THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230269. March 21, 2018.]
RICHARD O. GOKING, petitioner, vs. CAGAYAN DE ORO COLISEUM, INC., THE CITY REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CAGAYAN DE ORO, HELEN ANN WILLKOM-QUIMPO, AND JOHN/JANE DOE(S), respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 21, 2018, which reads as follows: TCAScE
"G.R. No. 230269 (Richard O. Goking, Petitioner, v. Cagayan De Oro Coliseum, Inc., The City Register of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro, Helen Ann Willkom-Quimpo, and John/Jane Doe(s), Respondents.) — In 1977, respondent Cagayan De Oro Coliseum, Inc. (Coliseum) obtained a loan in the amount of P149,253.73 from Santiago Maceren for which it executed a promissory note. As security, Coliseum constituted a mortgage over all its assets and properties, including the parcel of land registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3383 of the Register of Deeds of Cagayan De Oro City. Maceren later assigned the promissory note and mortgage to Commercial Credit Corporation of Cagayan de Oro (CCC). When Coliseum defaulted, CCC commenced foreclosure proceedings on the land covered by TCT No. 3383. However, five stockholders of Coliseum brought suit in the erstwhile Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental (CFI) to enjoin the City Sheriff, CCC and Coliseum from conducting the foreclosure sale of the land. They alleged in the complaint that the obligation was void for having been contracted by Coliseum's former president without authority from the stockholders; and that the creditor, Maceren, was the corporate treasurer and a member of the Board of Directors of Coliseum at the time of contracting the obligation. The parties eventually entered into a compromise agreement that became the basis of the judgment rendered by the CFI on March 11, 1980, by which the five stockholders ratified the loan obligation of Coliseum in favor of CCC.
On March 4, 1983, CCC filed an ex parte motion for the issuance of the writ of execution in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cagayan de Oro City in view of the failure of Coliseum to pay several installments. On February 13, 1987, the sheriff conducted a public auction in which the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder in the amount of P170,000.00.
Coliseum brought to the Court of Appeals (CA) an action for the annulment of the judgment of the trial court to set aside the compromise agreement based on fraud and misrepresentation discovered only in 1983.
On May 19, 1987, the CA declared in CA-G.R. SP No. 10888 that the writ of execution, the sheriff's notice of sale, the sale at public auction and the certificate of sale were null and void insofar as they were in excess of the judgment declared by the CA. cTDaEH
In G.R. No. 78315, the Court set aside the decision of the CA, and affirmed the compromise judgment approved by the RTC. The decision of the Court became final, and was entered on April 3, 1989.
Meanwhile, on August 17, 1988, during the pendency of G.R. No. 78315, the sheriff issued a final deed of conveyance respecting the property. As a result, TCT No. T-3383 in the name of Coliseum was cancelled and TCT No. T-51714 was issued in the name of the petitioner.
On April 11, 1989, upon finality of the decision in G.R. No 78315, Coliseum instituted another action self-styled as an action for "remedies from falsification and damages" against the petitioner and the sheriff who had issued the final deed of conveyance.
On April 12, 1989, Coliseum filed in the RTC its Omnibus Motion to Declare the Judgment Satisfied, Reimburse Bidder or Pay as in Redemption, Etc. praying that the sale at public auction of the property be declared null and void; that the title of the property in the name of the petitioner be cancelled; and that its title be fully restored. It manifested therein that on the assumption that the execution proceedings were valid, it was exercising its right to redeem the property by consigning the redemption money in court.
Later on, the petitioner filed his motion for the issuance of the writ of possession, and a petition for the appointment of a receiver.
On August 5, 1993, the RTC rendered judgment declaring the deed of sale, the final deed of conveyance, and TCT No. T-51704 in the name of petitioner as null and void, and denying the latter's motion for writ of possession and petition for the appointment of a receiver. It opined that the property subject of the execution was not levied upon; that notices of sale were not posted; and that there was no return of the writ of execution.
The petitioner appealed to the CA, which reversed the RTC and dismissed Coliseum's complaint. The CA concluded that the case was a re-litigation of the issues previously raised in CA-G.R. SP No. 10888; and that the notice requirements for the execution sale were validly complied with. cSaATC
Coliseum appealed the adverse decision of the CA to the Court (docketed as G.R. No. 129713).
On December 15, 1999, the Court granted Coliseum's petition for review on certiorari, and reinstated with modification the judgment of the RTC rendered on August 5, 1993.
The parties' respective motions for reconsideration were denied. Hence, the decision in G.R. No. 129713 was entered on October 17, 2000.
The petitioner filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration but this was denied by the Court for want of merit.
Four years after, or on August 19, 2008, the petitioner brought his complaint for declaration of nullity of title, remedies from falsification and damages with application for temporary restraining order and for the issuance of injunction in the RTC in Cagayan de Oro City against Coliseum, the Register of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro City, and John/Jane Doe(s). The complaint alleged that the petitioner was the registered owner of the land covered by TCT No. T-51704; that he discovered that TCT No. T-51704 had been fraudulently cancelled by the reinstatement of TCT No. T-3383 in the name of Coliseum; that he also discovered that his title had been illegally cancelled only on April 23, 2008 when he asked for a certified true copy of it from the Register of Deeds; and that Coliseum and Helen Ann Willkolm-Quimpo, using the name of Coliseum, had caused the cancellation of his title through trickery by entering, adding, omitting or cancelling entries at the back of TCT No. T-51704 to reinstate TCT No. T-3383, and making it appear that Coliseum was the owner of the land, free from any and all liens and encumbrances.
On October 2, 2008, Coliseum filed its answer with compulsory counterclaim, raising the affirmative defense of bar by res judicata, and arguing that the petitioner's cause of action, being principally for the restoration of his TCT No. T-51704 and the cancellation of Coliseum's TCT No. T-3383, had long been settled by the decision in G.R. No. 129713 promulgated on December 15, 1999. 1
On March 4, 2013, the RTC dismissed the complaint of the petitioner.
On appeal, the CA promulgated the assailed decision on October 10, 2016 affirming the dismissal by the RTC on the ground of bar by res judicata. It held that the elements of res judicata concurred herein, namely: (a) the decision promulgated in G.R. No. 129713 has already attained finality; (b) the Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties when it decided the case; (c) the decision of the Court was clearly on the merits; and (d) there were identity of parties, identity of subject matter and identity of causes of action. It found that the petitioner's act of filing the complaint in the RTC was a subterfuge to reverse and set aside the final and executory decision in G.R. No. 129713, and should not be countenanced. 2
In this appeal, the issue is whether or not the decision in G.R. No. 129713 constituted a bar by res judicata that warranted the dismissal of the case filed by the petitioner. cHDAIS
The petitioner submits that bar by res judicata did not apply because there was no execution of the final judgment in G.R. No. 129713; that a judgment must be executed within 10 years from its finality; otherwise, the statute of limitation or prescription would set in and void the judgment; and that the prevailing party who failed to execute the judgment should be deemed to have abandoned or waived whatever he was supposed to gain by such judgment. 3
Ruling of the Court
After a judicious perusal, the Court RESOLVES TO DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in promulgating the decision dated October 10, 2016 dismissing the complaint on the ground of bar by res judicata. 4
Res judicata refers to the rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive on the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in the former suit. The elements of res judicata are as follows, to wit: (1) the former judgment or order is final; (2) the judgment or order is on the merits; (3) the judgment or order is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (4) there must be, between the first and the second actions, an identity of parties, of subject matter and cause of action. 5
The CA correctly found that all of the elements of res judicata were present thereby warranting the dismissal of the case. This was not denied nor repudiated by the petitioner.
The main contention of the petitioner is that Coliseum's right to enforce or execute the decision in G.R. No. 129716 is now considered stale or barred by prescription for its failure to file a motion for execution within five years, or an action to revive within 10 years. On this score, however, the Court agrees with the following pronouncement of the RTC, as quoted by the CA, to wit:
x x x Contrary to the contention of the plaintiff that the decision in G.R. No. 129713 was not executed, records reveal that the litigated property is presently covered by TCT No. T-3383 which was reinstated after TCT No. T-51704 was cancelled by herein defendant City Registrar of Cagayan de Oro City by virtue of the decision in G.R. No. 129713. In effect, there was execution because if there is none, then TCT No. T-3383 was not reinstated. To the mind of this Court, the issue is not whether the judgment in G.R. No. 129713 can still be executed, or whether or not fraud and acts of illegality, among other (sic), were committed by defendants, but whether or not his case should proceed knowing that the Supreme Court have (sic) already rendered a decision promulgated under G.R. No. 129713. Can this Court go against the decision of the Supreme Court which specifically ordered the cancellation of TCT No. T-51704 and the reinstatement of TCT No. T-3383 which order was already executed? CERTAINLY NO. And again, as claimed by plaintiff, can this Court declare the decision of a division of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 129713 void ab initio for being unconstitutional? DEFINITELY NO because if it will do so, then this Court become (sic) more superior than the Supreme Court. What then can this court do relative to the reinstated TCT No. T-3383 in the name of Cagayan de Oro Coliseum, Incorporated? NOTHING, as this Court being a lower court, under the principle of hierarchy of courts, it cannot rise above the Supreme Court. 6 x x x ISHCcT
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on October 10, 2016 by the Court of Appeals; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the cost of suit. (Leonen, J., on official leave.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 35-41.
2.Id. at 49-50.
3.Id. at 10-29.
4.Id. at 34-50; penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo B. Martin and concurred in by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles and Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño.
5.Taganas v. Emuslan, G.R. No. 146980, September 2, 2003, 410 SCRA 237, 242.
6.Rollo, pp. 47-48.