7/25/2019 Cachero v Marzan
1/2
CACHERO V MARZAN
FACTS:
The Spouses Tomas Cachero and Patricia Casildo brought suit in
the Courtof First Instance of La Union against Marzan et al, for
recover of possessionand o!nership of t!o "#$ ad%oining parcels of
land In that action, doc&eted asCivil Case 'o( )*+, %udgment
!as rendered declaring the plaintiff spouseso!ners of the nine
hectares piece of land described in the complaint( - The
%udgment became final and e.ecutor(
/bout seven "0$ ears later, # the Cachero Spouses, instituted
proceedingsfor the registration under the Torrens /ct of the
parcels of land sub%ect of CivilCase 'o( )*+, supra 1 identified as
Lot 'o( 2*23 and Lot 'o( 2*45 of thesame Cadastral Surve( In the
said case, doc&eted as Land 6egistrationCase 'o( '7*#+,
separate oppositions !ere filed in behalf of five individuals(
The 6egistration Court thereafter issued an 8rder to the effect
thate.cepting 9ernardino Marzan, Cipriano Pulido, Magno Marzan,
:ilarioMarzan "+ out of the 4 oppositors $ and the 9ureau of Lands,
a special entrof default is declared against the !hole !orld(
Tomas Cachero died before %udgment and !as substituted b his
children(The registration proceedings culminated in a verdict
favorable to theapplicant spouses( The Court found that the
applicant spouses and theirpredecessors7in7interest had been in
continuous and notorious possession ofLots 'umbered 2*45 and 2*23
for more than si.t "23$ ears in concept ofo!ners(In its decision,
the lo!er court granted the application and orders that the
t!oad%oining lots be registered in favor of the petitioners(
/bout seven "0$ months after the filing of the oppositors;
aforesaid motion forreconsideration, 0 persons not parties to the
registration proceedings, the
7/25/2019 Cachero v Marzan
2/2
:ence, said compulsor cadastral proceedings under /ct ##45
"theCadastral /ct$ cannot be invo&ed and set up as a bar to
theregistration proceedings under /ct +52 "the Torrens /ct$
initiatedmore than t!ent ears later b the Cacheros( Indeed, !hen
thelatter registration case !as begun, the cadastral proceedings
hadlong been discontinued and abandoned and, to all intents
andpurposes, had ceased to e.ist( There having been no final
ad%udication in the cadastral proceedings at all, there is no
occasion!hatever to refer to the familiar doctrine of res
%udicata
2. NO
The
