Title
Santiago Lopez and Irineo Lopez vs. Hon. Manases G. Reyes, Judge of the Court of 1st Instance of Davao, et al.
Case
G.R. No. L-29498
Decision Date
May 31, 1977
Petitioners sought to modify a writ of execution enforcing a final judgment for an eight-hectare land transfer, but the Supreme Court upheld the decision, citing res judicata and finality of judgment.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29498)

Facts:

  1. Background of the Case:

    • Petitioners Santiago Lopez and Irineo Lopez filed a special civil action of certiorari to nullify the order of respondent Judge Manases G. Reyes, which denied their motion to modify the writ of execution issued in Civil Case No. 2298.
    • The writ of execution directed the petitioners to segregate an eight-hectare portion of the land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 2990 and deliver the corresponding title to respondent Juan Magallanes.

  2. Previous Judgments:

    • On August 9, 1958, the Court of First Instance of Davao, presided by Judge Honorio Romero, rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 2298, dismissing the complaint and ordering the petitioners to segregate and deliver the eight-hectare portion to Magallanes.
    • This decision was based on a final judgment by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 9874-R, which had already decided the ownership of the eight-hectare land in favor of Magallanes.
    • The petitioners appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the lower court's decision on April 23, 1963. The Supreme Court's decision became final and executory on May 28, 1963.

  3. Motion for Execution:

    • On April 2, 1968, Magallanes filed a Motion for Execution to enforce the 1963 Supreme Court decision.
    • On April 6, 1968, the trial court issued a writ of execution directing the segregation and delivery of the eight-hectare portion to Magallanes.

  4. Petitioners' Motion to Modify Writ of Execution:

    • On April 15, 1968, the petitioners filed a Motion to Modify the Writ of Execution, arguing that:
      • The writ did not specify the exact area with definite boundaries as described in the 1942 deed of sale with right to repurchase.
      • The actual area within the specified boundaries was only 64,640 square meters, not eight hectares.
      • The land had been surveyed and segregated, and the 64,640 square meters portion was now covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-5340 in the name of Irineo Lopez.
    • The petitioners requested the court to modify the writ to reflect the actual area of 64,640 square meters.

  5. Opposition to the Motion:

    • Magallanes opposed the motion, arguing that:
      • The writ of execution was based on a final and executory decision, which could not be modified.
      • The deed of sale specifically stated that eight hectares were sold.
      • The survey conducted by the petitioners was done without Magallanes' knowledge or consent.

  6. Trial Court's Ruling:

    • On April 26, 1968, the trial court denied the petitioners' Motion to Modify the Writ of Execution, stating that the writ was issued to enforce a final judgment, which was beyond the court's authority to amend or modify.
    • The motion for reconsideration was also denied on June 21, 1968.

  7. Petition for Certiorari:

    • The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, contending that the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in denying their Motion to Modify the Writ of Execution.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Res Judicata:

    • The doctrine of res judicata applies to the case, as the issue of the eight-hectare portion of the land had already been decided by final judgment in previous cases involving the same parties.
    • The petitioners' right to contest Magallanes' title over the eight-hectare land was conclusively foreclosed by the final judgment in CA-G.R. No. 9874-R and the Supreme Court's decision in G.R. No. L-14853.

  2. Finality of Judgment:

    • The writ of execution was issued to enforce a final and executory judgment, which the trial court had no authority to amend or modify.
    • The petitioners' argument that the actual area was only 64,640 square meters could have been raised in the previous cases but was not, and thus, it could not be considered a supervening event justifying a modification of the writ.

  3. Doctrine of the Law of the Case:

    • The 1963 Supreme Court decision affirming the eight-hectare area to be delivered to Magallanes had become the law of the case. Even if erroneous, this holding could no longer be disturbed.

  4. No Grave Abuse of Discretion:

    • The respondent judge did not gravely abuse his discretion in denying the petitioners' Motion to Modify the Writ of Execution, as the writ was issued in accordance with a final and executory judgment.

Concurring Opinions

  • Justice Aquino concurred, emphasizing that the 1963 Supreme Court decision had become the law of the case and was conclusive, barring any relitigation of the issue regarding the area of the land to be delivered to Magallanes.
  • Justice Barredo also concurred, noting that the petitioners had lost their right to claim the survey results as a supervening event, as the issue of the exact area should have been raised in the previous cases.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the respondent judge did not gravely abuse his discretion in refusing to modify the writ of execution. The decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1963, specifically ordered the segregation and delivery of an eight-hectare portion of the land to Magallanes, and this decision had become final and executory.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

About Privacy Terms