G.R. No. 137551 , 138249, 139099, 139631, 139729; December 26, 2000
ATTY. CHARLES D. COLE, LOLITA D. COLE, and CHARITO COLE-ALFARO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, and JULIETA AGDA, respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions stem from a complaint for non-delivery of title filed with the HLURB Arbiter against respondent Julieta Agda, a townhouse seller, and the Philippine National Bank (PNB). On February 20, 1991, the Arbiter ruled in favor of the buyers, ordering Agda and PNB to deliver titles free from liens. This decision was successively affirmed by the HLURB Board of Commissioners on February 27, 1995, and the Office of the President on February 27, 1996. Agda’s petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals challenging the Arbiter’s decision was dismissed in 1997 for being filed out of time and due to laches, a decision which became final and executory. Separately, Agda filed a complaint for rescission of contract in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on grounds of forum shopping and res judicata, a dismissal affirmed with finality by the Supreme Court.
Despite these final judgments, Agda filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals in August 1997, seeking to nullify the Arbiter and Office of the President decisions. Pending this annulment case, she also filed a new petition for review with the Office of the President in February 1999, questioning the 1995 Board of Commissioners decision. Petitioners, seeking to enforce the final 1991 Arbiter decision, moved for execution but were denied by the HLURB Arbiter due to Agda’s pending petitions. This led to the filing of the instant petitions assailing various interlocutory orders and the Court of Appeals’ eventual grant of Agda’s petition for annulment of judgment on June 30, 1999.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in annulling the final and executory decisions of the HLURB Arbiter and the Office of the President, and whether the HLURB Arbiter correctly denied the motion for execution of a final judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, reversing the Court of Appeals’ annulment decision and ordering the execution of the HLURB Arbiter’s final decision. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrines of finality of judgment and jurisdiction. A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. The HLURB Arbiter’s decision dated February 20, 1991, having been affirmed by higher bodies and with Agda’s certiorari petition dismissed with finality, attained incontestable finality. The Court of Appeals’ subsequent annulment of this judgment was a grave abuse of discretion, as it improperly reopened a settled matter. The Court emphasized that the principle of finality of judgments is a fundamental rule intended to end litigation.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that the HLURB, under its charter and the Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree (P.D. 957), possesses exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the sale of subdivision lots and condominiums, including the specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations by the seller. The HLURB Arbiter thus had jurisdiction over the original complaint for non-delivery of title. Consequently, the HLURB Arbiter’s denial of the motion for execution,