First in time, stronger in right
“And it is no less true, that personal security and private property rest entirely upon the wisdom, the stability, and the integrity of the courts of justice,” said Joseph Story, an American judge.
Relying on this adage, Delfino Andres filed against Concepcion Segundo and Ilocos Norte Electric Cooperative (INEC) a complaint for ownership with injunction over a parcel of land before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In his complaint, Delfino claimed that he had purchased the land from Felipa Ruiz. This land is situated within another property co-owned by Nemesio Segundo, Francisca Segundo, heirs of Donato Segundo, and heirs of Luciano Segundo, one of whom is Felipa.
Delfino possessed the subject land until INEC, which supposedly purchased it from Concepcion as Nemesio’s surviving wife, placed sand, gravel, and other building materials to convert it into residential and/or commercial land.
Delfino died while the case was pending the RTC’s resolution. His son, Neil Benjamin Andres, substituted him and entered into a compromise agreement with INEC, which the RTC later on approved to completely settle the case (“RTC order”).
Two years later, Cynthia Andres-Ranjo and Elma Marañon (collectively, “Andres sisters”) filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to have the RTC order annulled. They claimed to be Delfino’s legally adopted children and protested that the compromise agreement would deprive them of their share in the land.
The CA granted the Andres sisters’ petition, annulling and setting aside the compromise agreement and directing the RTC to rehear the case. Consequently, the Andres sisters filed their complaint-in-intervention, which the RTC favorably decided on. Upon appeal, the CA held that, among others, Delfino owned the subject land based on the principle of primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right).
INEC moved for reconsideration of the CA’s decision, submitting for the first time another RTC’s decision in a separate, cadastral case filed during the pre- and post-World War II days (the “cadastral case”). In the cadastral case, the RTC confirmed INEC’s ownership of the land, as Nemesio’s predecessor-in-interest, after receiving a copy of the compromise agreement in the earlier case. Before then, however, INEC failed to inform this RTC that the CA had annulled the RTC order.
The CA denied INEC’s motion for reconsideration, thus constraining it to appeal before the Supreme Court in the case entitled Ilocos Norte Electric Cooperative v. Andres-Ranjo, et al.
In insisting its ownership over the subject land, INEC now claims that its title has become incontrovertible, since the Andres sisters have failed to question the RTC’s decision in the cadastral case. Meanwhile, in executing the compromise agreement, it did not recognize Delfino’s ownership, as CA had observed, but merely sought to put an end to the protracted litigation. In this regard, it sought to have the compromise agreement recognized as a contract of sale where INEC had purchased from Neil the land in good faith.
The Andres sisters countered that the RTC’s decision in the cadastral case rested on the annulled RTC order, which was earlier so done by the CA.
The Supreme Court denied INEC’s petition. It held that it could not consider INEC’s ownership claim based on the RTC decision in the cadastral case, which was only raised for the first time in its motion for reconsideration before the CA, without violating the Andres sisters’ right to due process.
Even if the Supreme Court would consider this decision, it found that INEC did not present further evidence of its ownership, such as a decree of registration in its name, which would have created a strong presumption that the cadastral court’s decision had become final and executory. Thus, INEC has no better right over the subject land on the strength of such decision.
Moreover, it affirmed the CA’s application of the “first in time, stronger in right” principle, in which different vendors sold the same property. In this case, the sale of the land to Delfino was made in 1957, while that to INEC was made on a much later 1991.
Consequently, Delfino had over the subject land a better right than INEC, which was transmitted to his legal heirs, Neil and the Andres sisters, upon his death. The latter then became co-owners of the subject land; thus, INEC could only be entitled to Neil’s share therein upon executing the compromise agreement.
