REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, MIGUEL TOLENTINO, SR., ZOILA DE CHAVEZ, DEOGRACIAS MERCADO, MARIANO PANTOJA, GUILLERMO MERCADO, AGAPITO REYES, ISIDRO BESAS, LEONA LACHICA, ELENO MA…

Republic versus Tolentino

The Case

This is the Republic of the Philippines and Miguel Tolentino, Senior, together with the other registered owners and occupants named in the title, against the private respondents Ayala and Company, Hacienda Calatagan, and Alfonso Zobel. The action is a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus directed at the judge of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Branch Three. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to compel the execution of a final judgment in a long-running land case, and to reconsider the Court's earlier resolution of October 4, 1971. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between enforcing a final judgment and reopening it, and because it teaches when a person may recover damages from another at all.

Procedural History

The case began in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Branch Three, in Civil Case Number 373. On June 2, 1962, Judge Tengco rendered judgment. Among other things, the judgment declared null certain titles, including Transfer Certificate of Title Number 9550 covering Lots 360, 362, 363 and 182, and other subdivision titles issued in favor of Ayala and Company and Hacienda Calatagan over areas outside its private land, which were reverted to public dominion. The judgment also awarded compensatory damages to Miguel Tolentino, Senior, in the sum of 3,000 pesos a year per hectare of Lot 360 from March 11, 1954, until he is placed in lawful possession.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. In a decision penned by Justice Barrera, the Court modified the judgment, holding that the Dizons were possessors in good faith and could not be held liable for damages. That judgment became final and executory upon entry on December 11, 1965. Tolentino then sought execution of the damages award against the other defendants. The respondent judge issued a writ of execution on December 27, 1965, but later quashed it by order of February 2, 1966, on the ground that no decision ever found Ayala and the others to be possessors in bad faith. Tolentino and the Republic came to the Supreme Court by a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus. On October 4, 1971, the Court denied the petition, clarifying that the phrase "all the defendants" in the damages clause referred only to the Dizons. The petitioners now move for reconsideration of that resolution.

Facts

Ayala and Company and Hacienda Calatagan held land under Transfer Certificate of Title Number 722. They prepared a composite plan that included portions of the navigable public domain, and caused those areas to be titled in their names, including Transfer Certificate of Title Number 9550 covering Lots 360, 362, 363 and 182. Ayala later sold and delivered the land to the Dizons. By the time Tolentino filed his fishpond lease application on March 11, 1954, Ayala was already out of the picture.

In Civil Case Number 373, the trial court found that Lot 360 was part of the public dominion. It held the Dizons to be possessors in bad faith from March 11, 1954, when the Director of Fisheries dismissed their protest to the Tolentino fishpond application, and awarded Tolentino damages of 3,000 pesos a year per hectare from that date. On appeal, the Supreme Court held the Dizons to be possessors in good faith, entitled to retain the property until reimbursed for necessary expenses, and not liable for damages.

Tolentino nevertheless sought to execute the damages award against Ayala and the other defendants. The respondent judge quashed the writ, and the Court denied the petition for certiorari and mandamus on October 4, 1971. The petitioners now ask the Court to reconsider that resolution, insisting that the judgment had found all the defendants liable.

Issues

• Whether or not the order of the respondent judge quashing the writ of execution was correct, there being no finding that the private respondents were possessors in bad faith.
• Whether or not the resolution of October 4, 1971 set aside or reopened the final and executory judgment in Civil Case Number 373.
• Whether or not the phrase "all the defendants" in the damages clause included the private respondents.
• Whether or not Miguel Tolentino, Senior, is entitled to compensatory damages against the private respondents.

Applicable Provisions

Article 549 of the Civil Code, cited by the trial court and by Justice Makalintal in his concurring opinion, provides:

A possessor in bad faith shall reimburse the fruits received and those which the legitimate possessor could have received.

This provision imposes the liability for fruits upon the possessor in bad faith, and upon no other person, which is why the damages could only run against whoever was actually in possession.

Article 526 of the Civil Code, cited by the trial court, provides:

A possessor in good faith is one who is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.

This provision supplied the test by which the trial court first declared the Dizons possessors in bad faith, a finding later reversed on appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the order quashing the writ was correct. Nowhere in the judgment of the trial court or in the decision of the Supreme Court is there any pronouncement that Ayala and the others were possessors in bad faith and therefore liable for compensatory damages.

On the second issue, the Court held that the resolution of October 4, 1971 did not set aside or reopen the final judgment. It merely clarified an ambiguity and settled whether the private respondents were included in the damages award. The Court stressed the time-honored doctrine that a final and executory judgment may not be substantially amended or altered.

On the third issue, the Court construed the phrase "all the defendants" in the damages clause to refer merely to the Dizons, who were the only ones mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph of the judgment.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that even if the preparation of the composite plan were a tortious act, there is lacking the juridical tie between the private respondents and Tolentino. For one to obtain damages against another, he must show that he is clearly and unequivocally entitled to them as against the latter. Tolentino never proved this, and in fact never even testified. He was never in possession, and under the doctrine of Pitargue versus Sorilla, an applicant of public land must show prior possession and prior bona fide occupancy to recover damages from an adverse occupant.

Doctrine

A final and executory judgment may not be substantially amended or altered, save only as permitted in unquestioned jurisprudence. A resolution that merely clarifies an ambiguous dispositive portion does not reopen the judgment.

Damages under Article 549 of the Civil Code lie only against a possessor in bad faith, for the fruits he received and those the legitimate possessor could have received. Where the possessor is in good faith, no such liability attaches.

To recover damages, a plaintiff must show a clear and unequivocal juridical tie entitling him to them as against the defendant. An applicant of public land who was never in possession cannot recover damages from an adverse occupant.

Disposition

The motions for reconsideration of petitioner Tolentino and of the Solicitor General were both denied for lack of merit, with a clarification of the rights of the Republic to pursue cancellation of the nullified titles and the resurvey of the public land.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a final and executory judgment may not be substantially amended or altered, and a resolution that merely clarifies it does not reopen it. Examiners use this case on the finality of judgments, on the rule that damages lie only against a possessor in bad faith under Article 549, and on the requirement of a juridical tie before damages may be awarded.