FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 137908. November 22, 2000.]

RAMON D. OCHO, Petitioner, v. BERNARDINO, ERNESTO, PERFECTA, TEOSITA, MANUEL,

EPIFANIO, JR and DELFIN, all surnamed CALOS, Respondents.

DECISION

KAPUNAN, J.:

Petitioner Ramon D. Ocho files this petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set
aside the Decision, dated 27 August 1998, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 43976
insofar as it directed petitioner and Vicente Polinar to restore and return to the government their
respective subject lands as they are not qualified to be farmer-beneficiaries under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (Republic Act No. 6657). Likewise sought to be reversed
and set aside is the appellate court's Resolution, dated 19 February 1999, which denied
petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Spouses Epifanio and Valentina Calos (now both deceased), together with their children,
Bernardino, Ernesto, Teosita, Perfecta, Manuel, Epifanio, Jr., and Delfin, all surnamed Calos
(respondents), filed a complaint before the Department of Agrarian Reform Provincial
Adjudicator in Cagayan de Oro City entitled "Annulment of Deeds of Assignment,
Emancipation Patents and Transfer Certificate of Titles, Retention and Recovery of Possession
and Ownership." Aside from herein petitioner, the other respondents named therein were: Jenny
Liza Dorman, Alejandro Capephe, Susanito Capaphe, Apolonio Samellano, Vicente Polinar,
Ambrocio Ricablanca, Alberto Pasiliao, Procopio Tampepe, The Heirs of Pelagio Salmorin,
Roberto Salmorin, Margarito Noveno, Virgilio Hoy, Saturnino Medidas, Jr., Donato Pasiliao,
Jaime Dotosme, Amado Flores, Eliseo Arcojada, Silvino Dumaguing, Gonzalo Go, the Land
Bank of the Philippines, Register of Deeds of Bukidnon and Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officer of Valencia, Bukidnon. The case was docketed as DARAB Case No. (X)-014.

In their amended complaint, the Caloses averred that their parents, Epifanio and Valentina, were
the original owners of a parcel of land with an area of 23.7109 hectares located in Valencia,
Malaybalay, Bukidnon (now Hagcol, Valencia, Bukidnon), and covered by Original Certificate
of Title No. P-2066 issued by virtue of Homestead Patent No. V-42876 on 2 December
1955. Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27, the said land was placed under the Operation
Land Transfer and subsequently distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. The original
farmer-beneficiaries,[1] however, allegedly unlawfully conveyed their respective rights over the
lands granted to them to third persons. The amended complaint thus sought the nullification of
the Emancipation Patents and Transfer Certificates of Title issued to these third persons,
including petitioner, to wit:

1. TCT-No. ET-5217 issued by virtue of Emancipation Patent No. A-163402 issued on January
13, 1989, to Pelagio N. Salmorin Sr. containing an area of 25,586 square meters;
2. TCT-ET-5218 issued by virtue of Emancipation Patent No. A-162990 issued on January 13,
1989 to Susanito H. Capephe containing an area of 10,956 square meters;

3. TCT-No. ET-5219 issued by virtue of Emancipation Patent No. A-162995 issued on January
13, 1989 to Alejandro V. Capephe containing an area of 50,001 square meters;

4. TCT-No. ET-5221 issued by virtue of Emancipation Patent No. A-162997 issued on January
13, 1989 to Apolonio B. Samellano containing an area of 30,639 square meters;

5. TCT-No. ET-5222 issued by virtue of Emancipation Patent No. A-162991 issued on January
13, 1989 to Jennyliza B. Dorman with an area of 36,487 square meters;

6. TCT-No. ET-5223 issued by virtue of Emancipation Patent No. A-163405 issued on January
16, 1989 to Ramon D. Ocho with an area of 22,708 square meters;

7. TCT-No. ET-5224 issued by virtue of Emancipation Patent No. A-163403 issued on January
16, 1989 to Alberto F. Pasillao with an area of 400 square meters;

8. TCT-No. ET-5220 issued by virtue of Emancipation Patent No. A-162999 issued on January
13, 1989 to Ambrocio T. Ricablanca with an area of 1,181 square meters;

9. TCT-No. T-28281 to Vicente Polinar with an area of 600 square meters issued on 4 April
1989;

10. TCT-No. T-28282 to Vicente Polinar with an area of 2,061 square meters issued on April 4,
1989;

11. TCT-No. T-28283 to Vicente Polinar with an area of 600 square meters issued on 4 April
1989;

12. TCT-No. T-29284 to Vicente Polinar with an area of 1,568 square meters issued on April 4,
1989;

13. TCT-No. T-29605 with an area of 1,384 square meters of Gonzalo Go;

14. TCT-No. T-29606 with an area of 1,779 square meters of Gonzalo Go;

15. TCT-No. T-29607 with an area of 4,844 square meters of Gonzalo Go;

16. TCT-No. T-28288 to Vicente Polinar with an area of 1,720 square meters issued on April 4,
1989;

17. TCT-No. T-28289 to Vicente Polinar with an area of 1,663 square meters issued on April 4,
1989;

18. TCT-No. T-28290 to Vicente Polinar with an area of 5,145 square meters issued on April 4,
1989;

19. TCT-No. T-28291 to Vicente Polinar with an area of 1,989 square meters issued on April 4,
1989.[2]
The Caloses also posited in their amended complaint that the subject land was beyond the
coverage of the agrarian reform law as the same was covered by a homestead
patent. Accordingly, they maintained that they have the right to recover the homestead land of
their deceased parents Epifanio and Valentina.

After all the parties had been heard, the Provincial Adjudicator rendered his decision, dated 24
May 1993, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES ABOVE CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. All Emancipation Patents, Certificates of Land Transfer, Transfer for Certificates of Titles or
other titles issued involving the land under litigation, bearing Original Certificate of Title No. P-
2066 issued by virtue of Homestead Patent No. V-42876, are hereby ordered cancelled and/or
revoked for being null and void ab initio;

2. Defendant Vicente Polinar is hereby ordered to reimburse defendant Gonzalo Go for the
amount he has paid for the purchase of the three (3) parcels of land herein involved, with
interest and all expenses for the transfer of ownership;

3. Complainants are hereby ordered to reimburse the Land Bank of the Philippines for
whatever amount they received as payment of the land in litigation;

4. The Land Bank of the Philippines is hereby ordered to pay the Complainants for whatever
amortization amount the original beneficiaries paid to the LBP, representing rental of the land;
and

5. All persons, respondents, beneficiaries or otherwise, in occupation, possession, cultivation or

otherwise of subject land are hereby ordered to turn over the same land to the Complainants,
and vacate subject land.

SO ORDERED.[3]
From the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator, petitioner, together with Jennyliza Dorman,
Alejandro Capephe, Susanito Capephe, Apolonio Samellano, Saturnino Medidas, Jr., Amado
Flores, Vicente Polinar, Virgilio Hoy, Eliseo Arcojada, Ambrocio Ricablanca and the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), elevated the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB). The case was docketed as DARAB Case No. 1859 and
consolidated with several other cases involving substantially similar facts and issues. After
considering the pleadings filed by the parties, the DARAB reversed the decision of the
Provincial Adjudicator. With respect to the case at hand, the DARAB upheld the validity of the
Emancipation Patents and their corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title, including that of
petitioner. The dispositive portion of the decision of the DARAB reads:

WHEREFORE, finding reversible errors committed by the Honorable Adjudicator a quo, the
decisions appealed from are hereby REVERSED as follows:

1. Maintaining the validity of all Emancipation Patents and their corresponding Transfer
Certificates of Title which have been ordered cancelled;

2. Ordering the Register of Deeds for the Province of Bukidnon, as well as Zamboanga del Sur,
with respect to the case of Moras, et. al. vs. Hon. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, DARAB Case
No. 1781, not to cancel the subject Emancipation Patents;

3. Maintaining the validity of Certificates of Land Transfer issued by the Department of

Agrarian Reform in the names of Defendants-Appellants and other identified tenants-
beneficiaries who are Defendants-Appellants in those cases and they shall be maintained in their
peaceful possession and cultivation, and if they have effectively been ejected, they shall be
restored to their possession under the same terms and conditions prevailing at the time of their
ejectment;

4. Ordering the DARAB Sheriffs for the Province of Bukidnon, and Zamboanga del Sur with
respect to DARAB Case No. 1781, as well as the concerned Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officers, with the assistance of the PNP Command in the locality concerned, if necessary, to
implement this decision.

SO ORDERED.[4]
The Caloses then appealed the decision of the DARAB to the CA. The appellate court
substantially affirmed the decision of the DARAB as it (CA) upheld the titles over the subject
lands of some of the respondents therein except that of petitioner and of Vicente Polinar. The
CA found that petitioner and Vicente Polinar are not qualified to be farmer-beneficiaries as they
are already owners of other agricultural lands. Accordingly, the CA ordered petitioner and
Vicente Polinar to restore and return to the government their respective subject lands. The
dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is AFFIRMED insofar as the petitioners and the
following private respondents are concerned:

JENNY LIZA DORMAN, ALEJANDRO CAPEPHE, SUSANITO CAPEPHE, APOLONIO

SAMELLANO, VIRGILIO HOY, SATURNINO MEDIDAS, JR., AMADO FLORES,
ELISEO ARCOJADA, AMBROCIO RICABLANCA and the MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN
REFORM OFFICER,

The same judgment is REVERSED and SET ASIDE as to RAMON OCHO and VICENTE
POLINAR, and another one entered directing the said respondents to restore and surrender to
the government their landholdings under TCT No. ET-5223 in the case of Ramon Ocho
and TCT Nos. T-28281, T-28282, T-28283, T-28284, T-28288, T-28289, T-28290 and T-
282891 in the case of Vicente Polinar. The D.A.R. is directed to re-distribute the same to
qualified beneficiaries, giving preference to herein petitioners.

The appeal is DISMISSED as to:

ALBERTO PASILIAO, ALEJANDRO TAMPEPE, HEIRS OF PELAGIO SALMORIN,

DONATO PASILIAO, JAIME DOTOSME, SILVINO DUMAGUING and GONZALO GO.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Both the Caloses and petitioner filed their respective motions for reconsideration but these were
denied by the CA for lack of merit in its Resolution of 19 February 1999. [6]

Petitioner now assails the decision of the CA raising the following arguments:

I. The second action docketed as DAR Adm. Case No. (X)-014 filed by the Caloses
before Honorable Provincial Adjudicator Fidel H. Borres, Jr. is barred by the Final Resolution
rendered in their first action docketed as DAR Adm. Case No. 006-90 before DAR Provincial
Legal Officer, Atty. Francisco L. Vasig, Jr.;

II. The Claim of the Caloses that Ramon Ocho is owner of three (3) parcels of land which
matter was already determined and decided with finality in the Resolution of DAR Adm. Case
No. 006-90 [cannot] be subject to review by any court; and

III. The Caloses in filing this second action DAR Adm. Case No. (X)-014 after the
Resolution in DAR Adm. Case No. 006-90 had lapsed into Finality were engaged in Forum-
Shopping.[7]

In support of the foregoing arguments, petitioner avers that prior to the filing of the Caloses of
the complaint a quo, i.e., "Annulment of Deeds of Assignment, Emancipation Patents and
Transfer Certificate of Titles, Retention and Recovery of Possession and Ownership," they
(Caloses) already instituted a complaint for alleged "Anomalies/Irregularities in OLT Transfer
Action and Other Related Activities," also involving the same parties and subject lands. The
case was docketed as Adm. Case No. 006-90. The Hearing Officer in Adm. Case No. 006-90
issued a Resolution, dated 11 February 1991, with the following pertinent findings:

Complainant's claim that Ramon Ocho is a big landowner or owns other lands before acquiring
the land now covered by TCT No. ET-5223 in his name is untrue. The records show that the
parcel of land located at Impalutao, Impasugong, Bukidnon with an area of 50,000 square
meters more or less, is owned by his daughter, Rona D. Ocho and covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-25754 in the name of the latter. Likewise, the other parcel of land
situated in Malaybalay, Bukidnon with an area of 77,053 square meters is owned by his son
Rico D. Ocho being covered by TCT No. 25756 in the latter's name. [8]
Petitioner essentially contends that the above findings constitute res judicata as the said
resolution already became final and executory and the issue of his ownership of other
agricultural lands may no longer be relitigated. The CA allegedly erred when it made a finding
that he (petitioner) is the owner of other agricultural lands and directed him to return to the
government his subject lands as he is not qualified to be a farmer-beneficiary under R.A. No.
6657.

The instant petition is meritorious.

The doctrine of res judicata as embodied in Section 47, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states:

Sec. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders.- The effect of a judgment or final order rendered
by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may
be as follows:

(a) x x x

(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or
as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the
parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or
special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same
capacity; and

(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is
deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face
to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary
thereto.

It must be pointed out at this point that, contrary to the insistence of the Caloses, the doctrine of
res judicata applies to both judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings.[9] The doctrine actually
embraces two (2) concepts: the first is "bar by prior judgment" under paragraph (b) of Rule 39,
Section 47, and the second is "conclusiveness of judgment" under paragraph (c) thereof.[10] In
the present case, the second concept - conclusiveness of judgment - applies. The said concept is
explained in this manner:
[A] fact or question which was in issue in a former suit and was there judicially passed upon
and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the judgment
therein as far as the parties to that action and persons in privity with them are concerned and
cannot be again litigated in any future action between such parties or their privies, in the same
court or any other court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or different cause of
action, while the judgment remains unreversed by proper authority. It has been held that in
order that a judgment in one action can be conclusive as to a particular matter in another action
between the same parties or their privies, it is essential that the issue be identical. If a particular
point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the
determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties
or their privies will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in
issue and adjudicated in the first suit. xxx[11]

Although the action instituted by the Caloses in Adm. Case No. 006-90
(Anomalies/Irregularities in OLT Transfer Action and Other Related Activities) is different
from the action in Adm. Case No. (X)-014 (Annulment of Deeds of Assignment, Emancipation
Patents and Transfer Certificate of Titles, Retention and Recovery of Possession and
Ownership), the concept of conclusiveness of judgment still applies because under this principle
"the identity of causes of action is not required but merely identity of issues." [12]

Simple put, conclusiveness of judgment bars the relitigation of particular facts or issues in
another litigation between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action. In Lopez vs.
Reyes,[13] we expounded on the concept of conclusiveness of judgment as follows:

The general rule precluding the relitigation of material facts or questions which were in
issue and adjudicated in former action are commonly applied to all matters essentially
connected with the subject matter of litigation. Thus it extends to questions `necessarily
involved in an issue, and necessarily adjudicated, or necessarily implied in the final
judgment, although no specific finding may have been made in reference thereto, and
although such matters were directly referred to in the pleadings and were not actually or
formally presented. Under this rule, if the record of the former trial shows that the
judgment could not have been rendered without deciding the particular matter, it will be
considered as having settled that matter as to all future actions between the parties, and if
a judgment necessarily presupposes certain premises, they are as conclusive as the
judgment itself. Reasons for the rule are that a judgment is an adjudication on all the matters
which are essential to support it, and that every proposition assumed or decided by the court
leading up to the final conclusion upon which such conclusion is based is as effectually passed
upon as the ultimate question which is solved.[14]

There is no question that the issue of whether petitioner is the owner of other agricultural lands
had already been passed upon by the proper quasi-judicial authority (the hearing officer of the
DAR) in Adm Case No. 006-90. Said decision became final and executory when the Caloses
failed to file an appeal thereof after their motion for reconsideration was denied.[15] Applying
the rule on conclusiveness of judgment, the issue of whether petitioner is the owner of other
agricultural lands may no longer be relitigated.

As held in Legarda vs. Savellano:[16]

xxx It is a general rule common to all civilized system of jurisprudence, that the solemn and
deliberate sentence of the law, pronounced by its appointed organs, upon a disputed fact or a
state of facts, should be regarded as a final and conclusive determination of the question
litigated, and should forever set the controversy at rest. Indeed, it has been well said that this
maxim is more than a mere rule of law; more even than an important principle of public policy;
and that it is not too much to say that it is a fundamental concept in the organization of every
jural system. Public policy and sound practice demand that, at the risk of occasional errors,
judgments of courts should become final at some definite date fixed by law. The very object
for which courts were constituted was to put an end to controversies.[17]

The findings of the Hearing Officer in Adm. Case No. 006-90, which had long attained finality,
that petitioner is not the owner of other agricultural lands foreclosed any inquiry on the same
issue involving the same parties and property. The CA thus erred in still making a finding that
petitioner is not qualified to be a farmer-beneficiary because he owns other agricultural lands.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is given DUE COURSE. The Decision,
dated 27 August 1998, and Resolution, dated 19 February 1999, of the Court of Appeals are
REVERSED insofar as it directs petitioner Ramon Ocho to restore and return to the government
his subject land. Petitioner's TCT No. ET-5223 is hereby declared VALID.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.