Veloso, Jr. v CA GR No.116680

PANDAN, Philip Angelo S. TITLE: Veloso, Jr. v CA, GR no. 116680, August 28, 1996 NICOLAS VELOSO, JR., CONCEPCION VELOSO PATALINGHUG, EDUARDO VELOSO, LIGAYA VELOSO ROA, RAFAEL VELOSO, EMERENCIANA VELOSO CABIGON, DOMINGO VELOSO and EMMANUEL VELOSO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 14, BAYBAY, LEYTE, CORSINI MIRAFLOR AVELLANA, AUREO PEÑALOSA MIRAFLOR, EDDIE PENALOSA MIRAFLOR and DOUGLAS PEÑALOSA MIRAFLOR, respondents. Ponente: Justice Bellosillo Petition: for review on centiorari of the decision of Court of Appeals. Topics: Res Judicata Doctrines and Provisions: Res Judicata: the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of a case on same issues between the same parties. Facts: 

    

September 12, 1988, Respondents Corsini Miraflor Avellana, Aureo Peñalosa Miraflor, Eddie Peñalosa Miraflor and Douglas Peñalosa Miraflor filed a complaint for quieting of title with damages against Nicolas Veloso Sr. and petitioners Nicolas Veloso Jr., Concepcion Veloso Patalinghug, Eduardo Veloso, Ligaya Veloso Roa, Rafael Veloso, Emerenciana Veloso Cabigon, Domingo Veloso and Emmanuel Veloso before the Regional Trial Court. The subject matter of the complaint was Lot No. 8422-F covered by TCT No. 22393 in the name of Crispina Peñalosa Miraflor, deceased mother of respondents. August 31, 1990, RTC decided in favor of the respondents. May 28, 1992, CA affirmed RTC’s decision. October 12, 1992, Supreme Court reaffirmed CA and RTC’s decision. September 20, 1993, Petitioners seek annulment of the decision from CA. July 24, 1994, CA ruled against petitioners as it found that the controversy had already been settled by this Court and that the contention that the trial court did not have "any power or authority to amend, alter or modify the decision of a co-equal court, the then Court of First Instance of Leyte, Br. III and Br. VIII," should have been raised in the previous proceedings.

Issues and Holdings: 1. Whether or not CA erred in refusing to declare the decision of the trial court void for having been rendered allegedly in violation of the doctrines of res judicata and the law of the case? No, CA is correct in refusing the petition. The cases petitioner has mentioned is a different case all together, and is not being overlapped by the previous case. The first case (R205) the lot (Lot No. 8422-F) is not a part of the decision; while the second case (B-122) has different defendants who has not taken part on the case (B-1043) at hand.

Now under the guise of a petition for annulment of judgment, petitioners in effect are seeking a second cycle of review regarding a subject matter which has already been fully and fairly adjudicate. That cannot be allowed Ruling: The petition is DENIED. The decision of respondent Court of Appeals dated 29 July 1994 is AFFIRMED.