SIXTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 48552. November 29, 1999.]
SPS. ESTRELLA AQUINO and FRANCISCO AQUINO (Deceased), petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD AND ZOSIMO NOCHE, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J p:
Petition for review of the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board in DARAB Case No. 3565, affirming the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator, Region IV, Oriental Mindoro, in DARAB Case No. IV-ORM-0003-91, "Spouses Francisco Aquino and Estrella Aquino vs. Zosimo Noche" for maintenance of peaceful possession and damages.
The petitioners alleged that in 1956, they were entrusted by respondent Zosimo Noche to till his Riceland with as area of 25,346 square meters located at Adiong, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro. In 1961, respondent convinced petitioners to transfer to his uncultivated 9000 square meter land located 500 meters away from his Riceland. Whereupon, petitioners transformed this area into a coconut land with various fruit-bearing trees. When copra production started, the parties shared equally from the income.
On December 14, 1989, by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27, 1 Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-2859, pursuant to Emancipation Patent No. 380730, was issued to petitioner Francisco Aquino. 2 the title covers a parcel of land consisting of 410 square meters where petitioners' house is situated. 3 This area is a part of the 9,000 square meter land being cultivated by the petitioners.
On February 9, 1990, respondent Noche filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, a complaint for illegal detainer against petitioners, docketed as Civil Case No. C-144. In their answer, petitioners raised the defense of lack of jurisdiction as the case involves tenancy relationship. Pursuant to R. A. 6657, 4 the case falls within the jurisdiction of the DARAB.
After hearing, the MTC rendered a decision in favor of respondent Noche.
On appeal, docketed as Civil Case No. C-144, the RTC affirmed the MTC decision. There being no petition for review interposed by petitioners to the Court of Appeals, the RTC decision became final and executory.
Petitioners then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of the RTC decision docketed as CA-G. R. SP No. 26775. On October 23, 1992, their petition was denied due course.
The appellate court held: 5
"The reason of petitioners is seeking the annulment of the questioned judgment and orders is that the lower courts had no jurisdiction over the case inasmuch as it involves a tenancy relationship. This is the same issue that Francisco raised in his answer to the complaint and which was resolved against him, because of the finding that he was not a tenant of private respondent in the subject premises, but of Adeline Noche, daughter of private respondent, on the land owned by the latter and situated some 500 meters from the subject premises. This finding of fact by the trial court had become final because Francisco did not appeal the decision of respondent Regional Trial Court affirming that finding. Having lost the remedy of appeal, petitioners cannot resort to the present course of action to revive an issue that has long been laid to rest.
"WHEREFORE, the petition is denied due course, with double costs against petitioners."
Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court on may 3, 1993, it rendered a Resolution, the dispositive part of which reads:
"G.R. No. 109283 (Sps. Estrella Aquino vs. Court of Appeals, et al.). —
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
CONSIDERING the failure of the petitioners to show any reversible error in the decisions of the three courts below, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for review on certiorari of the decision dated October 23, 1992 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. No. 26775.
The manifestation, dated March 29, 1993 filed by counsel for petitioners, stating, among other things, that this case is not a forum shopping because there is no pending case involving the same subject matter in any other court, is NOTED."
On January 3, 1994, an Entry of judgment was recorded in the Supreme Court Book of Entries of Judgment. 6
Meantime, on May 10, 1991, or prior to the promulgation of the Court of Appeals Decision, petitioners filed with the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator the instant complaint against Zosimo Noche for maintenance of peaceful possession. They alleged, among others, that they are tenants of respondent Noche in his Riceland: that at present, they are in danger of being evicted; and that they lost in the illegal detainer case because they are unaware of the intricacies of court procedure. To prove their claim, they presented receipts showing they have been paying rentals, certified machine copy of TCT No. T-2859 issued by the Register of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro on December 14, 1989 pursuant to the Emancipation Patent dated December 14, 1989 issued by the DAR.
Respondent Noche failed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Board is without jurisdiction since there is no tenancy relationship between the parties and that the issues raised in the petitioners' complaint have been finally resolved in Civil Case No. C-144 for unlawful detainer and judgment therein has become final and executory.
On December 6, 1994, the Provincial Adjudicator rendered a decision dismissing the case, thus:
"Congruent with the above-cited provisions of law and jurisprudence, this Board cannot control a competent court of jurisdiction whose decision became final and executory. For doing so would constitute maladministration. Plaintiffs after litigating the subject land in question cannot now seek relief before this Board for want to jurisdiction and under sanction of contempt prescribed by law.
"WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING this case for lack of merit.
"SO ORDERED."
On appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) affirmed the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator, thus —
"In fine, the issues of tenancy and homelot raised by plaintiffs in Special Civil Action No. 244, Civil Case No. C-114, CA-G.R. SP No. 26775, and the Supreme Court in G. R. No. 10923 may not be litigated anymore if not by the principle of res judicata but at least by conclusiveness of judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court, otherwise, we will be countenancing the anomalous situation of a board reviewing and reversing the decision of the land highest tribunal of the land.
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit."
Hence, this petition rising the following issues:
"1. There is tenancy relationship between petitioner Francisco Aquino and respondent Zosimo Noche;
"2. The courts are bereft of jurisdiction to try and hear agrarian case pursuant to R.A. 665;
"3. the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) grievously erred is not appreciating the emancipation patent and other substantial evidence in favor of tenant Francisco Aquino."
The above issues are the very same issues litigated and ruled upon by the MTC, RTC, Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court as previously narrated. It bears reiterating that the MTC found that petitioners are not tenants of respondent Noche in the subject property, but of Adeline Noche, his daughter. This finding of fact was affirmed by the RTC. For petitioners' failure to appeal to the Court of Appeals, such finding had become final. In their petition for annulment of the RTC judgment, the Court of Appeals held that having lost the remedy of appeal, petitioners cannot avail of a petition for annulment of judgment to revive an issue which has long been laid to rest. The Supreme Court itself ruled that petitioners failed to show any reversible error in the decisions of the three courts below.
The principle of res judicata finds application here.
For the principle of res judicata to apply, the following must be present: (a) a decision on the merits; (b) by a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) the decision is final; and (d) the two actions involve identical parties, subject matter and cause of action. 7
Considering that the instant petition and Civil Case No. C-144 for illegal detainer where judgment on the merits has become final and executory involve basically the same parties, subject matter and cause of action, it follows that all the requisites of res judicata are present.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the DARAB is AFFIRMED. The petition is hereby DENIED due course and is DISMISSED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED
Footnotes
1. The Tenant Emancipation Decree, promulgated on October 21, 1972.
2. Rollo, p. 109.
3. Rollo, p. 8.
4. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
5. Court of Appeals Decision, Rollo, p. 119.
6. Rollo, p. 121.
7. Bernardo vs. NLRC, 255 SCRA 108 (1996).