GR L 4844; (February, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4844; February 25, 1954
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. ANASTACIO ABADILLA, ET AL., claimants; CONSOLACION RAMOS, ET AL., petitioners-appellants; CELESTINO LAGROSA, ET AL., oppositors-appellees.
FACTS
In Cadastral Case No. 3, conflicting claims over lots Nos. 67-B, 217A, and 240 were filed by Pedro R. Loyola and Antonio Ramos (representing his minor children Consolacion, Ramon, Socorro, and Cirila Ramos). On December 13, 1924, the Supreme Court rendered a decision defining the rights of the litigants and remanded the case for execution. The Court of First Instance appointed Pedro R. Almonte as commissioner of partition, who submitted two projects of partition. The court approved the second project. Antonio Ramos appealed, claiming the partition was unequal and unjust, but the Supreme Court overruled his appeal on March 18, 1929. On December 30, 1948, the Ramos children (Consolacion, Ramon, Socorro, and Cirila) filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, alleging that Commissioner Almonte acted fraudulently and in gross violation of the Supreme Court’s 1924 decision, and praying for a complete and final partition in accordance with that decision, the appointment of a new commissioner, and a writ of possession. Celestino Lagrosa and Teodoro Arquiza opposed the petition. On December 18, 1950, the court denied the petition for lack of merit and on the ground of res adjudicata.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for a new partition filed by the Ramos children is barred by res adjudicata.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the order denying the petition. The Court held that the correctness and propriety of the partition had already been definitively passed upon. First, when Antonio Ramos appealed the approval of the second project of partition, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. Second, when a petition for certiorari was filed assailing the denial of a petition for correction, the Supreme Court dismissed it on the ground of res adjudicata. The Court found that the same subject matter was being litigated for the third time, emphasizing that there must be a deadline for the finality of judgments. The order appealed from was affirmed with double costs against the appellants.