Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1995 > November 1995 Decisions > G.R. No. 104846 November 23, 1995 - RODRIGO GABUYA v. ANTONIO LAYUG, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 104846. November 23, 1995.]

RODRIGO GABUYA represented by his attorney-in-fact LUCIA PONCE, Petitioner, v. ANTONIO LAYUG and HON. FEDERICO NOEL, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ILAGAN CITY BRANCH 2, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; BAR BY PRIOR JUDGMENT; FINAL JUDGMENT INVOLVING THE SAME PARTIES, FACTS AND ISSUES BINDS THE PARTIES NOT ONLY AS TO EVERY MATTER OFFERED AND RECEIVED BUT ALSO TO ANY ADMISSIBLE MATTER THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDGED IN THAT CASE. — There is obvious merit in the petition. The final judgment of this Court in G.R. No. 75364 promulgated 23 November 1988 involving the same parties, facts and issues constitutes an absolute bar to Civil Case No. II-1408 now pending with the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte, Br. 2. It is final as to all claims and demands of petitioner Gabuya and respondent Layug with regard to the twelve (12) lots in Iligan City subject matter of the contract of sale ordered cancelled by this Court. This judgment binds the parties not only as to every matter offered and received to sustain or defeat their claims or demand but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose and of all other matters that could have been adjudged in that case.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED AS COUNTERCLAIM IN ANNULMENT OF CONTRACT. — In the case before us, the claim for reimbursement of the value of improvements introduced by respondent Layug on the property subject of the contract of sale should have been raised by him as a counterclaim in the complaint for annulment of contract before the trial court in they first case instituted by petitioner Gabuya. The failure of respondent Layug to raise these matters therein precludes the re-litigation of the same facts in a separate complaint. It has been ruled that when defendants are sued for recovery of a tract of land they ought to have presented a counterclaim for the value of the improvements thereon and the amount of damages suffered by them because the claim for such improvements and indemnity is necessarily connected with the suit for the restitution or recovery of land claimed to have been improved, and with the result of the execution of the judgment awarding recovery.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

3. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; ISSUANCE OF ORDERS UNDULY INTERFERING WITH A FINAL JUDGMENT INVOLVING THE SAME PARTIES, FACTS AND ISSUES CONSTITUTES GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION. — On the basis of the foregoing, the questioned orders issued by respondent judge on 16 October 1991 and 11 March 1992 restraining the deputy sheriff from implementing the writ of execution of the final judgment of this Court in G.R. No. 75364 were issued by respondent judge with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned orders issued of respondent judge dated 16 October 1991 and 11 March 1992, as well as the proceedings in Civil case No. II-1408 now pending with the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte, Br. 2, are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Respondent judge, or whoever may now be acting in his behalf or assigned to the case, is directed to pursue immediately the implementation of the writ of execution issued on 31 may 1989 to satisfy the judgment that has long become final and executory. Costs against private Respondent.


D E C I S I O N


BELLOSILLO, J.:


This a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul the orders dated 16 October 1991 and 11 March 1992 of respondent Judge Federico V. noel, Regional Trial Court, Lanao del Norte, Br. 2, in Civil Case No. II-1408, Antonio Layug v. Rodrigo Gabuya, and to annul the proceedings held thereon. The questioned orders and proceedings are alleged to unduly interfere with the final Judgment of his Court in G.R. No. 75364 involving the same parties, the same facts and the same issues. 1

On 4 October 1978 private respondent Antonio Layug entered into a contract with petitioner Rodrigo Gabuya for the purchase by the former of the latters twelve (12) lots situated in Iligan City for the price of P120,000.00 payable in three (3) yearly installments. Respondent Layug paid the first two (2) annual installments totalling P80,000.00 but failed to pay the last installment of P40,000.00. When formal demands for payment were made by petitioner and respondent repeatedly failed to pay the former brought suit in they then Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte (now Regional Trial Court) for annulment of contract and for recovery of damages against Layug.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

After trial judgment was rendered in favor of petitioner. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which on 30 August 1985 affirmed the judgment. The appellate court (1) ordered the rescission of the conditional sale of the twelve (12) lots described in the contract; (2) declared as rentals for the twelve (12) lots from 1978 to the present (30 August 1985) all payments made by respondent Layug to Gabuya plus the legal interest thereon from the execution of the contract; (3) ordered respondent Layug to vacate the twelve (12) lots and deliver the possession thereof to petitioner Gabuya; and, (4) ordered respondent Layug to pay petitioner Gabuya the sum of P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees and to pay the costs.

On appeal to us we affirmed the Court of Appeals particularly insofar as it authorized the cancellation by petitioner Gabuya of the contract of sale with respondent Layug but modified the same to the affect that the cancellation should be effective and fully operative only upon payment of the "cash surrender value" of his payments in the sum of P40,000.00.

On 8 March 1989 our decision became final and executory. Consequently, on 31 May 1989 a writ of execution was issued by the trial court. On 8 June 1989 a certificate of turnover was issued by Sheriff Elias Anacleto in favor of petitioner. But the order of execution was elevated by respondent Layug through a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals which subsequently dismissed it.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

On 30 September 1991 the sheriff submitted to the trial court a return of the writ of execution with the recommendation that the buildings of private respondent found in the property be demolished.

Meanwhile, on 27 June 1989 respondent Layug filed a complaint for specific performance with prayer for a temporary restraining order against petitioner seeking reimbursement for the value of the improvements, buildings and materials he (Layug) introduced in the premises covered by the contract of sale which by final judgment of this Court was already ordered rescinded.

His motion to dismiss in the court below having been denied petitioner filed his answer to the compliant.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On 16 October 1991 respondent judge issued an order directing Deputy Provincial Sheriff Salcedo "to refrain from disposs(ess)ing plaintiff of the possession of the property until ordered by they court. 2 On 22 January 1992 the trial court on motion of petitioner reconsidered its order. However on 11 March 1992, this time upon motion of respondent Layug, it again reconsidered its order and reinstated the restraining order of 16 October 1991 against Deputy Sheriff Salcedo. Hence this petition by Rodrigo Gabuya against respondent judge and Antonio Layug alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondent judge in taking cognizance of Civil Case No. II-1408 and in issuing the questioned orders.

There is obvious merit in the petition. The final judgment of this Court in G.R. No. 75364 promulgated 23 November 1988 involving the same parties, facts and issues constitutes an absolute bar to Civil Case No. II-1408 now pending with the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte, Br. 2. It is final as to all claims and demands of petitioner Gabuya and respondent Layug with regard to the twelve (12) lots in Iligan City subject matter of the contract of sale ordered cancelled by this Court. This judgment binds the parties not only as to every matter offered and received to sustain or defeat their claims or demand but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose and of all other matters that could have been adjudged in that case.

In the case before us, the claim for reimbursement of the value of improvements introduced by respondent Layug on the property subject of the contract of sale should have been raised by him as a counterclaim in the complaint for annulment of contract before the trial court in they first case instituted by petitioner Gabuya. The failure of respondent Layug to raise these matters therein precludes the re-litigation of the same facts in a separate complaint. It has been ruled that when defendants are sued for recovery of a tract of land they ought to have presented a counterclaim for the value of the improvements thereon and the amount of damages suffered by them because the claim for such improvements and indemnity is necessarily connected with the suit for the restitution or recovery of land claimed to have been improved, and with the result of the execution of the judgment awarding recovery. 3chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

On the basis of the foregoing, the questioned orders issued by respondent judge on 16 October 1991 and 11 March 1992 restraining the deputy sheriff from implementing the writ of execution of the final judgment of this Court in G.R. No. 75364 were issued by respondent judge with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The questioned orders issued of respondent judge dated 16 October 1991 and 11 March 1992, as well as the proceedings in Civil case No. II-1408 now pending with the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte, Br. 2, are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Respondent judge, or whoever may now be acting in his behalf or assigned to the case, is directed to pursue immediately the implementation of the writ of execution issued on 31 may 1989 to satisfy the judgment that has long become final and executory. Costs against private Respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, J., Davide, Jr., Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Layug v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R No. 75364, 23 November 1988; 167 SCRA 627.

2. Rollo, p. 16.

3. Francisco, Vicente J., The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, 1973 Ed, Vol. I, p. 465, citing Berses v. Villanueva, 25 Phil. 473.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-936 November 6, 1995 - SALVADOR M. PEREZ v. HILARION A. SULLER

  • G.R. No. 90198 November 7, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO D. PLASENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112264 November 10, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTHUR D. PIDIA Y DACARA, ET AL

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1093 November 16, 1995 - ADELMA A. DE LUNA v. PERSEVERANDA L. RICON

  • Adm. Case No. 3736 November 16, 1995 - CRAIG L. FORD v. ESCOLASTICO DAITOL

  • G.R. Nos. 98402-04 November 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PONCIANO L. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 107541 November 16, 1995 - PAMPANGA II ELECTRIC COOP., INC., ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107798 November 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO L. LUTAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108280-83 & 114931-33 November 16, 1995 - ROMEO SISON, ET AL., v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111180 November 16, 1995 - DAISIE T. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116192 November 16, 1995 - EUFEMIA SARMIENTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116730 November 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 118910 November 16, 1995 - KILOSBAYAN, INCORPORATED, ET AL. v. MANUEL L. MORATO

  • G.R. No. 94363 November 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS MANZANA

  • G.R. No. 92418 November 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RITA LABRIAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105958 November 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO LEDESMA

  • G.R. No. 109093 November 20, 1995 - LOPE MACHETE, ET AL., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109903 November 20, 1995 - ANDRES SUOBIRON, ET AL., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94713 November 23, 1995 - MANSION BISCUIT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 104846 November 23, 1995 - RODRIGO GABUYA v. ANTONIO LAYUG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107207 November 23, 1995 - VIRGILIO R. ROMERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108958 November 23, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO O. DIGNO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112120 November 25, 1995 - SOUTH VILLA CHINESE RESTAURANT & CITY FOODS v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 113515 November 23, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO LAPUZ

  • G.R. No. 114161 November 23, 1995 - VIRGILIO M. CAÑETE v. NLRC, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 115430 November 23, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIZABETH D. GANGUSO

  • G.R. No. 116149 November 23, 1995 - ELVIRA MATO VDA. DE OÑATE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118088 November 23, 1995 - MAINLAND CONSTRUCTIONS, CO., INC., ET AL., v. MILA C. MOVILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120426 November 23, 1995 - NICOLAS C. CASTROMAYOR v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121510 November 23, 1995 - FABIANA C. VDA. DE SALAZAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97258 November 24, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATANACIO TAHUM, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107106 November 24, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO JOSE, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. 112909 November 24, 1995 - MOLAVE TOURS CORPORATION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116813 November 24, 1995 - MAGNOLIA CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1045 November 28, 1995 - LUIS C. BENGZON v. LUISITO ADAOAG

  • G.R. No. 97222 November 28, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE L. JIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. 100829 November 28, 1995 - LIBERATO SAN ANTONIO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114282 November 28, 1995 - ACEYORK AGUILAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-981 November 29, 1995 - ANALYN GIMENO v. CELSO A. ARCUENO, SR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-828 November 29, 1995 - TEOFILO N. PUGEDA, JR. v. ALBERT N. NAVALTA

  • G.R. No. 112235 November 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS C. LOVEDIORO

  • G.R. No. 116845 November 29, 1995 - RICARDO BEMBO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118833 November 29, 1995 - ACEBEDO OPTICAL CO., INC., v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL

  • G.R. No. 121428 November 29, 1995 - EX-BATAAN VETERANS SECURITY AGENCY, INC. v. NLRC