SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 237720, February 05, 2020
ALVIN F. SAMONTE, PETITIONER, v. DEMETRIA N. DOMINGO, MARRIED TO DANIEL SB. DOMINGO, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, A., JR., J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court filed by Alvin F. Samonte (Samonte), assailing the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) 12th Division dated August 17, 2017 and the CA Special Former 12th Division Resolution3 dated February 13, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 144022. The CA affirmed the Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 24, which in turn, reversed and set aside the ruling of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 3.
WHEREFORE, premises considered and for failure of plaintiff Demetria N. Domingo to substantiate her claim by preponderance of evidence against defendant Alvin F. Samonte, the complaint herein is hereby DISMISSED for lack of cause of action.
SO ORDERED.12
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Judgment dated 15 May 2013 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 3, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and judgment is hereby rendered ordering [Samonte] and all persons claiming rights under him to vacate the subject property and to restore possession thereof to [Domingo].Samonte's motion for reconsideration15 was denied by the RTC Branch 24 in a Resolution16 dated January 12, 2016.
SO ORDERED.14
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.The CA found no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the RTC Branch 24 that Domingo was able to prove her right of possession over the subject property on the basis of the execution of the Deed.25 The CA made it clear, however, that the determination of ownership in the case is provisional for the sole purpose of settling the issue of possession.26
The [August 5, 2015 Decision] and [January 12, 2016] Resolution of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 24 in Civil Case No. 13-130138 are AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.24
It rests on the principle that parties should not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once; that, when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or an opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of the court, so long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate.35 (Citation omitted)The doctrine of res judicata is set forth in Section 47 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
Section 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. - The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:There are two (2) concepts of res judicata: 1) bar by prior judgment, which is found in Section 47(b) of Rule 39; and 2) conclusiveness of judgment, which is referred to in paragraph c of the same rule and section.36 In Puerto Azul Land, Inc. v. Pacific Wide Realty Dev't. Corp.37 the Court discussed the difference between the two:
xxxx
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been missed in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest, by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; and
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.
There is a bar by prior judgment where there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred. There is conclusiveness of judgment, on the other hand, where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action.38 (Emphasis and citations omitted)Verily, res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment applies in this case. It is not disputed that both the present case and Civil Case No. 12-128721 involve the same parties and subject matter; only the cause of action is different. Res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment "precludes the relitigation only of a particular fact or issue necessary to the outcome of a prior action between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action."39
It is a hornbook rule that once a judgment has become final and executory, it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land, as what remains to be done is the purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the judgment.43In view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 17, 2017 and the Resolution dated February 13, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 144022 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint for Unlawful Detainer is DISMISSED.
Endnotes:
* Per Raffle dated November 25, 2019.
1Rollo, pp. 12-26.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Leoncia R. Dimagiba; id. at 33-42.
3 Id. at 44-45.
4 Penned by Presiding Judge Maria Victoria A. Soriano-Villadolid; id. at 61-66.
5 Id. at 81-85.
6 Id. at 86.
7 Id. at 82.
8 Id. at 93-97.
9 Id. at 94.
10 Penned by Presiding Judge Juan O. Bermejo, Jr.; id. at 118-122.
11 Id. at 120.
12 Id. at 121-122.
13 Id. at 61-66.
14 Id. at 66.
15 Id. at 159-164.
16 Id. at 76-80.
17 Id. at 46-59.
18 Id. at 16, 136-158.
19 Penned by Presiding Judge Thelma Bunyi-Medina; id. at 136-158.
20 Id. at 158.
21 Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of this Court), concurring; id. at 179-190.
22 Id. at 192.
23 Id. at 33-42.
24 Id. at 41.
25 Id. at 39.
26 Id. at 41.
27 Id. at 159-164.
28 Id. at 160.
29 Id. at 44-45.
30 Id. at 195-196.
31Arambulo and Arambulo III v. Gungab, 508 Phil. 612, 623 (2005).
32Rollo, p. 192.
33Puerto Azul Land, Inc. v. Pacific Wide Realty Dev't. Corp., 743 Phil. 222, 231 (2014).
34 757 Phil. 376 (2015).
35 Id. at 382.
36Spouses Noceda v. Arbizo-Directo, 639 Phil. 483 (2010).
37 Supra note 33.
38 Id. at 232.
39Ching v. San Pedro College of Business Administration, 772 Phil. 204, 228 (2015).
40Spouses Barias v. Heirs of Boeno, et al., 623 Phil. 82, 88 (2009).
41Province of Camarines Sur v. Bodega Glassware, 807 Phil. 865 (2017).
42 597 Phil. 705 (2009).
43 Id. at 719.