G.R. No. 167120 - RODOLFO V. FRANCISCO, VS. EMILIANA M. ROJAS, AND THE LEGITIMATE HEIRS OF JOSE A. ROJAS, NAMELY: JOSE FERDINAND M. ROJAS II, ROLANDO M. ROJAS, JOSE M. ROJAS, JR., CARMELITA ROJAS-JOSE, VICTOR M. ROJAS, AND LOURDES M. ROJAS, ALL REPRESENTED BY JOSE FERDINAND M. ROJAS II.D E C I S I O

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby declares the following the true and absolute owners of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Plan Psu-04- [001463] in the ratio [as] set opposite their respective names: Rosalina Villamor Francisco, widow, of legal age and residing at Angono, Rizal ------------------------------------------------------- 5/8 Carmen V. Francisco, single, of legal age and residing at Angono, Rizal ---------------------------------------------------------- 1/8 Rodolfo V. Francisco, married to Teofila Gil, of legal age and residing at Angono, Rizal --------------------------------------------- 1/8 Carmela V. Francisco, single, of legal age and residing at Angono, Rizal ---------------------------------------------------------- 1/8 The title to be issued shall contain the inscriptions: Lots 2 and 3 of Plan Psu-04-001463 are hereby reserved for the future widening of Manila East Road. Once this decision becomes final, let an order for the issuance of decree issue. SO ORDERED x x x The aforequoted decision having become final and executory, the Franciscos filed with the same court (CFI, Branch 10), a petition for the issuance of a decree of registration. And, in the herein assailed Order dated February 22, 1978, the court directed the Commissioner of Land Registration to issue the desired decree x x x. To complicate matters, it appears that on August 22, 1979, in the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 155, stationed in Pasig, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General, filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of Decreto No. 6145 and the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 23377 against the heirs of Francisco Guido and Hermogenes Guido, the spouses Jose Rojas and Emiliana Rojas, the Pacil Development Corporation and Interport Resources Corporation, it being alleged in the same complaint that both the Decreto No. 6145 and the owners copy of TCT No. 23377 were false, spurious and fabricated and were never issued by virtue of judicial proceedings for registration of land either under Act No, 496, as amended, otherwise known as the Land Registration Act, or under any other law. The complaint for annulment was docketed as Civil Case No. 34242. After trial, the CFI of Rizal, Branch 155, rendered a decision dismissing the Republics complaint and declaring Decreto No. 6145 and TCT No. 23377 genuine and authentic. We quote the pertinent portions of the decision: Considering that Decree 6145 and TCT No. 23377 are genuine and authentic, the decree cannot now be reopened or revived. A decree of registration binds the land and quiets title thereto, is conclusive upon all persons and cannot be reopened or revived after the lapse of one year after entry of the decree (Ylarde vs. Lichauco, 42 SCRA 641) WHEREFORE, premises considered, this case is hereby dismissed. Likewise, the counterclaims of the defendants are dismissed. From the same decision, the Republic went on appeal to [the Court of Appeals] in CA-G.R. CV No. 12933.