FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 191383. July 20, 2016.]
SPOUSES RAYMUNDO PAGSUGUIRON and ALICIA PAGSUGUIRON, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF ROMUALDO MANITI, in his personal and official capacity, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF TARLAC, EDENCIA KAMATOY, and ERANO YALUNG, for themselves and as attorneys-in-fact of ALEJANDRO KAMATOY, SPS. EDUARDO and MILAGROS KOTOY, ODELON and GERTRUDES MANALOTO, ANDRES and LEONILA BONDOC, IRENEO and ALMA CAJUIGUIRAN, ALBERTO and FLORENCIA CUNANAN, ROGELIO and MINDA RIVERA, ADELAIDA YALUNG, ARIEL ROSETE, POLICARPIO CAJUIGUIRAN, LUZ RIVERA and EMELY INFANTE and IMELDA BRIONES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 20, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 191383 — SPOUSES RAYMUNDO PAGSUGUIRON and ALICIA PAGSUGUIRON, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF ROMUALDO MANITI, in his personal and official capacity, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF TARLAC, EDENCIA KAMATOY, and ERANO YALUNG, for themselves and as attorneys-in-fact of ALEJANDRO KAMATOY, SPS. EDUARDO and MILAGROS KOTOY, ODELON and GERTRUDES MANALOTO, ANDRES and LEONILA BONDOC, IRENEO and ALMA CAJUIGUIRAN, ALBERTO and FLORENCIA CUNANAN, ROGELIO and MINDA RIVERA, ADELAIDA YALUNG, ARIEL ROSETE, POLICARPIO CAJUIGUIRAN, LUZ RIVERA and EMELY INFANTE and IMELDA BRIONES, Respondents.
For our disposition is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision dated October 30, 2009 and Resolution dated February 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 91574, which in turn affirmed the Decision dated January 18, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66 of Capas, Tarlac in Civil Case No. 723-C*05. 1
The factual and procedural backdrop of the present controversy was summarized in the assailed Court of Appeals decision in this wise:
Plaintiffs-appellants [petitioners] [spouses] Raymundo and Alicia [Pagsuguiron] are the registered owners of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-173573 containing an area of 14,550 square meters more or less. Portions of said parcel of land are being used as road right of way by [spouses Eduardo and Milagros Kotoy and the other private respondents] without paying any kind or form of indemnity to plaintiffs-appellants [petitioner spouses Pagsuguiron]. The latter decided to limit the use of said road right of way. On December 4, 2001, defendants-appellees [private respondents] instituted an action for the establishment of an easement of right of way against the plaintiffs-appellants [petitioner spouses Pagsuguiron] which was docketed as Civil Case No. 552. 2 Plaintiffs-appellants [petitioner spouses Pagsuguiron] neglected to engage the services of a counsel and failed to answer within the reglementary period. Hence, on September 13, 2002, a judgment by default was rendered against them, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, finding plaintiffs [private respondents] entitled to use the obstructed right of way by the defendants [petitioners], the court hereby orders:
1. The defendants [petitioners] to clear at their expense the obstruction placed on the right of way and restore the right of way to its original condition before the obstructions were placed;
2. The defendants [petitioners] to pay Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to the plaintiffs [private respondents] as reimbursements of the amount paid as attorney's fees by the plaintiffs [private respondents]; and
3. For the defendants [petitioners] to pay the cost of suit. CAIHTE
xxx xxx xxx
Plaintiffs-appellants [petitioner spouses Pagsuguiron] did not appeal said decision, hence, it became final and executory. Consequently, defendants-appellees [private respondents] filed a motion for issuance of the writ of execution which was granted on December 2, 2002.
On December 16, 2002, the writ of execution was served upon plaintiffs-appellants [petitioner spouses Pagsuguiron], but the latter refused to clear nor open the obstruction placed on the subject right of way. A notice of levy was issued on January 10, 2003 affecting plaintiffs-appellants [petitioner spouses Pagsuguiron]'s property covered by TCT No. T-173573. On March 27, 2003, the sheriff issued a notice of sale on execution involving the levied property setting the public auction on May 8, 2003. Defendant-appellee [private respondent] Imelda Briones (Briones for brevity) became the highest bidder, thus, a certificate of sale was issued in her favor on even date.
Defendants-appellees [private respondents] filed a motion to fix the amount of judgment, which was granted in an order dated May 13, 2002. 3
This series of events led petitioners to file with the RTC of Capas, Tarlac Civil Case No. 723-C*05 for quieting of title, extinguishment of easement and restoration of the status quo ante and nullification of the levy on execution and sale of petitioners' property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 173573. In a Decision dated January 18, 2008, the trial court dismissed petitioners' complaint for lack of merit. The trial court held that (a) there was no ground to declare the decision in Civil Case No. 552 as null and void since it was based on the facts of the case and the law on the matter and (b) considering the decision in Civil Case No. 552 had attained finality, its execution, including the payment of the monetary awards and the consolidation of ownership of the property sold at public auction in the name of private respondent Briones, was proper.
When petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the decision in Civil Case No. 723-C*05 was denied, they sought redress with the Court of Appeals through an appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 91574. In said appeal, petitioners took issue with the RTC's ruling in Civil Case No. 723-C*05 that the decision in Civil Case No. 552 was correct in granting an easement in favor of private respondents without payment of any indemnity.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in Civil Case No. 723-C*05 and held that the final and executory decision in Civil Case No. 552 amounted to res judicata which barred petitioners from raising any issue litigated therein in another case. Even assuming that petitioners may still question the decision in Civil Case No. 552, the appellate court found that the trial court correctly relied on Article 652 4 of the Civil Code and that no impropriety attended the execution of the said decision.
The appellate court denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration in the Resolution dated February 9, 2010 which resulted in the filing of the present petition with this Court. DETACa
Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred:
1.) in finding that Civil Case No. 552 is res judicata to Civil Case No. 723-C*05;
2.) in affirming the decision of the trial court which dismissed the complaint in Civil Case No. 723-C*05 on the ground that the easement of right of way in favor of the private respondents in Civil Case No. 552 was granted without indemnity; and
3.) in not finding public respondent Sheriff Romualdo Maniti in grave abuse of his authority when he illegally executed the decision in Civil Case No. 552.
The petition must fail.
We discuss the first and second issues raised in the petition jointly as they are interrelated.
First, petitioners cannot convincingly assert that the decision in Civil Case No. 552 cannot be deemed res judicata in relation to Civil Case No. 723-C*05 by claiming that the two cases involve different causes of action. We explained in Social Security Commission v. Rizal Poultry and Livestock Association, Inc. 5 that:
Res judicata embraces two concepts: (1) bar by prior judgment as enunciated in Rule 39, Section 47(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) conclusiveness of judgment in Rule 39, Section 47(c).
There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action.
But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as "conclusiveness of judgment." Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies, whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same.
Thus, if a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties or their privies will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit. Identity of cause of action is not required but merely identity of issue. (Emphases supplied; citations omitted.) aDSIHc
To recall, petitioners contended in Civil Case No. 723-C*05 that the easement granted in Civil Case No. 552 should be extinguished on the ground that no payment of indemnity was ordered by the trial court in Civil Case No. 552. However, as correctly held by the appellate court, the issue of whether private respondents were entitled to an easement of right of way without the payment of indemnity was resolved with finality in Civil Case No. 552 and can no longer be re-litigated in Civil Case No. 723-C*05 in the guise of a new and supposedly different cause of action. The principle of res judicata in the concept of "conclusiveness of judgment" bars petitioners from raising questions of fact or law related to this long settled issue, such as the inapplicability of Article 652 or the supposed existence of a less prejudicial location for the right of way, in any subsequent proceeding, including the present petition.
In all, we uphold the lower courts' ruling that the decision in Civil Case No. 552 was in accordance with law and the facts of the case and petitioners proffered no justification for said decision to be vacated as null and void. Even assuming purely for the sake of argument that the decision in Civil Case No. 552 was erroneous, the fact remains that said decision attained finality when petitioners did not file an appeal. It is established in jurisprudence that:
[A] judgment which has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, hence, may no longer be modified in any respect except to correct clerical errors or mistakes, all the issues between the parties being deemed resolved and laid to rest. We added in Manila Electric Company v. Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. that a final and executory judgment or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may be. Although judicial determinations are not infallible, judicial error should be corrected through appeals, not through repeated suits on the same claim. 6 (Citation omitted.)
We note, too, that failing to file an appeal in Civil Case No. 552 is not the only instance of neglect on the part of petitioners. In the petition, it was alleged that "[s]ince [p]etitioners were willing to grant [p]rivate [r]espondents an easement of right of way over their property anyway provided the proper indemnity was paid, they did not consider it important to engage the services of a counsel, not filing an answer to the complaint in Civil Case No. 552 within the reglementary period." 7 This is a tacit admission on petitioners' part that their purported right to indemnity could have, and in fact should have, been raised in Civil Case No. 552 but they willfully chose not to defend their legal position in that case. They cannot now escape the consequences of their own deliberate inaction.
Anent the third issue, we concur with the Court of Appeals that public respondent Sheriff Maniti did not abuse his discretion in implementing the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 552. There is no reason to overturn the factual finding of the trial court, which was affirmed by the appellate court, that Sheriff Maniti implemented the writ of execution in accordance with the rules, specifically Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and the records showed that he made the proper demand upon petitioners to satisfy the monetary judgment. Neither can we give any credit to petitioners' argument that public respondent sheriff erred in collecting an amount greater than Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) which allegedly was a modification of the decision in Civil Case No. 552. Incontestably, the dispositive portion of the decision in Civil Case No. 552 also directed petitioners to clear the obstructions placed on the right of way at their expense and to pay the cost of suit, aside from ordering the payment of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as attorney's fees. As observed by the Court of Appeals, the trial court in Civil Case No. 552, specified in its May 13, 2003 Order how the One Hundred Thirty Thousand Pesos (P130,000.00) collected by the sheriff was to be used in satisfaction of the judgment in that case. ETHIDa
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated October 30, 2009 and Resolution dated February 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 91574 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Civil Case No. 723-C*05 is also referred to as Civil Case No. 723-C-2005 or Civil Case No. 723-C-05 in other parts of the rollo.
2. Civil Case No. 552 is also referred to as Civil Case No. 552-C*01 in other parts of the rollo.
3. Rollo, pp. 39-41.
4. Article 652 of the Civil Code states:
Whenever a piece of land acquired by sale, exchange or partition, is surrounded by other estates of the vendor, exchanger, or co-owner, he shall be obliged to grant a right of way without indemnity.
In case of a simple donation, the donor shall be indemnified by the donee for the establishment of the right of way. (Emphasis supplied.)
5. 665 Phil. 198, 205-206 (2011).
6. Selga v. Brar, 673 Phil. 581, 596 (2011).
7. Rollo, p. 11.