G.R. No. 127941 January 28, 1999
BIBLIA TOLEDO-BANAGA and JOVITA TAN, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CANDELARIO DAMALERIO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Biblia Toledo-Banaga filed an action for redemption over a foreclosed property sold at public auction to private respondent Candelario Damalerio. The trial court initially ruled Banaga lost her right to redeem. The Court of Appeals reversed, allowing redemption within a period. Damalerio’s petition to the Supreme Court was dismissed, making the CA decision final. On June 11, 1992, Banaga deposited the redemption money (financed by co-petitioner Jovita Tan) with the trial court. Damalerio opposed, claiming it was beyond the allowed period. The trial court upheld the redemption on August 7, 1992, and ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel Damalerio’s titles and issue new ones to Banaga. Damalerio filed a petition for certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. No. 29869) and annotated a notice of lis pendens on January 11, 1993. The CA issued a TRO. Meanwhile, on January 7, 1993, Banaga sold the property to Tan, whose deed referenced Damalerio’s still-uncancelled title. Despite the lis pendens, Tan subdivided the property under a plan in Damalerio’s name. After the TRO expired, Tan obtained new titles in her name on March 24, 1993, which still carried the lis pendens annotations. Damalerio impleaded Tan in his CA petition. On October 28, 1993, the CA set aside the trial court’s orders, declared Damalerio the absolute owner for Banaga’s failure to redeem on time, and this decision became final after the Supreme Court dismissed Banaga’s petition. Damalerio secured a writ of execution on December 27, 1994, ordering the Register of Deeds to reinstate his titles. The Register of Deeds refused, citing the need for Tan’s titles to be surrendered first and suggesting a “consulta.” The trial court denied Damalerio’s contempt motion and motion for a writ of possession, suggesting a separate action or consulta. Damalerio filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the CA (CA-G.R. No. 40348). The CA granted it on November 7, 1996, setting aside the trial court’s orders, declaring titles issued to Banaga, Tan, and subsequent transferees null and void, ordering the Register of Deeds to issue new titles to Damalerio, and directing the issuance of a writ of execution and possession. Petitioners Banaga and Tan filed the instant petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner Jovita Tan was a buyer in good faith.
2. Whether private respondent Damalerio’s remedy to secure titles in his name is by consulta to the Land Registration Commissioner and not through contempt or execution proceedings.

RULING

1. No. The issue of ownership was already conclusively settled with finality by the CA and affirmed by the Supreme Court, which declared Damalerio the absolute owner. The principle of res judicata bars re-litigation of this issue. All its elements are present: a final judgment; a court with jurisdiction; a judgment on the merits; and identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the redemption suit and the subsequent proceedings. Therefore, Tan cannot claim to be a buyer in good faith as her title, derived from Banaga after the lis pendens was annotated and during the pendency of Damalerio’s certiorari petition, is void. A purchaser cannot acquire a better right than the vendor, and the notice of lis pendens served as a warning.
2. No. A consulta to the Land Registration Commissioner is not the exclusive remedy. The court that rendered the final judgment has the inherent power to enforce it and issue all necessary writs and processes. The trial court’s orders denying the contempt motion and writ of possession constituted grave abuse of discretion. The final and executory CA decision in CA-G.R. No. 29869, which declared Damalerio the absolute owner, necessarily carried with it the right to have his certificates of title reinstated and to obtain possession. The Register of Deeds had a ministerial duty to comply with the writ of execution. The CA correctly granted mandamus to compel the performance of this duty and set aside the trial court’s erroneous orders.