G.R. No. 233909 - ERNESTO M. TELLEZ AND JOVINO M. TELLEZ, REPRESENTED BY MELANIA T. MAGPALE, VS. SPOUSES JOSE JOSON AND JOVITA JOSON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the assailed decision dismissed the complaint for recovery of possession filed by petitioners Ernesto M. Tellez (Ernesto) and Jovino M. Tellez (Jovino; collectively, petitioners) for being barred by res judicata . The DARAB ruling, in turn, reversed and set aside the Decision [5] dated December 14, 2010 of the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in Talavera, Nueva Ecija and thus found petitioners as the lawful possessors of the land subject of this case. The Facts Petitioners alleged that Vivencio Lorenzo (Vivencio) was the original owner of a parcel of agricultural land devoted to the production of rice with an area of 6.3465 hectares located at Dumani, Carranglan, Nueva Ecija, and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-1912. However, after the effectivity of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27, [6] said land was placed under the coverage of the Operation Land Transfer Program for distribution to qualified tenant-farmers. [7] In line with this program, Demetrio Tellez (Demetrio) was identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as the qualified beneficiary of his tenanted portion of Vivencio's property (subject property). Thus, Demetrio's successors-in-interest, petitioners, were issued four emancipation patents in their favor on July 15, 1988 as follows: (a) Ernesto was issued TCT No. EP-910-M containing an area of 13,859 square meters (Ernesto's tenanted portion); and (b) Jovino was issued Transfer of Certificate Title (TCT) No. EP No. 75589 containing an area of 617 square meters, TCT EP No. 536970 containing an area of 3,217 square meters, and TCT EP No. 75595 containing an area of 14,521 square meters (Jovino's tenanted portion). [8] Following this, two cases concerning the subject property arose. First , in Civil Case No. C-38 instituted by Vivencio against Jovino, [9] Branch 38 Regional Trial Court, San Jose City (RTC Br. 38) upheld the validity and binding effect of the Amicable Settlement [10] allegedly executed by Jovino on September 17, 1992. Claiming that his brother Ernesto has no right over the subject property, Jovino surrendered in said Amicable Settlement their tenancy rights over the subject property to Vivencio in exchange for monetary consideration (First RTC Decision). Second , in Civil Case No. C-83 commenced by Vivencio for recovery of possession with damages against Ernesto, Nenita Tellez, and Inciana Tellez (collectively Tellezes), [11] Branch 39 Regional Trial Court, San Jose City, (RTC Br. 39) ordered the Tellezes to immediately vacate the subject property in Vivencio's favor considering Jovino's alleged surrender thereof in the above-stated Amicable Settlement (Second RTC Decision). [12] Aggrieved by the Second RTC Decision, the Tellezes filed a Motion [13] to re-open case which was initially granted by RTC Br. 39 but later countermanded by the same trial court on the ground that the Second RTC Decision had already attained finality, and hence, can no longer be re-open