GR 32984; (August, 1977) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-32984 August 26, 1977
ALFONSO VERGARA, petitioner, vs. ABRAHAM RUGUE, JUDGE JOSE S. DELA CRUZ, CFI, Manila, Branch XIX, THE SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Alfonso Vergara seeks to prohibit the enforcement of an order of execution for a Court of Appeals decision dated June 20, 1967. That decision reversed the trial court and annulled a sale made by the Land Tenure Administration (LTA) of a lot in the Tuason Estate to Vergara. It ordered the lot reconveyed to respondent Abraham Rugue. The property was originally sold to Rugue by Kapisanan “Ang Buhay, Inc.” in 1949, and he completed payments by 1957. However, Vergara intervened, claiming a preferential right. The LTA initially favored Rugue, but the Office of the President, on appeal by Vergara, reversed the LTA and awarded the contract to Vergara in 1958 and 1960. Rugue then filed an action in the Court of First Instance to annul the sale to Vergara and compel its execution in his favor.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the principle of res judicata bars Rugue’s action in the Court of First Instance, considering the prior administrative decision by the Office of the President which had awarded the lot to Vergara.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Court of Appeals decision. The Court ruled that res judicata did not apply to bar Rugue’s judicial action. For res judicata to attach, the judgment or order must be final, rendered by a court or tribunal with competent jurisdiction, a judgment on the merits, and there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the prior and subsequent cases. The critical element missing here was competent jurisdiction. The Office of the President, in reviewing the LTA’s decision, was acting in an administrative capacity, not as a judicial tribunal. Its decision was an executive or administrative determination, not a judicial judgment. Consequently, it lacked the judicial character necessary to constitute a bar to a subsequent judicial suit. The Court of First Instance, therefore, had full jurisdiction to try the case de novo, receive evidence, and adjudicate the conflicting claims of Rugue and Vergara on their merits. The appellate court’s finding that the administrative award to Vergara was unfair and partial to him, based on a full review of the evidence, was thus valid and proper. The execution of its final decision ordering reconveyance to Rugue must proceed.