644 | SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ‘JM, Tuason & Co, Ine. vs. Mariano No, 183140. October 23, 1978.* J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., JOSE M. TUASON, NICASIO MARIANO, es eS Rizal, MANUELA AQUIAL, MARIA AQUIAL, Spouses JOSE M. CORDOVA snd SATURNINA C. CORDOVA, respondents. Statutory Construction; Principle of stare decisis: Action to im. * SECOND DIVISION. VOL. 85, OCTOBER 23, 1978 645 ‘JM, Tuason & Co, Ine. vs. Mariano ORIGINAL PETITION for certiorari and prohibition. ‘The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Sison Law Office and Senensio O. Ortile for petitioners. Hill & Associates Law Office for respondents Aquials. Antonio B. Pesigan for respondents Cordovas. AQUINO, J: ‘This is another litigation regarding the validity of the mucit controverted Original Certificate of Title No. 735 covering the ‘Santa Mesa and Diliman Estates of the Tuason mayorazgo or Entail with areas of 877 (879) and 1,625 hectares, respectively (Civil Case No. 8943). decree iooued on July 6, 1914 in Cave No, 7681 of the Court of Land Registration. ‘Thoy further alleged that transfor certificates of title, deriv- tion of ite tand to defendant, Capitol Golf Club.646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED JM. Tuason & Co, Inc. Plaintiffs Aquial prayed that OCT No. 735 and the titles dorived therefrom be declared void due to certain irresu in the land registration proceeding. They asked for dam Defendant J. M. Tuason & Co., Ine. ‘on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, i prescription, laches and prior judgment. The ‘ed that motion. The lower court denied it. The motion to dismiss were answer of defendants Tuason and J. M. Tuason & Co., Ine. ‘They insisted tit @ preliminary hearing be held on those defenses, (On January 25, 1967, the spouses Jose M. Cordova Saturnina C. Cordova, who disputed land from the plain the ease. On September 5, 1970, the lower court issued an order re- quiring the parties the Register of Deeds of Rizal to produce in ‘court on October 16, 1970 OCT No. 735 and certain transfer certificates of title derived from that first or basic title. Later, the court required the production in court of the plan of the land covered by OCT No, 735 allegedly for the purpose of its and ‘might have encouraged ‘On appeal to this Court, that validity of OCT No. 735 and once more upheld. (Benin vs. June 28, 1974, 57 SCRA 531). ‘The ruling in the Benin, Alcantara and Pili cases was ap- plied in Mara, Inc, vs. Estrelia, L-40511, July 25; 1975, 65 ing is simply a reiteration or confirmation