G.R. No. L-37885. July 26, 1974.
LORENZO SUMAGUI, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JACINTA FLORES VDA. DE YATCO, ET AL., and HOUSE OF INVESTMENT, INC., and HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, former agricultural tenants, sought to set aside a writ of execution issued by the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) to enforce its final 1968 decision. That CAR decision had confirmed the sale of the land by the Yatco family to respondents Quesada and Hocson and declared the tenancy relationship terminated due to the petitioners’ voluntary surrender of their landholdings, for which they received disturbance fees. The petitioners had previously moved to set aside that CAR decision on grounds of alleged fraud, claiming an oral promise of factory employment induced their surrender. The CAR denied their motion, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 44623-R. The petitioners then elevated that affirmance to the Supreme Court via G.R. No. L-34118, which was denied due course for lack of merit, the Court noting the surrender was unconditional, the fees were paid, and petitioners failed to show fraud or denial of substantial justice.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant due course to the present petition for certiorari, which assails the Court of Appeals’ later decision upholding the CAR’s issuance of the writ of execution and ruling the case outside the scope of Presidential Decree No. 27.

RULING

The Supreme Court RESOLVED to DENY due course to the petition for lack of merit. The core legal principle applied is res judicata. The Court of Appeals correctly held that all substantive questions raised were barred by the final judgment in CA-G.R. No. 44623-R, which had already conclusively ruled on the validity of the CAR decision terminating the tenancy. The Supreme Court’s own prior denial of the petition in G.R. No. L-34118 for lack of merit reinforced the finality of that judgment. Consequently, the CAR’s decision having long become final and executory, the issuance of the writ of execution was a ministerial duty and legally proper. The Court also found no merit in the claim that Presidential Decree No. 27 (the land reform decree) applied, as the tenancy relationship had been lawfully terminated by voluntary surrender prior to its issuance. The temporary restraining order previously issued to allow petitioners to harvest a standing crop was lifted, its purpose having been accomplished. The petition constituted an impermissible attempt to relitigate matters already settled with finality.