G.R. No. 181502 - FLORENCIA G. DIAZ, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the decree of registration issued in its favor was declared null and void. Reyes notwithstanding, the CFI ruled in Garcia's favor in a decision [5] dated July 1, 1981. The Republic eventually appealed the decision of the CFI to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its decision [6] dated February 26, 1992, penned by Justice Vicente V. Mendoza (Mendoza decision), [7] the appellate court reversed and set aside the decision of the CFI. The CA found that Reyes was applicable to petitioner's case as it involved the same property. The CA observed that Garcia also traced her ownership of the land in question to Possessory Information Title No. 216. As Garcia's right to the property was largely dependent on the existence and validity of the possessory information title the probative value of which had already been passed upon by this Court in Reyes, and inasmuch as the land was situated inside a military reservation, the CA concluded that she did not validly acquire title thereto. During the pendency of the case in the CA, Garcia passed away and was substituted by her heirs, one of whom was petitioner Florencia G. Diaz. [8] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Mendoza decision. While the motion was pending in the CA, petitioner also filed a motion for recall of the records from the former CFI. Without acting on the motion for reconsideration, the appellate court, with Justice Mendoza as ponente , issued a resolution [9] upholding petitioner's right to recall the records of the case. Subsequently, however, the CA encouraged the parties to reach an amicable settlement on the matter and even gave the parties sufficient time to draft and finalize the same. The parties ultimately entered into a compromise agreement with the Republic withdrawing its claim on the more or less 4,689 hectares supposedly outside the FMMR. For her part, petitioner withdrew her application for the portion of the property inside the military reservation. They filed a motion for approval of the amicable settlement in the CA. [10] On June 30, 1999, the appellate court approved the compromise agreement. [11] On January 12, 2000, it directed the Land Registration Administration to issue the corresponding decree of registration in petitioner's favor. [12] However, acting on a letter written by a certain Atty. Restituto S. Lazaro, the OSG filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA resolution ordering the issuance of the decree of registration. The OSG informed the appellate court that the tract of land subject of the amicable settlement was still within the military reservation. On April 16, 2007, the CA issued an amended resolution (amended resolution) [13] annulling the compromise agreement entered into between the parties. The relevant part of the dispositive portion of the resolution read: ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to: (1) x x x x x x (2) x x x x x x (3) x x x x x x (4) x x x x x x (5) x x x x x x (6) REVERSE the Resolution dated June 30, 1999 of this Court