G.R. No. L-27091-92 June 30, 1970
CONRADO HABAÑA and ROSARIO R. HABAÑA, petitioners, vs. HON. CIPRIANO VAMENTA, JR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, JOSE T. IMBO and CONCEPCION TEVES, Co-Administrators of the Estates of PEDRO TEVES and MARIA PASTOR, and MARIANO TEVES, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of PEDRO TEVES, respondents.

FACTS

This is an original action for certiorari, prohibition, and/or mandamus. The case is a sequel to Habaña vs. Imbo (G.R. Nos. L-15598 & L-15726, March 31, 1964), where the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the sale made on June 28, 1955 by Concepcion Teves (a daughter and heir of the deceased spouses Pedro Teves and Maria Pastor) of two coconut plantation lots (Lots Nos. 6272 and 1932) to the spouses Conrado and Rosario Habaña (petitioners). The lots had been adjudicated to Concepcion Teves in the partition by will of her father, Pedro Teves, with the express conformity of all heirs in a Joint Manifestation dated October 20, 1956. After the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision became final, petitioners filed a motion for execution in the estate proceedings to obtain possession and title to the lots. Respondent Jose T. Imbo (co-administrator and an heir) and other heirs opposed the motion, invoking a reservation clause in the Supreme Court’s decision allowing “any authorized party to question the validity of the sale… in the proper court.” Subsequently, the same group of heirs filed a new separate civil action (Civil Case No. 4390) against petitioners and Concepcion Teves, again attacking the validity of the sale on grounds including that Pedro Teves could not dispose of the conjugal properties by will alone and asserting a right of legal redemption under Article 1088 of the Civil Code. Respondent Judge Cipriano Vamenta, Jr. took cognizance of this new action and denied petitioners’ motion for execution in the estate proceedings. Petitioners contend that the new action constitutes a collateral attack on the final 1964 Supreme Court decision and that respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in taking cognizance of the new separate civil action (Civil Case No. 4390) which seeks to relitigate the validity of the sale of lots already definitively upheld by the Supreme Court in its final 1964 decision, and in denying petitioners’ motion for execution of that final decision.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the writs of certiorari and prohibition, annulling the respondent judge’s orders. The Court held that its 1964 decision in Habaña vs. Imbo had long become final and executory, and conclusively settled the validity of the sale from Concepcion Teves to the Habaña spouses. The principle of res judicata bars the relitigation of this issue. The new separate action (Civil Case No. 4390) filed by the heirs is a mere subterfuge to circumvent the final judgment. The reservation clause in the 1964 decision (“reserving the right, if any, upon any authorized party to question the validity of the sale… in the proper Court”) did not grant a license to re-open the already adjudicated matter; it merely referred to the possibility of a direct, not collateral, attack on the sale in a proper proceeding, which the Supreme Court had already essentially done by upholding its validity. The respondent judge’s act of entertaining the new case and denying execution of the final Supreme Court decision constitutes a grave abuse of discretion, as it disregards the finality of judgments and undermines judicial stability. The Court ordered the respondent judge to dismiss Civil Case No. 4390 and to grant petitioners’ motion for execution in the estate proceedings, directing the delivery of possession and the issuance of titles for the two lots to petitioners. The Court also directed the probate court to expedite the final distribution and closing of the estate proceedings. Costs were imposed on the private respondents.