GODOFREDO T. SWAN, GERMAN T. SWAN, GABRIEL T. SWAN AND GLENN T. SWAN, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES PATROCINIO LLADONES AND NIEVES LLADONES, RESPONDENTS.

The petitioners, the brothers Swan, pray that this Court, in G.R.
No. 104554, restrain the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, Branch 85, from
proceeding with the execution pending appeal of the ejectment case elevated to
said court by petitioners, on the ground that this Court in G.R. No. 97319 has
already given due course to their petition wherein they pray that the
respondent Court of Appeals’ Decision of January 14, 1991 ordering the
dismissal of their complaint against the private respondents in the Quezon City
RTC, Branch 104, as well as its Resolution of February 19, 1991, denying their
motion for reconsideration of said decision be set aside.

The Record discloses that the disputed property in the case at
bar is a People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC) lot designated as
Block 5, Lot 21 of the Bago-Bantay, Quezon City Subdivision Plan.

Petitioners claim that sometime in 1959, their parents, Atanacio
B. Swan and Maria T. Swan, came to settle permanently in Bago Bantay, Q.C. and
occupied said disputed lot. At that
time the Bago-Bantay area was being subdivided by the government to be awarded
to the occupants. The spouses Lladones
moved in opposite them occupying a portion of Block 5, Lot 22 sometime in
1961. Atanacio B. Swan had to file in
November 28, 1967 another application to purchase said lot as he found his
application was missing when he followed up his original application. Around ten years later, or on January 14, 1977,
the spouses Lladones filed another application to purchase the disputed lot
(Block 5, Lot 21) when they discovered that Block 5, Lot 22 — which they
(Spouses Lladones) were occupying — was awarded to another family (the
Zenarosa family). Said spouses
Lladones, allegedly without the knowledge of the Swans, obtained TCT No. 286437
over said Block 5, Lot 21 on March 26, 1982. Thus, the Swans filed Civil Case Q-90-­5183 against the spouses Lladones
for annulment and cancellation of title. When the Quezon City RTC did not dismiss their complaint as moved by the
spouses Lladones, the matter was brought up by the spouses Lladones to the
respondent Court of Appeals which then reversed the Quezon City RTC on the
ground that the Swans’ action should have been a special civil action for certiorari
wherein the National Housing Authority (NHA) (successor of the PHHC) should
have been alleged to have gravely abused its discretion in awarding the
disputed lot to the spouses Lladones. The decision of the respondent court became the basis of G.R. No. 97319.

Private respondents, on the other hand, in their Rejoinder stated
that:

“The above parcel of land is already ‘pulverished’ by several
cases on it.

“The first one was on July 1, 1977, filed by Sps. Teodoro and
Fortunata Laher, one of the several occupants, together with Maria Swan, mother
of herein petitioners, against NHA.         
Patrocinio Lladones, Walter Balanga and Sabas Insiong to annul the award of the
lot to Patrocinio Lladones by NHA covered by said TCT No. 286437, before the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch V, presided by Hon. Eduardo C.
Tutaan.

“On January 11, 1982, the court a quo then issued an
Order dismissing the case.

“Plaintiffs (Laher) elevated the case on certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus in CA-G.R. SP No. 14209-R to the Court of
Appeals, which afterwards, rendered a decision denying said petition stating
that the court a quo then did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing the complaint.

“Then, Patrocinio Lladones filed a case of recovery of possession
against Teodoro Laher before Branch 101, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
presided by Hon. Pedro T. Santiago docketed as Civil Case No. Q-40957.

” In that case plaintiff (Lladones) won. x x x

“The defendant here did not appeal the above decision.

“As a consequence of the above case, on November 12, 1985,
Patrocinio Lladones filed two ejectment cases before the Metropolitan Trial
Court, Branch 34, Quezon City against Maria Swan, mother of herein petitioners
and Raymundo Ala, another occupants (sic) of the premises in question, docketed
as Civil Cases No. 48810 and 48811, respectively.

“On November 29, 1988, a decision was promulgated by the court
(in favor of Lladones). x x x

“In the afternoon of September 14, 1989, defendants were
ejected and their shanties were demolished and removed from the parcel of land
covered by TCT No. 286437.

“However, on same date, on or about 5:00 P.M., defendants,
herein petitioners re­entered the premises.

“Consequently, on February 14, 1990, private
respondents filed a case of forcible entry with prayer for preliminary
injunction against petitioners before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Metro
Manila, Branch 37, Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. 37­-2571.

“On April 6, 1990, petitioners filed a Civil Case of Annulment
and Cancellation of TCT No. 286437 against private respondents, before Regional
Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 104, Quezon City,
docketed as Civil Case No. Q-90-5183, the subject matter of this petition.

“On May 29, 1991, a decision was promulgated in Civil Case No.
37-2571 (in favor of the private respondents spouses Lladones). x x x”^[1]

In the meantime, as above-stated, Civil Case No. 37-2571, Quezon
City, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 37, had been decided in favor of herein
private respondents on May 19, 1991.^[2]
Although petitioners (as defendants therein) appealed said case to the Quezon
City RTC, Branch 85, private respondents’ motion for execution pending appeal
was granted by said appellate court on February 10, 1992.^[3]
Petitioners were given 5 days from March 23, 1992 to vacate the disputed lot by
Sheriff Bernas.^[4]
Petitioners now come to this Court and pray that We enjoin the ejectment
proceedings.^[5]

The sheriff’s notice to vacate is the reality that confronts
Us. It gives credence to private respondents’
version of the antecedents of the case — specially their claim that
petitioners did not appeal —

(1) the annulment case filed on July 1, 1977 by the spouses
Laher and Maria T. Swan (deceased mother of petitioners) against the National
Housing Authority, Patrocinio Lladones (one of the private respondents), Walter
Balanga and Sabas Insiong to contest the award of the disputed lot (covered by
TCT No. 286437) to private respondent Patrocinio Lladones by the NHA. This was filed before the then Court of
First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch V, presided by the Hon.
Eduardo C. Tutaan. The case was
dismissed on January 11, 1982. This was
elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 14209-R) which Court denied
the same^[6];
and

(2) the case of recovery of possession filed by private respondent
Patrocinio Lladones against Teodoro Laher before Branch 101, Quezon City RTC,
docketed as Civil Case No. Q-40957 which was decided in Lladones’ favor on
March 7, 1985.^[7]

Precisely because these two (2) aforementioned cases were not
appealed, the private respondents filed two ejectment cases against Maria Swan
and one Raymunda Ala, another occupant in the disputed lot in Branch 34, Quezon
City RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 48810^[8] and 48811, respectively.

On November 29, 1988, a decision was issued by the inferior court
in the ejectment cases, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds for the
plaintiff and against Maria Swan and Raymunda Ala, to wit:

1. Ordering the
defendants aforesaid and all persons claiming rights and interests under them
to vacate the premises located at No. 81 Antique St., Bago-Bantay, Quezon City
and to surrender possessions thereof to the plaintiff.

xxx                           xxx                               xxx

SO ORDERED.”^[9]

Petitioners, as defendants in said ejectment cases, were ejected
in the afternoon of September 14, 1989. But they reentered the premises around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of
the same date. This forced private
respondents to file a forcible entry case against petitioners before Branch 37,
Quezon City RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 37-2571.

This case was decided in private respondents’ favor on May 29,
1991 but it was appealed by petitioners to Branch 85, Quezon City RTC. However, private respondents’ motion for
execution pending appeal was granted on February 10, 1992. Thus the petitioners were served the
sheriff’s notice to vacate on March 23, 1992. Hence, this petition for certiorari, prohibition, injunction with
prayer for a restraining order docketed as G.R. No. 104554.

Petitioners fault the respondent Court of Appeals for granting
private respondents’ petition therein, thus ordering that petitioners’
complaint in Civil Case No. Q-90-5183 in the Quezon City RTC be dismissed, on
the ground that the proper remedy of petitioners “should have been a
special civil action for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of NHA,^[10]
based on the case of Raymundo vs. PHHC.^[11]

In Raymundo vs. PHHC, the petitioner Raymundo therein was
awarded on December 3, 1964, Block E-122-D, Lot 2, Piñahan, Quezon City. As the said lot had not been appraised then,
she was required to pay a reservation deposit of P500.00 which she paid on
December 7, 1964. On June 6, 1968, for
failure of Raymundo to comply with the requirements demanded of her by the
respondent PHHC, the latter passed Resolution No. 1132 cancelling the award of
the lot in question. On January 4,
1969, Raymundo filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XVII a
complaint for specific performance against herein respondent PHHC and its Board
Director Fructuoso Suzara and PHHC employee Rodeo Pagdanganan to compel the
PHHC to sell to her the lot in question with prayer for issuance of preliminary
injunction to restrain respondent PHHC from selling the lot in question to
another applicant.

On June 16, 1970, the trial court therein rendered judgment
dismissing Raymundo’s complaint without pronouncement as to costs, on the
ground that Raymundo, having failed to comply with her obligations under her
application to purchase the lot in question, had no right to compel respondent
PHHC to maintain its award in her favor. A motion for reconsideration and/or new trial was denied on July 13, 1970. Not satisfied, Raymundo appealed to the
Court of Appeals which certified the same to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that what was
entered into between petitioner Raymundo and respondent PHHC was just a mere
“Sworn Application to Purchase a Lot” and not a perfected Contract of
Sale and that Raymundo, not having complied with PHHC’s rules and regulations,
could not qualify for the award of the PHHC lot in question therein.

The Court therein further stated — and this is the ruling
respondent Court relied upon — that:

“The power to dispose of the lands placed under the
administration of Philippine Homesite and Housing Corporation is lodged in said
body. There is no provision of law
authorizing courts to review decisions of respondent PHHC and to take
cognizance of actions to annul awards of sale or any other action made by it
pursuant to the authority granted it by law. If the courts are to take cognizance of cases involving errors or abuse
of power exercised by the respondent PHHC, the remedy would be by means of an
action for certiorari or prohibition to set aside the orders or
decisions of the respondent, and not a direct action for specific performance
as the one instituted in this case. But
this special civil action would not lie unless there is an allegation of abuse
of discretion of lack of jurisdiction.”^[12]

Petitioners are correct. Their action in the court below (Civil Case No. Q-90-5183) being one for
annulment of title of the private respondents, the Regional Trial Courts have
original jurisdiction to entertain the same.^[13] What Raymundo
prohibits is the cognizance by the courts of actions to annul NHA awards of
sale of its lots. Actually, the next
step for annulling an NHA award of sale is an appeal to the Office of the
President within 33 days from receipt of the NHA decision awarding the lot to
another party.^[14]
After which step, the aggrieved party can go to the Courts via Rule 65.

The questioned decision of the respondent Court of Appeals in
G.R. No. 97319 has to be reversed and set aside.

However, We cannot order that Civil Case Q-90-5183 be
reinstated. It is clear from the
records of the case that Civil Case No. Q-90-5183, filed last April, 1990 was
basically the same case filed much earlier in July of 1977 before Branch V of
the then Court of First Instance of Rizal at Quezon City, presided by Judge
Tutaan, entitled Sps. Teodoro and Fortunata Laher and Maria Swan vs. NHA,
Patrocinio Lladones, Walter Balanga and Sabas Insiong.

The 1990 civil case has to be dismissed on the ground of res
judicata.

The first three requisites for the application of the principle
of res judicata are present.^[15]
The 1977 annulment case^[16]
was decided in favor of the private respondents (defendants therein) Lladones,
et. al., and the same was appealed by petitioners (plaintiffs therein) to the
Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. SP No. 14209-R. This has became final.^[17]

As for the fourth
requisite, it should be noted that the petitioners and private respondents are
both plaintiffs and defendants, respectively, in the 1977 and 1990 annulment
cases. Thus, there is identity of
parties, although, in the 1977 case, one Laher was a co-plaintiff of the
petitioners, and one Walter Balanga and Sabas Insiong were co-defendants of the
private respondents Lladoneses. The
co-plaintiffs and co-­defendants of the 1977 case thus shared an identity of
interests, respectively.

That there is identity of subject matter, there can be no
question. True, it is that the 1977 case was for annulment of the award given to
Patrocinio Lladones, Walter Balanga and Sabas Insiong while the 1990 case was
for annulment of title of Patrocinio Lladones. No matter how
differently formulated, however, the same basic relief was sought — the
annulment of the award by the NHA
of the disputed lot to the Spouse Lladones so that the petitioners would have
the opportunity to obtain the award of the disputed lot for themselves.

One test of identity of causes of action is whether or not the
judgment sought in a subsequent case will be inconsistent with the prior
judgment.^[18]
If no inconsistency will result, the prior judgment cannot be held to be at
bar. In the 1977 case, the petitioners
did not get any relief as the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the trial
court dismissing the complaint for annulment of the award to private respondent
Patrocinio Lladones and others. Although there is no copy of the 1977 judgment in the Rollo, the
recovery of possession case^[19]
that the private respondents filed in Branch 101 of the Quezon City RTC, states
in a portion of the Decision of that case as follows:

“`This is a case for recovery of possession of a piece of land
covered by TCT No. 286437 in the name of plaintiff, issued by the Register of
Deeds of Quezon City on March 26, 1982. It likewise appears that the same property was the subject of CA-G.R.
No. 14209-SP before the Honorable Court of Appeals which was decided in favor
of plaintiff and its decision has become final. The plaintiff alleged that the occupation of a portion of the
premises by defendant for many years was merely tolerated.

x x x                          xxx                              xxx

`Whether the defendant was in prior possession of the subject land
is immaterial. The law is that
prescription cannot run against a Torrens title which is indefeasible such as
what plaintiff has no (sic) can prior possession negate such title. Besides the question of ownership/possession
appears to have already (been) threshed out in substance by the then Honorable
Court of Appeals in favor of herein plaintiff in CA-G.R. No. 14209–SP.’ “

If affirmative relief will be given to the petitioners in the
1990 case, that judgment will definitely be inconsistent with the prior
judgment in the 1977 case where the “question of ownership/possession appears
to have already (been) threshed out in substance” by the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. No. 14209-SP which reviewed said 1977 case. Tried by the inconsistency test, therefore, identity (at the very
least, substantial identity) of causes of action must be held to be present.

Having declared that petitioners can no longer question the award
of the NHA lot involved to the private respondents, the spouses Lladones, the
latter should now be allowed to occupy the property, the possession of which
has been withheld from them for almost 15 years.

It is high time that We write finis to a litigation that has been pending for years not
only to the prejudice of the prevailing parties, but also to the prompt
determination of controversies, and in violation of the fundamental concept
that public policy and sound practice demand that judgments of Courts should
become final at some definite date fixed by law.^[20]

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of respondent Court being
questioned in G.R. No. 97319 is SET ASIDE. However, Civil Case No. Q-90-5183 is hereby ordered DISMISSED. The prayer for a temporary restraining order
in G.R. No. 104554 is denied. Costs
against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Pages 55-57, Rollo, G.R. No. 97319.

^[2]
Page 17, Rollo, G.R. 104554.

^[3]
Page 18, Rollo, G.R. 104554.

^[4]
Page 19, Rollo, G.R. 104554.

^[5]
G.R. No. 104554.

^[6]
Page 55, Rollo, G.R. No. 97319.

^[7]
Page 56, Rollo, G.R. No. 97319.

^[8]
Mentioned by petitioner in his petition on pp. 6 and 13, Rollo, G.R. No.
97319.

^[9]
Page 58-59, Rollo.

^[10]
Page 37, Rollo, G.R. No. 97319; p. 3, Decision of the Court of Appeals.

^[11]
114 SCRA 717.

^[12]
Raymundo vs. PHHC, 114 SCRA 717.

^[13]
Section 19(2), B.P. 129, as amended.

^[14]
Rule 8(5a), EO 19 (1966), 62 O.G. 18, pp. 2940, 2942.

^[15]The
requisites essential for the application of the principle of res judicata are: (1) there must be a final judgment or order;
(b) said judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) the Court rendering the
same must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4)
there must be between the two cases identity of parties, identity of subject
matter, and identity of cause of action (Valencia vs. RTC of Quezon
City, Br. 90, 184 SCRA 80, 90, 91).

^[16]
This was actually an annulment of NHA award case filed directly with the
courts. Both parties appeared to have
actively participated in the court’s proceedings and so it is assumed that the
appeal to the Office of the President was waived.

^[17]
Page 68, Rollo.

^[18]
Tan vs. Amador, 66 SCRA 61, cited in Valencia vs. RTC of Quezon City,
184 SCRA 80, 92.

^[19]
Civil Case No. Q-40957, RTC, Quezon City, Br. 101, entitled Patrocinio Lladones
vs. Sps. Teodoro and Fortunata Laher.

^[20]
Op. Cit., 95.