Diaz v.

People
GR 65006, Oct. 31, 1990

Facts:

In Criminal Case No. 934, petitioner Reolandi Diaz was charged with the crime of Falsification of
Official Document allegedly on or about the 5th day of December 1972 by filing and executing
Personal Data Sheet with false information about his credentials, especially regarding his educational
attainment which was belied by the evidence adduced during trial. After trial, petitioner was found
guilty of the felonious act charged.

Petitioner appealed the aforesaid judgment, but the IAC in its decision modified the trial court's decision
by increasing the maximum of the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment in the event of non-payment of
the fine due to insolvency, but affirmed the verdict of conviction in all other respects. Petitioner's motion
for reconsideration was denied, hence, the present recourse.

Issue: W/O Diaz is liable under Art. 171 of the RPC

Held:

No. Petitioner is liable under Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that :

Art. 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. The penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed
upon any person who, knowingly making untruthful statements and not being included in the
provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify under oath or make an affidavit upon any
material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the
law so requires.

Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit
any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of this section
shall suffer respective penalties provided therein.

The court also reiterated the elements of the crime perjury, to wit:

(a) That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter.

(b) That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oath.

(c) That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a deliberate assertion of a falsehood.

(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal
purpose.

All the foregoing elements are present in the case at bar.

 Republic v. Vera
GR L-35778, Jan. 27, 1983

Facts:

In GR No. L-35778, Luisito Martinez filed with the lower court an application for registration of
title under Act 496 of one (1) parcel of land, situated in the Municipality of Mariveles, Bataan.
In G.R. No. L-35779, respondent Thelma Tanalega filed an application for registration under
same law of two (2) parcels of land located in the barrio of Camaya, municipality of Mariveles,
province of Bataan. The Chief Surveyor of the Land Registration Commission filed a reports in
the lower court, stating that the parcels of land applied for registration "do not appear to have
been passed upon and approved by the Director of Lands and that the lot does not appear to
overlap with any previously titled property, respectively.

In both cases, the lower court, in two separate decisions, dated October 9, 1972 and October 16,
1972, confirmed the titles to subject parcels of land and adjudicated them in favor of applicants
Luisito Martinez and Thelma Tanalega, now respondents herein.

ISSUE: WON the lots may be registered under the name of Martinez and Tanalega

Held:

No. In cadastral proceedings any person claiming any interest in any part of the lands object of
the petition is required by Section 9 of Act No. 2259 to file an answer on or before the return day
or within such further time as may be allowed by the court, giving the details required by law.

In the instant cases, private respondents apparently either did not file their answers in the
aforesaid cadastral proceedings or failed to substantiate their claims over the portions they were
then occupying, otherwise, titles over the portions subject of their respective claims would have
been issued to them. The Cadastral Court must have declared the lands in question public lands,
and its decision had already become final and conclusive.

Respondents are now barred by prior judgment to assert their rights over the subject land, under
the doctrine of res judicata. A cadastral proceeding is one in rem and binds the whole world.
Under this doctrine, parties are precluded from re-litigating the same issues already determined
by final judgment.