G.R. No. L-69696 December 7, 1992
SPOUSES AVELYN B. ANTONIO and CONRADO A. ANTONIO, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, MACEDONIO MONJE and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BAGANGA, BRANCH VII, respondents.

FACTS

On January 16, 1967, petitioners Spouses Conrado and Avelyn Antonio bought three parcels of land from spouses Carolina Balanay and Nicanor Manguiob, including Lot 1 covered by OCT No. 1020, for which TCT No. T-9643 was issued in their names. Private respondent Macedonio Monje filed a complaint for annulment of the deed of sale and TCT No. T-9643, claiming he had bought 7,500 square meters of the same Lot 1 from the heirs of Catalino Manguiob on September 2, 1962. The Antonios alleged the sale to Monje was void as the vendors were members of a cultural minority and the sale lacked approval from the Commissioner of National Integration. Due to alleged lack of notice from their withdrawn counsel, the Antonios failed to attend hearings, and the trial court rendered a decision on August 27, 1981, declaring the subsequent deeds of sale and TCT No. T-9643 null and void, and ordering the Antonios to pay Monje moral and actual damages totaling P50,000. The Antonios’ motion for reconsideration was denied. They failed to perfect a timely appeal and instead filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 61423), alleging denial of due process, which was referred to and denied by the Court of Appeals (CA- G.R. No. 14885 -SP). Their subsequent petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 63479) was denied for being filed out of time. They then filed an original petition for annulment of judgment with the Intermediate Appellate Court (AC-G.R. SP No. 02352), which was dismissed on grounds of res judicata and improper remedy. Hence, this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court correctly dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment on the grounds of res judicata and wrong mode of appeal.

RULING

Yes, the Intermediate Appellate Court’s dismissal is affirmed. The principle of res judicata bars the petition for annulment, as the issues raised therein regarding the validity of the sale to Monje and the nullity of the trial court’s decision had already been conclusively ruled upon in the prior certiorari proceedings (CA- G.R. No. 14885 -SP), where the Court of Appeals held that the petition was merely a substitute for a lost appeal and raised no jurisdictional issue. Furthermore, the failure to perfect an appeal from the trial court’s decision within the reglementary period rendered it final and executory, precluding review of its intrinsic merits. The special civil action of certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. However, the Supreme Court, in the interest of justice, noted a grave abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision insofar as it nullified TCT No. T-9643 covering the entire Lot 1 (15,903 square meters), when Monje’s claim was only for 7,500 square meters. The decision of annulment could only affect the portion claimed by Monje, not the entire title. The award of damages was sustained as having basis. The petition was denied, and the Intermediate Appellate Court’s decision was affirmed, with an instruction for the trial court to execute its decision in line with the limitation on the affected property.