GR 141423; (November, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 141423; November 15, 2000
MELINA P. MACAHILIG, petitioner, vs. The Heirs of GRACE M. MAGALIT, respondents.
FACTS
The dispute originated from conflicting fishpond applications over land in Batan, Aklan. Bernardo Macahilig (petitioner’s husband) protested the application of Pepito Magalit (respondents’ predecessor). The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) dismissed Macahilig’s protest, a decision affirmed by the Office of the President and subsequently by the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) in AC-GR SP No. 03448. The IAC Decision, which became final, declared Macahilig a mere caretaker and ordered him to vacate and turn over the property to Magalit’s heirs. A writ of execution was issued and implemented.
Subsequently, the heirs filed a “Motion for Correction” in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging that a specific 2-hectare lot (Lot 4417) was not surrendered. The RTC, in an Order dated September 17, 1992, denied the motion, stating it had no jurisdiction over a claim for land “outside the ten hectares awarded” by BFAR. The heirs then filed a separate action for recovery of possession (Civil Case No. 3436) over Lot 4417. The RTC dismissed this new case, ruling it was barred by res judicata due to the prior IAC Decision. The Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal, prompting petitioner Melina Macahilig to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC’s interlocutory Order dated September 17, 1992, which denied the “Motion for Correction” for lack of jurisdiction, constitutes a final judgment on the merits that can bar the subsequent recovery of possession case under the principle of res judicata.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and held that res judicata does not apply. The principle of res judicata requires, among its elements, a final and executory judgment or order on the merits. The RTC’s September 17, 1992 Order was merely an interlocutory order. It did not make a definitive ruling on the ownership or possession of Lot 4417. Instead, it declined to act on the heirs’ motion based on a perceived lack of jurisdiction over property allegedly outside the scope of the prior BFAR award. An interlocutory order, which does not finally dispose of the case or settle the parties’ rights, cannot serve as the basis for res judicata. Consequently, the heirs’ filing of a separate action for recovery of possession was not barred. The Court clarified that for res judicata to attach, the judgment must be one that finally adjudicates upon the respective rights of the parties, which the said interlocutory order did not do.