PANDAN, Philip Angelo S.

TITLE: Veloso, Jr. v CA, GR 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 PEALOSA MIRAFLOR,
EDDIE PENALOSA MIRAFLOR and DOUGLAS PEALOSA MIRAFLOR, respondents.
Ponente: Justice Bellosillo
Petition: for review on centiorari of the decision of Court of Appeals.
Topics: Res Judicata
Doctrines and Provisions:
Res Judicata: the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", a case in which there has been a final
judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued
litigation of a case on same issues between the same parties.
Facts:

September 12, 1988, Respondents Corsini Miraflor Avellana, Aureo Pealosa Miraflor, Eddie
Pealosa Miraflor and Douglas Pealosa Miraflor filed a complaint for quieting of title with
damages against Nicolas Veloso Sr. and petitioners Nicolas Veloso Jr., Concepcion Veloso
Patalinghug, Eduardo Veloso, Ligaya Veloso Roa, Rafael Veloso, Emerenciana Veloso Cabigon,
Domingo Veloso and Emmanuel Veloso before the Regional Trial Court. The subject matter of the
complaint was Lot No. 8422-F covered by TCT No. 22393 in the name of Crispina Pealosa
Miraflor, deceased mother of respondents.
August 31, 1990, RTC decided in favor of the respondents.
May 28, 1992, CA affirmed RTCs decision.
October 12, 1992, Supreme Court reaffirmed CA and RTCs decision.
September 20, 1993, Petitioners seek annulment of the decision from CA.
July 24, 1994, CA 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 modify the decision of a co-equal court, the then Court of First
Instance of Leyte, Br. III and Br. VIII," should have been raised in the previous proceedings.

Issues and Holdings:

1. Whether or not CA 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?
No, CA is correct in refusing the petition. The cases petitioner has mentioned is a
different case all together, and is not being overlapped by the previous case. The first case (R205) the lot (Lot No. 8422-F) is not a part of the decision; while the second case (B-122) has
different defendants who has not taken part on the case (B-1043) at hand.

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 adjudicate. That cannot be allowed
Ruling:
The petition is DENIED. The decision of respondent Court of Appeals dated 29 July 1994 is
AFFIRMED.