cad. Record No. N-184 for Lot No. 8492, Pls-248, which
cadastral proceedings was then pending in the Court of First Instance
of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur, with a view of misleading the court
in issuing an order declaring Lot No. 8492, Pls-248 as the private
property of the herein accused, as in fact, a decision dated October
30, 1959 was rendered by the Honorable Judge Tito V. Tizon of the
Court of First Instance of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur, declaring
among others that Lot No. 8492, Pls-248 with its improvements is the
private property of the accused WILFREDO G. CAINGLET."
"That on or about April 22, 1959, in the municipality of Ipil,
province of Zamboanga del Sur, Philippines, and in other place within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused Wilfredo
C. Cainglet, a private individual, in order to deceive the Court of First
Instance of Zamboanga del Sur in rendering a decision in Cadastral
Case No. N-19, LRC Rec. No. N-184, declaring Lot. No. 8479, Pls-248
and its improvements as the private property of the herein accused,
thru false and fraudulent representations, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with full knowledge of the falsity of its
contents, prepare and/or caused to be prepared the hereinbelow
described document, to wit:
"Judicial Form No. 106, otherwise known as an answer
under Section 9 of Act No. 2259, duly subscribed and sworn to
before Andres Bersales, a Notary Public, a person duly authorized
by law to administer oath, wherein the accused deliberately
made the following untruthful statement of facts: (1) That he is
the owner of Lot 8492, Pls-248; (2) That he is the owner of the
buildings and improvements existing on the land; (3)That he has
been in possession of said land as owner for over 3 years; (4)
That the said land was acquired by occupation from a
predecessor in interest; (5) that his predecessor in interest has
been in possession thereof for almost 30 years; (6) That there is
no person having interest to the said land ; which allegation of
facts as contained in the above-mentioned document are
necessary and essential, as required under Section 9 of Act. #
2259, otherwise known as the Cadastral Act, in order that any
person claiming to have an interest on the land subject of the
cadastral proceedings, may present his claim and thus
preventing the Court from declaring the land as public land;
once the above document was accomplished, the herein
accused, with full knowledge of the falsity of any and his allegations,
and knowing fully well that he has never possessed nor occupied the
land at anytime, by himself or his predecessor in interest, as in fact,
the land has been actually occupied by Nicolas Calero and Pedro
Trabajado by virtue of their Homestead Application, did then and
there filed or caused the same to be filed in Cadastral Case No. 19,
LRC Cad. Record No. N-184 for Lot No. 8479, Pls-248, which cadastral
proceedings was then pending in the Court of First Instance of
Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur, with a view in misleading the Court in
issuing an order declaring Lot No. 8479, Pls-248 as the private
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 property of the herein accused, as in fact, a decision dated October
30, 1959 was rendered by the Honorable Judge Tito V. Tizon of the
Court of First Instance of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur, declaring
among others that Lot No. 8479, Pls-248 with its improvements is the
private property of the accused WILFREDO G. CAINGLET."
On January 16, 1963, before arraignment, the accused moved to quash
the afore-quoted informations on the ground that they contain averments,
which if true, would constitute an excuse or justification, invoking Section
2(g) of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court. 1 The averments referred to consist in
the statements in the informations that in Cadastral Case No. 19, LRC
Cadastral Record No. N-184 the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur
declared Lots Nos. 8479 and 8492 with improvements thereon to be the
private properties of Wilfredo G. Cainglet. Such judicial pronouncement
which has become final, as can be inferred from the transformations,
allegedly runs counter to the charge that accused falsely claimed said real
estate to be his own private properties.
The lower court granted the motion and dismissed the aforequoted
informations. Hence the provincial fiscal appealed to this Court.
The issue is whether or not the final judgment in Cadastral Case No.
19, LRC Cadastral Record No. N-184 declaring Wilfredo G. Cainglet owner of
Lots Nos. 8479 and 8492 bars his subsequent prosecution for falsely stating
in his answers in said Cadastral Case that he possessed and owned Lots Nos.
8479 and 8492.
The lower court holds the opinion and appellee maintains that for the
falsification cases to prosper, the trial court must necessarily find that the
latter's allegations of possession and ownership in his answers filed in
Cadastral Case No. 19, LRC Cadastral Record No. N-184 are false. Allegedly,
this matter has already been directly adjudged in said cadastral case, and
the judgment therein is conclusive in subsequent proceedings, pursuant to
Sections 44 and 45 of Rule 39 in relation to Section 48 of Rule 123 of the
Rules of Court. Appellee then submits to the proposition that a judgment of
guilt of the accused in the falsification cases would nullify the validity and
conclusiveness of the previous cadastral proceedings, subject the cadastral
titles to collateral attack and destroy the indefeasibility of the Torrens titles
issued.
It is fundamental and well-settled that a final judgment in a cadastral
proceeding — a proceeding in rem — is binding and conclusive upon the
whole world. Reason is that public policy and public order demand not only
that litigations must terminate at some definite point but also that titles over
lands under the Torrens system should be given stability for on it greatly
depends the stability of the country's economy. Interest republicae ut sit
finis litium . However, this conclusiveness of judgment in the registration of
lands is not absolute. It admits of exception. Public policy also dictates that
those unjustly deprived of their rights over real property by reason of the
operation of our registration laws be afforded remedies. Thus, the aggrieved
party may file a suit for reconveyance of property 2 or a personal action for
recovery of damages against the party who registered his property through
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
 fraud3, or in case of insolvency of the party who procured the registration
through fraud, an action against the Treasurer of the Philippines for recovery
of damages from the Assurance Fund. 4 Through these remedial proceedings,
the law, while holding registered titles indefeasible, allows redress calculated
to prevent one from enriching himself at the expense of other. Necessarily,
without setting aside the decree of title, the issues raised in the previous
registration case are relitigated, for purposes of reconveyance of said title or
recovery of damages.
In the same way, therefore, the State may criminally prosecute for
perjury the party who obtains registration through fraud, such as by stating
false assertions in the sworn answer required of applicants in cadastral
proceedings. For Section 116 of the Land Registration Act states:
"SEC. 116. Whoever knowingly swears falsely to any
statement required to be made under oath by this Act shall be guilty
of perjury and liable to the penalties provided by laws for perjury."
And in this case, Section 116 of the Land Registration Act is applicable to
cadastral proceedings under Act 2259, by virtue of Section 11 thereof.
From its wording, Section 116 applies to all and does not distinguish
between those who make false statements and successfully procure
registration by such statements, and those whose statements were not given
credence by the land registration court. The law therefore applies with equal
brunt on both types of offenders. This is rightly so, for to give immunity from
prosecution to those successful in deceiving the registration court would, in
effect, be putting a premium on perjury and making the punishment therefor
dependent upon the non- realization of the object of its commission.
For the Court, therefore, to sustain appellee's view would be to unduly
discriminate in the prosecution of persons charged with falsification or
perjury. While public policy, on one hand, demands an end to litigation, and
hence puts forward the doctrine of res judicata, yet, on the other hand, every
interest of public policy demands that perjury be not shielded by artificial
refinements and narrow technicalities. For perjury strikes at the very
administration of the laws.5 It is the policy of the law that judicial
proceedings and judgments shall be fair and free from fraud, and that
litigants and parties be encouraged to tell the truth, and that they be
punished if they do not.6
As afore-stated, a judgment on the guilt of the appellee would not
undermine the indefeasibility of the titles over Lots Nos. 8479 and 8492.
Neither would the criminal proceeding for falsification or perjury be a
collateral attack on the titles in question. The prosecution for falsification or
perjury is a proceeding in personam which inquires into the criminal liability
of the accused. Not being an attack on the validity of the titles in question,
any judgment rendered therein would leave said titles undisturbed.
Wherefore, the order appealed from is set aside and this case is hereby
remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. No costs. So
ordered.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com

 Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera,
Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Now Section 2(g), Rule 117.
2. Cabanos vs. Register of Deeds, 40 Phil. 620; Severino vs. Severino, 44 Phil.
343; Dizon vs. Lacap, 50 Phil. 193; Garcia vs. Reyes, 51 Phil. 409; Angeles vs.
Samia, 66 Phil. 444.

3. Manotoc vs. Choco, 30 Phil. 628.

4. Estrellado vs. Martinez, 48 Phil. 256.

5. Jay vs. State, (1916, 15 App. 255, 43 So 137.
6. People vs. Niles, 300 III, 458, 133 N.E. 252, 37 A.L.R. 1284.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com