GR 170745; (January, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170745 January 30, 2009
GERARDA A. DIZON-ABILLA and the HEIRS OF RONALDO P. ABILLA, Petitioners, vs. SPS. CARLOS and THERESITA GOBONSENG, Respondents.
FACTS
Spouses Carlos and Theresita Gobonseng (respondents) failed to settle a ₱550,000 loan from Gerarda A. Dizon-Abilla and the Heirs of Ronaldo P. Abilla (petitioners). The parties agreed on a settlement, leading respondents to execute a Deed of Sale covering seventeen lots in favor of petitioners, with a separate document granting respondents an option to repurchase the lots within six months. When respondents failed to exercise the option, petitioners filed a case for specific performance and recovery of sum of money and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City. The RTC declared the Option to Buy null and void but awarded damages to petitioners. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision but deleted the award of attorney’s fees. After the appellate court’s decision became final, respondents filed an “Urgent Motion to Repurchase” based on Article 1606 of the Civil Code, tendering payment via a bank deposit. The trial court initially denied the motion, but upon re-raffle, Judge Araceli Alafriz allowed the repurchase and authorized the release of the bank deposit to petitioners. Petitioners challenged this order before the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 146651 , which ruled in favor of respondents, applying Article 1606 and finding that respondents honestly believed the transaction was an equitable mortgage, thus allowing them to repurchase. Petitioners then filed a motion before the trial court asserting entitlement to additional amounts, including interest and increased property value. The trial court ruled against them, and the Court of Appeals directed strict implementation of the Supreme Court’s final resolution. The case was re-raffled to Judge Fe Lualhati Bustamante, who conducted a hearing “in aid of execution,” opposed by respondents. The Court of Appeals granted respondents’ petition for certiorari, enjoining the trial judge from conducting further hearings and directing the issuance of a Satisfaction of Judgment.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court may conduct further hearings or entertain additional claims from petitioners regarding the repurchase price after the Supreme Court had issued a final and executory decision ordering respondents’ tender of payment to be accepted as the full repurchase price.
RULING
No. The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that the amount tendered by respondents as the repurchase price had been determined with finality. The Court emphasized the doctrine of finality of judgments, stating that every litigation must come to an end to prevent endless suits and harassment of the prevailing party. The appellate court correctly directed the trial court to implement the Supreme Court’s final resolution strictly according to its tenor and to issue a Satisfaction of Judgment, sealing the final disposal of the case.