Facts:

On April 8, 1994, Jose Clavano, Inc. (Petitioner) entered into a contract to sell a house and lot located in Cebu City to spouses Enrique and Venus Tenazas (Respondents). The Tenazas paid 50% of the purchase price but faced difficulties in settling the remaining balance and additional charges. Claiming default on the part of the Tenazas, Jose Clavano, Inc. refused to accept further payments and subsequently filed a lawsuit for rescission of the contract and forfeiture of the payments made. This suit was dismissed, and the petitioner did not pursue further action. In response, the Tenazas filed a complaint for specific performance with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) in Cebu City, seeking to compel the petitioner to honor the contract. They alleged that they had tendered sufficient payment, which the petitioner unreasonably refused to accept. On November 14, 1995, the HLURB ruled in favor of the Tenazas, ordering the petitioner to accept the payment, execute ...

Facts:

Contract to Sell: On April 8, 1994, petitioner Jose Clavano, Inc. sold a house and lot in Cebu City to private respondents, spouses Enrique and Venus Tenazas, under a contract to sell. The spouses paid 50% of the purchase price but later encountered difficulties in paying the balance and additional charges.

Rescission Suit: Alleging default, petitioner refused to accept further payments from the spouses and filed a lawsuit for rescission of the contract and forfeiture of prior payments. The suit was dismissed, and petitioner took no further action.

Specific Performance Complaint: Subsequently, the spouses filed a complaint for specific performance with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Regional Office in Cebu City, seeking to compel petitioner to honor the contract. They claimed they had tendered enough money to cover the balance, which petitioner unreasonably refused to accept.

HLURB Decision: On November 14, 1995, the HLURB Regional Office ruled in favor of the spouses, ordering petitioner to accept their payment, execute a deed of absolute sale, and pay damages. This decision was upheld by the HLURB on June 21, 1996, and subsequently by the Office of the President on March 12, 1998.

Finality of Decision: The HLURB Decision lapsed into finality on August 31, 1999, and a writ of execution was issued. Petitioner complied by surrendering an unnotarized deed of absolute sale, the transfer certificate of title, and other documents.

Motion for Defects: On March 23, 1999, the spouses filed a motion with the HLURB, complaining about defects in the housing unit and the fact that the deed of absolute sale was unnotarized. They also asked petitioner to pay for notarization and title transfer expenses.

HLURB Orders: On June 15, 1999, the HLURB granted the motion, ordering petitioner to pay for the notarization and title transfer expenses. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing this amended the final HLURB Decision, but it was denied on November 16, 1999.

Court of Appeals: Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a Rule 65 certiorari petition, which was dismissed on February 9, 2000. Reconsideration was denied on June 8, 2000, prompting the instant petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Finality of Judgment: A final and executory judgment cannot be amended, modified, or altered except to correct clerical errors or mistakes. The HLURB Orders, which imposed additional obligations on petitioner, were void as they amended the final HLURB Decision.

2. Execution Must Conform to Judgment: Execution must strictly conform to the dispositive portion of the judgment. The HLURB Orders exceeded the terms of the HLURB Decision by requiring petitioner to pay for expenses not stipulated in the original Decision.

3. Res Judicata: Private respondents are barred from raising the issue of title transfer expenses in a separate complaint because it could have been raised in the original action. The final HLURB Decision operates as res judicata.

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the HLURB and Court of Appeals Orders, and nullified the sheriff’s notice demanding reimbursement from petitioner. The HLURB Decision was remanded for immediate execution in accordance with its original terms.