G.R. No. L-4844. February 25, 1954

In cadastral case No. 3, G.L.R.O. record No. 213 of the Court of
First Instance of Quezon, Pedro R. Loyola and Antonino Ramos (the
latter in representation of his minor children Consolacion, Ramon,
Socorro and Cirila Ramos) filed conflicting claims over lots Nos. 67-B,
217A and 240. On December 13, 1924, the Supreme Court rendered a decision defining
the rights of said litigants and remanding the case to the court a quo
for the execution of the judgment. The court of first instance in due
time appointed as commissioner of partition Pedro R. Almonte, acting
district land officer. The latter submitted one project of partition on
January 22, 1925 and another on September 9, 1926. The court approved
the second project of partition. Claiming that this partition was
unequal and unjust, Antonino Ramos appealed to the Supreme Court which,
on March 18, 1929, overruled his appeal.

On December 30, 1948, Consolacion, Ramon, Socorro and Cirila Ramos
filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, alleging in
substance that there was no full and final partition of the lots
hereinabove mentioned, because partition commissioner Pedro R. Almonte
had acted fraudulently and in gross violation of the decision of the
Supreme Court of December 13, 1924, and praying that a complete and
final partition be made in accordance with said decision, that another
commissioner be appointed, and that a writ of possession be issued in
favor of the petitioners over the portions corresponding to them. This
petition was opposed by Celestino Lagrosa and Teodoro Arquiza. On
December 18, 1950, the court denied the petition for lack of merit and
on the ground of res adjudicata. The present appeal was taken by the petitioners.

There is clearly no merit in appellants’ basic contention that the
partition of the three lots as specified in the project submitted by
commissioner Almonte is not in accordance with the decision of this
Court of December 13, 1924. The correctness and propriety of said
partition had already been passed upon, first, when Antonino Ramos
appealed from the order of the court of first instance approving the
second project of partition submitted by commissioner Almonte, and this
Court affirmed the decision of the lower court; and, secondly, when a
petition for certiorari was filed in this Court, assailing the denial
by the court of first instance of the petition for correction, and this
Court dismissed said petition for certiorari on the ground already of res adjudicata.
That the same subject-matter is now being litigated for the third time,
is too obvious to escape observation. There must be a deadline for
finality of judgments.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed with double costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.