FELIMON IDANG, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ADORACION G. ANGELES, RTC, BRANCH 121, CALOOCAN CITY AND JUAN BATINGA, RESPONDENTS.

Felimon Idang is the awardee of a house of the National Housing
Authority at 48 Reparo Street, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. He leased a part of the house to Juan Batinga on a month-to-month
basis for P50.00 a month. On April 22,
1987, he brought an action for recovery of possession and damages against
Batinga on the ground that he needed the premises for himself and his family
and that Batinga had failed to pay the rents since April 1984. The case was filed in the Regional Trial
Court of Caloocan City which gave judgment for petitioner. On review, however, the Court of
Appeals reversed and sustained the private respond­ent’s position that
petitioner had been divested of his right to occupy and possess the house in
question for being an absentee owner. The
appellate court cited the rule of the NHA that “an absentee owner has no
right whatsoever to occupy his structure/dwelling unit not occupied by him at
the time of census.”

Petitioner did not appeal. Instead he brought an ejectment case against private respondent. The Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan
City dismissed his complaint based on the decision in the possessory action
declaring petitioner to have been “divested of his right to occupy and
possess” the house by reason of absenteeism. On appeal the Regional Trial Court affirmed the decision. Upon petition for review the Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court.

This petition is a petition for review on certiorari. Although it was given due course, upon
further consideration we find no merit in the petition after all.

As already stated, the courts below dismissed petitioner’s action
on the ground of res judicata. Petitioner
now seeks to avoid the force of the prior judgment in the possessory action on
the ground that it is void. He claims
that through the negligence of his counsel he was not able to present certain
documents, consisting of light and water
bills, which show that he was not an absentee owner and that if he was not home
when the NHA conducted a census in 1978, it was because he was working outside,
while his daughter was attend­ing class in school.

Private respondent claims, however, that the documents (i.e.,
light and water bills) were actually considered below, although they were not
given weight insofar as petitioner’s claim that he was not an absentee owner
was concerned. Indeed, it is possible
for an owner to be up to date in the payment of city serv­ices and still be absent from the dwelling place in
question because he has another dwelling place as it is claimed the petitioner
has. On the other hand, the NHA
receipts, which petitioner likewise says he was not able to submit below
because of the gross negligence of his counsel, are irrelevant because they were
issued only in 1992 after the decision in the possessory action had become
final.

Indeed, the validity of the decision of the Regional Trial Court
in the action for recovery of possession cannot be assailed because in fact it
was in favor of petitioner. It was the
Court of Appeals which, reversing that decision, held petitioner to have lost
the right to occupy and possess the property on the ground of absenteeism. Above all, the validity of the decision
cannot be collaterally questioned in this case. Petitioner should have appealed from that decision but he did
not. Neither did he bring an action for
the annulment of the judgment against him.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the resolution of November 29,
1993 giving due course to the petition for review on certiorari is
RECONSIDERED and RECALLED and the petition is DENIED for lack of merit for
failure of petitioner to show any reversible error committed by the Court of
Appeals.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Puno, JJ.,
concur.