SPOUSES AVELYN B. ANTONIO AND CONRADO A. ANTONIO, PETITIONERS, VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, MACEDONIO MONJE AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BAGANGA, BRANCH VII, RESPONDENTS.

This petition for review on certiorari seeks the reversal
of the decision of October 2, 1984 of the then Intermediate Appellate Court
dismissing the petition to annul the decision of the then Court of First
Instance of Davao Oriental, Branch I at Mati, on the grounds of res judicata
and wrong mode of appeal.

The records show that on January 16, 1967, the spouses Conrado
Antonio and Avelyn Balanay bought from Carolina Balanay and Nicanor Manguiob
three parcel’s of land Lot 1 of Plan F-100190 of the Bureau of Lands covered by
Original Certificate of Title No. 1020 with an area of 15,903 square meters,
Lot 2 of the same plan and covered by the same title, and Lot No. 2401 of the
Baganga Cadastre. The deed of sale
states that the title and ownership of the vendors, the spouses Carolina
Balanay and Nicanor Manguiob, are evidenced by a deed executed by the heirs of
Catalino Manguiob, who, with his wife Andrea Pansaon, originally owned the
land. In view of the sale to the Antonios,
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9643 covering Lot 1 was issued on January
26, 1967 in their names.

Claiming that 7,500 square meters of Lot 1 had been sold to him
on September 2, 1962 by Andrea Pansaon, Zosimo, Felimon, Rodriguez, Noveleta
and Anacleta, all surnamed Manguiob, Macedonio Monje filed on October 12, 1976,
in the then Court of First Instance of Davao Oriental a complaint seeking the
annulment of the deed of sale between the spouses Carolina Balanay and Nicanor
Manguiob and the heirs of Catalino Manguiob as well as TCT No. T-9643 in the
name of the Antonio spouses (Civil Case No. 007-125). According to Monje, after the sale in his favor, Nicanor Manguiob
refused to have his (Monje’s) title annotated at the back of OCT No. 1020. As he had allegedly redeemed the shares of
Nicanor and Vegilio for P200.00, Monje also prayed that he be declared as
having validly redeemed a 2,500-square-meter portion of the same property.

The Antonio spouses filed an answer alleging nullity of the sale
to Monje on the ground that the vendors are native Mandays or members of a
cultural minority and, therefore, the deed of sale in favor of Monje should
have been verified, investigated and approved by the Commissioner of National
Integration.

Purportedly because the venue of the case was a farflung coastal
town which can be reached only by a small boat or a three-seater airplane, the
Antonio spouses, who lived in the city, failed to receive personally any notice
of hearing which could have been addressed to their counsel, who, in the
meantime, had withdrawn his services. Thus, on August 27, 1981, the court rendered a decision based mainly on
the evidence adduced by Monje. Its
dispositive portion states:

“WHEREFORE, Judgment
is hereby rendered, declaring the 2nd and 3rd deeds of sale of the property in
question null and void and transfer certificate of title No. 9643 likewise null
and void; ordering the defendants jointly and solidarily to pay the plaintiff
moral damages of P30,000.00 and actual damages of P20,000.00, with legal
interest until the amount is fully paid; and, to pay the costs.

Let a copy of this decision be served on the Register of Deeds at
Mati, Davao Oriental, for appropriate action.

SO ORDERED.”

The Antonios filed a motion for the reconsideration of said
decision but it was denied by the lower court in its order of May 26,
1982. They received a copy of said
order on June 30, 1982^[1] but
it appears that they failed to interpose a timely appeal. Hence, on August 18, 1982, the Antonios
filed in this Court a petition for certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 61423
alleging that the lower court abused its discretion and deprived them of their
right to due process when it set the case for hearing notwithstanding its
receipt of their counsel’s notice of withdrawal of appearance. On August 25, 1982, the Court referred the
petition to the Court of Appeals which docketed it as CA-G.R. No. 14885-SP.

The Court of Appeals denied the petition on October 12, 1982.^[2]
The Antonios filed a motion for the reconsideration of said decision and, after
its denial, a second motion for reconsideration. In the resolution of January 27, 1983,^[3] the
then Intermediate Appellate Court denied the second motion for reconsideration
reasoning out in the main that the petition for certiorari filed by the
Antonios was not the proper mode for the review of the merits of the decision
of the lower court.^[4]

Hence, on February 28, 1983, the Antonios filed in this Court a
petition captioned as one for certiorari. Actually, it was a petition for review on certiorari
praying for the reversal of the decision of the Intermediate Appellate
Court. Docketed as G.R. No. 63479, the
petition was denied on March 25, 1983 for having been filed out of time and for
late payment of the legal fees.^[5]

Undaunted, on December 27, 1983, the Antonios filed in the then
Intermediate Appellate Court an Original petition for the declaration of
nullity of the decision of the lower court. Docketed as AC-G.R. SP No. 02352, the petition alleged that while the
sale between Carolina Balanay and the heirs of Catalino Manguiob “had been
duly registered and approved by the office of the Governor or the PANAMIN as
required by law,” the sale between Monje and the said heirs was not so
registered and approved and therefore the latter sale was invalid and inexistent;
that the decision of the court below was “absolutely null and void from
the beginning” because it was rendered without giving them a chance to
have their day in court to prove that TCT No. 9643 had been legally acquired
and the same was issued in accordance with law; that as the actual possessors
of the land in controversy, they were shocked by the award of P50,000.00 to
Monje, and that on account of the wrongful acts of the respondents, they were
forced to hire the services of counsel. Aside from their prayer for the annulment of the decision of the lower
court, the petitioners also prayed for the award of P50,000 as moral damages,
P20,000 as attorney’s fees and P10,000 as actual damages.

On October 2, 1984, the Intermediate Appellate Court promulgated
a decision^[6]
dismissing the petition. It explained
the dismissal thus:

“It would appear clearly then from the decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 14885-SP that what petitioners seek in the present
case are the very same ones which have already been ruled upon and denied by
the Court in the certiorari proceedings. Petitioners should not be allowed to relitigate what have already
been decided in said case.

Equally important is the fact that there is no allegation in the
present petition to the effect that the decision sought to be annulled was null
and void because it was obtained through extrinsic fraud, that is, fraud
affecting the jurisdiction of respondent Court. Libudan vs. Gil, 45 SCRA 17. As already held by the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. No. 14885-SP, the question of the nullity of the title of private
respondent because of non-compliance with the requirement regarding sales made
by members of the cultural minority is a matter that is addressed to the merits
of the case which should have been raised by petitioners on appeal. Unfortunately, petitioners failed to appeal
from the decision in question and their petition for certiorari to annul
the same had been denied by the Court.”

Their motion for the reconsideration of said decision having been
denied, petitioners filed the instant petition for review on certiorari. They cite as reasons for the allowance of
their petition the following: (a) the
contract of sale in favor of Monje was inexistent as it was not approved by the
proper government authority, the vendors being members of a cultural minority,
and therefore no valid judgment can be predicated upon an inexistent contract;
(b) at the very least, the decision of the trial court is void with respect to
the portion covered by TCT No. 9643 which was never the subject of the
litigation, and (c) the lower court abused its discretion in awarding
P50,000.00 damages to Monje concerning property he had bought for only P1,000
as such award was not supported by evidence and, therefore, this Court must exercise
its constitutional power to review and reverse or modify final judgments of
inferior courts.

At the outset, it should be noted that the petitioners herein
resorted to the special civil action of certiorari before this Court
when after losing the case in the lower court, it dawned on them that they had
lost the right to appeal. Indeed,
failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary fifteen-day period renders
final and executory the questioned decision^[7] and
deprives the Court of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment.^[8]
The petitioners herein, having failed to appeal the decision of the lower
court, are deemed to have waived their right to question its intrinsic defects.

Moreover, as their failure to appeal is not clearly explained,
they should learn to live with the consequences of their inaction or
omission. Their resort to the petition
for certiorari was a vain attempt to reopen the case for review but, as
the Intermediate Appellate Court declared in its decision in CA-G.R. No.
14885-SP, no question of jurisdiction was involved and petitioners filed the
petition for certiorari “merely as a substitute for an appeal which
they failed to pursue.”^[9] Thus,
the issue of the validity of the sale to Monje which goes into the very merits
of the case, may no longer be reopened and reviewed by this Court.

However, while certiorari does not lie to correct errors
of judgment which may be ventilated only on appeal,^[10]
this Court cannot close its eyes to a defect of any decision which, if
tolerated, may result in an injustice to any litigant. The Court’s duty to render justice is so
encompassing that even if an issue has not been raised as an error by the
parties, it may review the same if the exercise of such duty is necessary in
arriving at a just resolution of a case.^[11] And,
although it is not a trier of facts, this Court may still wade through the
records of a case if only to prevent delay in its disposition.^[12]

A thorough study of this case reveals a very disturbing aspect in
the decision of the court below which is tantamount to grave abuse of
discretion and in excess of its jurisdiction. Said decision, a copy of which is attached to the rollo of G.R. No.
63479,^[13]
begins with the statement that it is “an action commenced by plaintiff
(Monje) against the defendants for annulment of a deed of sale and the
consequent Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9643 covering Lot No. 1 of Plan
No. F-100190, Patent No. 16274, covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
1020.” Further on, however, the court makes the following findings of
fact:

“The surviving heirs above-mentioned, particularly Andrea,
Zosimo, Felimon, Anacleta, Rodriguez
and Novelita, after an oral extrajudicial partition, voluntarily entered by and
among themselves, on September 2, 1962, sold their respective shares in Lot No.
1 by way of absolute sale to herein plaintiff, Macedonio Monje, for a
consideration of P1,000.00, with an area of 7,500 square
meters, under Doc. No. 48, Page No. 10, No.
5, Series of 1962 of notary public Ricardo Reyes of Bangaga, Davao Oriental.” (Underscoring supplied.)

In its dispositive portion, as quoted above, said decision
nullifies the second and third deeds of sale and TCT No. T-9643. It is not disputed, however, that TCT No.
T-9643 covers Lot No. 1 with an area of 1.5903
hectares^[14] or
more than twice the area sold to Monje. This matter did not escape the attention of this Court when it issued
the following resolution of July 29, 1985:^[15]

“Considering the reply of petitioner to respondent’s comment
on the petition for review on certiorari, the Court resolved to require
the respondents to file a REJOINDER to said reply particularly on the alleged
basic defects of the decision of the trial court in (a) that it declared the
title of the petitioners covering an area of 15,903 square meters as wholly
void even if the respondents, in their complaint, placed in litigation only
less than one-half of that area, or only an area of 7,500 square meters; and
(b) that the trial court awarded the respondents P30,000 in moral damages and
P20,000 in actual damages or a total of P50,000 in litigation which involved
property allegedly bought by Monje for only P1,000 without any proof on the
alleged damages other than an indeterminable and undetermined cause which the
trial court vaguely described as not beyond imagination, within ten (10) days
from notice hereof.”

Counsel for private respondent, however, filed a one-page
rejoinder lamely explaining that: (a)
he became counsel for private respondent only after the filing of the petition
for certiorari in the then Intermediate Appellate Court; (b) the trial
court’s ruling that petitioners waived their right to present evidence was
affirmed not only by the Intermediate Appellate Court but also by this Court,
and (c) the award of P50,000 damages was “the conclusion” of Judge
Roque M. Barnes and, anyway, he was not yet the counsel for the private
respondent then.^[16]

We find that while the principle of res judicata is
better disregarded if its application would involve the sacrifice of justice to
technicality,^[17]
to so disregard it now and reopen the case would further delay its
disposition. However, the lower court
should take note of its erroneous order to deliver to Monje an area larger than
what he bought from the heirs of Manguiob and claimed in the action he had
filed, in the eventual execution of its decision. In the same way that the power of the court in the execution of
its judgment extends only over properties belonging to the judgment debtor^[18],
the court below may not, in the execution of its decision of August 27, 1981,
deliver to Monje the entire area covered by TCT No. T-9643 as it is more than
double that of the property he had bought.

This patent error might not have been noticed by this Court in
the first petition for certiorari (G.R No. 61423) because petitioners
merely emphasized therein the lower court’s alleged abuse of discretion in
deciding the case without giving them a chance to be heard. In the petition for annulment of the August
27, 1981 decision of the lower court before the Intermediate Appellate Court,
petitioners also underscored the facts that (1) they did not have their day in
court and (2) the sale to Monje was invalid for lack of the required approval
of the proper government authority regarding cultural minorities. It was not surprising, therefore, that the
appellate court dismissed the petition as it was just a litigation of the same
issues all over again.

With regard to the award of P50,000 damages to Monje, the lower
court justified it by its finding that Monje had been in possession of the land
he bought since “the consummation of the sale” and that he
constructed a house thereon worth P30,000. To the lower court, the second and third sales of the same property to
Carolina Balanay and to the Antonio spouses were entered into in bad faith as
these “unwarranted acts” threatened the right of Monje over the
property and impelled him to file the action for annulment of the deeds of sale
and TCT No. T-9643 which action “lasted for fourteen (14) years at great
expense.” It concluded that the
“anguish and anxiety suffered and experienced by the plaintiff is not
beyond imagination.”^[19] The
phrase “not beyond imagination” notwithstanding, we hold that there
is a basis for the award of damages and, therefore, the Court sees no reason to
disturb it.

WHEREFORE, the
instant petition is hereby DENIED and the October 2, 1984 decision of the then
Intermediate Appellate Court is hereby AFFIRMED. The lower court is reminded to exercise extreme caution in the
execution of its decision of August 27, 1981 which should be in line with the
discussion above on the limits of the properties claimed by both parties. This decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., (Chairman), Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Melo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo of G.R. No. 61423, “Avelyn B. Antonio and Conrado Antonio v.
Hon. Roque Barnes and Macedonio Monje,” p. 5.

^[2]
Rollo of G.R. No. 63479, “Avelyn B. Antonio and Conrado Antonio v.
Intermediate Appellate Court and Macedonio Monje,” p. 6. No copy of the
decision of October 12, 1982 can be found in any of the rollos pertinent
to this case.

^[3]
Penned by Justice Vicente Mendoza & concurred in by Justices Serafin R.
Cuevas and Luis A. Javellana.

^[4]
Rollo of G.R. No. 63479, p. 20.

^[5]
Rollo of G.R. No. 63479, “Avelyn B. Antonio, et al. v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.,” p. 23.

^[6]
Penned by Justice Lino M. Patajo and concurred in by Justices Simeon M.
Gopengco, Jose F. Racela, Jr. and Fidel P. Purisima.

^[7]
Vda. de Suan v. Unson, G.R. No. 30716, May 18, 1990, 185 SCRA 437; Orata
v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73471, May 8, 1990, 185 SCRA
148.

^[8]
Delgado v. Republic, G.R. No. 45351, Aug. 15, 1988, 164 SCRA 347.

^[9]
Rollo in G.R. No. 63479, p. 19.

^[10]
Reyes v. Camilon, G.R. No. 46198, December 20, 1990, 192 SCRA 445.

^[11]
Sociedad Europea de Financiacion, S.A. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
75787, January 2, 1991, 193 SCRA 105.

^[12]
Valdez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85082, February 25, 1991, 194 SCRA
360.

^[13]
Page 13 thereof.

^[14]
Rollo of AC-G.R. SP No. 02352 attached to the Rollo of G.R. No.
69696, p. 6.

^[15]
Rollo, p. 84-a.

^[16]
Ibid., p. 87.

^[17]
Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
78771, January 23, 1991, 193 SCRA 158.

^[18]
Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
78771, January 23, 1991, 193 SCRA 158.

^[19]
Rollo in G.R. No. 63479, pp. 13 to 17.