SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 261 8/9/21, 7:51 PM

*
G.R. No. 116680. August 28, 1996.

NICOLAS VELOSO, JR., CONCEPCION VELOSO

PATALINGHUG, EDUARDO VELOSO, LIGAYA VELOSO
ROA, RAFAEL VELOSO, EMERENCIANA VELOSO
CABIGON, DOMINGO VELOSO and EMMANUEL
VELOSO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 14, BAYBAY, LEYTE,
CORSINI MIRAFLOR AVELLANA, AUREO PEÑALOSA
MIRAFLOR, EDDIE PENALOSA MIRAFLOR and
DOUGLAS PEÑALOSA MIRAFLOR, respondents.

Remedial Law; Actions; Res Judicata; Court cannot allow a

petition for annulment of judgment which in effect seeks a second
cycle of review regarding a subject matter which has already been
fully and fairly adjudicated.·Now under the guise of a petition for
annulment of judgment, petitioners in effect are seeking a second
cycle of review regarding a subject matter which has already been
fully and fairly adjudicated. That cannot be allowed.
Same; Same; Same; Whatever is once irrevocably established as
the controlling legal principle or decision continues to be the law of
the case between the same parties in the same case whether correct
on general principles or not so long as the facts on which such
decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the
court.·Material facts or questions which were in issue in a former
action and were there admitted or judicially determined are
conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein and that such
facts or questions become res judicata and may not again be
litigated in a subsequent action between the same parties or their
privies, regardless of the form the issue may take in the subsequent
action, whether the subsequent action involves the same or a
different form of proceeding, or whether the second action is upon
the same or a different cause of action, subject matter, claim or
demand, as the earlier action. In such cases, it is also immaterial
that the two actions are based on different grounds, or tried on
different theories, or instituted for different purposes, and seek
different reliefs. By the same token, whatever is once irrevocably
established as the controlling

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2ac16f0255ef0a5b000d00d40059004a/p/AQK009/?username=Guest Page 1 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 261 8/9/21, 7:51 PM

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

197

VOL. 261, AUGUST 28, 1996 197

Veloso, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

legal principle or decision continues to be the law of the case

between the same parties in the same case, whether correct on
general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision
was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Anthony V. Rosete, Nicolas P. Veloso, Jr. and Renato
M. Rances for petitioners.
Demetrio D. Sarit for private respondents.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari through which

petitioners seek a reversal of the decision of respondent
Court of Appeals dismissing their petition to annul
judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Baybay,
Leyte, Branch 14, in Civil Case No. B-1043, for lack of
merit. Petitioners claim that the questioned decision of the
trial court is inherently flawed because the issues raised
therein had already been resolved earlier in another case
involving the same parties and subject matter, and that a
trial court has no power to countermand a decision of a co-
equal court.
There is however much more to their pious avowals than
meets the eye.
On 12 September 1988 respondents Corsini Miraflor
Avellana, Aureo Peñalosa Miraflor, Eddie Peñalosa
Miraflor and Douglas Peñalosa Miraflor filed a complaint
for quieting of title with damages against Nicolas Veloso Sr.
and petitioners Nicolas Veloso, Jr., Concepcion Veloso

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2ac16f0255ef0a5b000d00d40059004a/p/AQK009/?username=Guest Page 2 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 261 8/9/21, 7:51 PM

Patalinghug, Eduardo Veloso, Ligaya Veloso Roa, Rafael

Veloso, Emerenciana Veloso Cabigon, Domingo Veloso and
Emmanuel Veloso before the Regional Trial Court of
Baybay, Leyte, docketed as

198

198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Veloso, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
1
Civil Case No. B-1043. The subject matter of the complaint
was Lot No. 8422-F covered by TCT No. 22393 in the name
of Crispina Peñalosa Miraflor, deceased mother of
respondents.
On 31 August 1990 the trial court rendered judgment (a)
finding TCT No. T-22393 aunthentic, valid, indefeasible
and entitled to all faith and credence under Act 496; (b)
declaring respondents absolute co-owners in fee simple of
Lot No. 8422F; (c) directing petitioners or anyone of them
in possession of Lot No. 8422-F to deliver to respondents
the physical and material possession thereof together with
all the improvements thereon; and, (d) ordering petitioners
in solidum to pay respondents P5,000.00 as attorneyÊs fees
2
and P2,000.00 as reimbursement for litigation expenses.
Petitioners elevated the case to respondent Court of
Appeals which
3
on 28 May 1992 affirmed the decision of the
trial court. 4
Petitioners then came to us. On 12 October 1992
however we denied the petition as the issues raised therein
were essentially factual. There was no showing that the
findings of fact of respondent court were not supported by
substantial evidence and
5
that it committed any reversible
error in its judgment. On 15 6March 1993 an order for the
entry of judgment was issued.
On 20 September 1993 petitioners, undaunted by their
reverses, sought annulment of the decision of the trial
court before respondent Court of Appeals.
On 29 July 1994 respondent court likewise ruled against
petitioners as it found that the controversy had already
been settled by this Court and that the contention that the
trial court did not have „any power or authority to amend,
alter or

_______________

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2ac16f0255ef0a5b000d00d40059004a/p/AQK009/?username=Guest Page 3 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 261 8/9/21, 7:51 PM

1 Raffled to Br. 14 presided over by Judge Teofilo R. Redubla.

2 Records, pp. 322–323.
3 Penned by Justice Jorge S. Imperial, concurred in by Justices Serafin
E. Camilon and Cancio C. Garcia; Records, p. 345..
4 G.R. No. 105947, assigned to the Second Division.
5 Records, p. 334.
6 Ibid.

199

VOL. 261, AUGUST 28, 1996 199

Veloso, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

modify the decision of a co-equal court, the then Court of

First Instance of Leyte, Br. III and Br.7 VIII," should have
been raised in the previous proceedings.
The main issue is whether respondent court erred in
refusing to declare the decision of the trial court void for
having been rendered allegedly in violation of the doctrines
of res judicata and the law of the case.
Petitioners rely on8 the decision of 9 January 1951 in
Civil Case No. R-205 which has already become final and
executory for lack of appeal by any of the parties, 9and on
the decision of 29 July 1969 in Civil Case No. B-122 which 10
was affirmed by respondent court on 11 November 1974
and executed on 9 July 1975. They allege that those
decisions upheld their possession and ownership and of
their parents Nicolas Veloso Sr. and Emerenciana Peñalosa
over 3/5 portion of Lot No. 8422, including the 1/5 portion
representing the share of Crispina Peñalosa Miraflor (Lot
No. 8422-F) which she transferred to her parents by virtue
of a deed of sale executed on 4 May 1948. Petitioners thus
claim that the trial court had absolutely no jurisdiction to
amend, alter or modify those final and executed decisions.
But we find no reversible error committed by respondent
court.
In Civil Case No. R-205, the plaintiff therein as
administrator of the estate of Filomena Bermoy, great
grandmother of respondents, sought recovery of Lot No.
8422 from the children of spouses Pedro de Veyra and
Leopolda Valenzona. The trial court however dismissed the
complaint on the basis of its

_______________

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2ac16f0255ef0a5b000d00d40059004a/p/AQK009/?username=Guest Page 4 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 261 8/9/21, 7:51 PM

7 Penned by Justice Ramon Mabutas, Jr., concurred in by Justices

Arturo E. Buena and Jainal D. Rasul; Rollo, p. 46.
8 Penned by Judge Arsenio Solidum of the Court of First Instance of
Baybay, Leyte, Br. III; Rollo, p. 104.
9 Penned by Judge Bernardo Ll. Salas of the Court of First Instance of
Baybay, Leyte, Br. VIII (now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals);
Id., p. 123.
10 Penned by Justice Sixto A. Domondon, concurred in by Justices
Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr. and Efren I. Plana; Id., p. 134.

200

200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Veloso, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

finding that Lot No. 8422 no longer formed part of the

estate of Bermoy. Prior to her death, Filomena Bermoy sold
the land in question to a certain Gonzalo Varron who in
turn disposed of it in favor of spouses Pedro de Veyra and
Leopolda Valenzona, so that on 2 March 1936 OCT No.
16752 was issued in their name. Lot No. 8422 was later
involved in Civil Case No. R-5 for partition among their
children. In the decision rendered in that case,
Emerenciana P. Veloso, Lourdes P. Bibas, Proculo Peñalosa
and Crispina P. Miraflor were declared absolute owners
thereof. The trial court however observed that on 4 May
1948 Crispina P. Miraflor disposed of her share and
interest in the property in favor of her sister, Emerenciana
P. Veloso, and the latterÊs husband, Nicolas Veloso, Sr.
On the other hand, in Civil Case No. B-122 Nicolas
Veloso, et al., filed a complaint for reconveyance of a
portion of Lot No. 8422 with partition and damages against
Proculo Peñalosa and Lourdes P. Bibas. The trial court
rendered judgment thereon against Proculo Peñalosa. But
the trial court also observed in passing that the share of
Crispina P. Miraflor was already purchased by the Veloso
spouses in 1948.
Both decisions were brought by petitioners to the
attention of the trial court in Civil Case No. B-1043 which
resolved the controversy thus·

Upon the totality of the evidence, the plaintiffsÊ and the defendants,Ê
indicating that what was sold by Crispina P. Miraflor in May 1948
were/was not her share in Lot 8422, denominated as sub-lot 8422-F,
are these·firstly, her Deed of Sale in 1948 does not specifically

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2ac16f0255ef0a5b000d00d40059004a/p/AQK009/?username=Guest Page 5 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 261 8/9/21, 7:51 PM

state that what she was alienating was her ideal share in Lot 8422;
on the other hand, it specified/specifies that the subject of her share
was her share in the estate of Leopolda Valenzona, her mother, and
her share in the estate of Filomena Bermoy, her aunt
(grandmother), located in Barrio Caridad, Baybay, Leyte; secondly,
in Civil Case R-205, where the Court-appointed administrator of
the estate of Filomena Bermoy sought inclusion of Lot 8422 in the
estate of the latter, the Court decided that Lot 8422 is not part of
said estate, hereat showing that Lot 8422 is different, separate and
distinct from said estate of Filomena Bermoy and what was sold by
Crispina R. Miraflor belonged to this separate estate; thirdly, the
subdivision

201

VOL. 261, AUGUST 28, 1996 201

Veloso, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

survey of Lot 8422, which gave way to the delineation of the share
of Crispina P. Miraflor as sub-lot 8422-F was not performed in
deceit but as a matter of right on the part of a co-owner, at this
instance coowner Crispina Peñalosa Miraflor; fourthly, much as the
spouses Nicolas Veloso, Sr. and Emerenciana Peñalosa resided in
Barrio Caridad, Baybay, Leyte or environs, no protest was raised
against the subdivision survey, it stressed here that licensed
surveyor, as Engineer Besavilla was/is, as a professional has not
only his professional ethics but the presumption that he satisfied
the requirements of law in the premises when the subdivision
survey was performed by him; fifthly, in Civil Case No. 122-R (B-
122) which sought the recovery by the plaintiffs Veloso spouses of
certain portions of Lot 8422 as a consequence of the subdivision
survey, only co-owners Proculo Peñalosa and Lourdes Peñalosa
Bibas were impleaded as defendants; conversely, Crispina Peñalosa
Miraflor was not made a defendant, such that the decision was only
against Proculo Peñalosa, and did not even include co-defendant
Lourdes Peñalosa Bibas, and recovered from Proculo Peñalosa was
only some 5,455.4 square meters of Lot 8422; sixthly, plaintiffs
evidence, that before the death in 1975 of Crispina P. Miraflor, her
sister Emerenciana and the latterÊs husband Nicolas Veloso Sr.
rendered shares of the produce of her (CrispinaÊs) share in Lot 8422,
is buttressed (Exhibits „T," T-1-a-1," T-1-a-2," T-1-b,‰ „U," „U-1," „V,"
„V-1-a"), and these are not adequately rebutted by the defendants;
and, seventhly, in actions for quieting of title, the plaintiff(s) need
not be in possession of the property involved (Article 477, Civil
Code)·if plaintiffs are not in possession of Lot 8422-F even

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2ac16f0255ef0a5b000d00d40059004a/p/AQK009/?username=Guest Page 6 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 261 8/9/21, 7:51 PM

11
constructively.

As aforestated, the above ruling of the trial court was

affirmed both by respondent court and this Court.
Now under the guise of a petition for annulment of
judgment, petitioners in effect are seeking a second cycle of
review regarding a subject matter which has already been
fully and fairly adjudicated. That cannot be allowed.
Contrary to the circuitous assertion of petitioners that
the rulings in Civil Cases Nos. R-205 and B-122 constitute
res judicata or the law of the case to Civil Case No. B-1043,
it is the holding in the latter case which is now a bar to the
present

_______________

11 Records, pp. 321–322.

202

202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Veloso, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

proceeding under the same doctrines invoked by them.

Material facts or questions which were in issue in a former
action and were there admitted or judicially determined
are conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein
and that such facts or questions become res judicata and
may not again be litigated in a subsequent action between
the same parties or their privies, regardless of the form the
issue may take in the subsequent action, whether the
subsequent action involves the same or a different form of
proceeding, or whether the second action is upon the same
or a different cause of action, subject matter, claim or
demand, as the earlier action. In such cases, it is also
immaterial that the two actions are based on different
grounds, or tried on different theories, or 12instituted for
different purposes, and seek different reliefs. By the same
token, whatever is once irrevocably established as the
controlling legal principle or decision continues to be the
law of the case between the same parties in the same case,
whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the
facts on which such decision was predicated
13
continue to be
the facts of the case before the court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2ac16f0255ef0a5b000d00d40059004a/p/AQK009/?username=Guest Page 7 of 8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 261 8/9/21, 7:51 PM

respondent Court of Appeals dated 29 July 1994 is

AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Padilla (Chairman), Vitug, Kapunan and

Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

Petition denied. Judgment affirmed.

_______________

12 Francisco, Vicente, J., The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines,

Vol. II, p. 876; Widows and Orphans Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 91797, 7 August 1992, 212 SCRA 360; Gutierrez v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 82475, 28 January 1991, 193 SCRA 437; Amberti v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 79981, 2 April 1991, 195 SCRA 659.
13 Tabaco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100981, 28 December 1994, 239
SCRA 485.

203

VOL. 261, AUGUST 28, 1996 203

First Integrated Bonding & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals

Note.·A party cannot re-litigate an issue that has

already been adjudicated in a previous case. (Lucero vs.
Commission on Elections, 234 SCRA 208 [1994])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2ac16f0255ef0a5b000d00d40059004a/p/AQK009/?username=Guest Page 8 of 8