FACTS:

This case involves a dispute over the ownership of a parcel of land. The Court of Appeals (CA) declared Candelario Damalerio as the absolute owner of the land and ordered the issuance of new certificates of title in his name. The CA decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court and became final and executory. The trial court was directed to issue a writ of execution for the enforcement of the decision and a writ of possession for the delivery of physical possession of the land to Damalerio.

The petitioners, Biblia Toledo-Banaga, Jovita Tan, and subsequent transferees, filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to set aside the trial court's orders. However, the court noted that they inaccurately referred to the trial court judge as the "respondent judge" when the judge was not named as a respondent. The petitioners argued that the private respondent should have pursued consulta to the Land Registration Commissioner instead of resorting to contempt. The court found these arguments unconvincing and reiterated that Damalerio was the rightful owner of the property.

The court invoked the principle of res judicata, emphasizing that the issue of ownership had already been settled with finality by the CA and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Finality in judicial decisions is essential in putting an end to litigation, and parties should not be subjected to multiple vexations for the same cause. It was explained that all the elements of res judicata were present in this case, including the finality of the previous judgment, jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, a judgment on the merits, and identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action. Therefore, the court concluded that the judgment in the redemption suit had long become final and executory, and res judicata had set in.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the principle of res judicata applies in this case.

2. Whether a direct or independent civil action for cancellation of titles is the proper remedy.

3. Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the surrender of duplicate titles.

4. Whether a writ of preliminary injunction could have been availed by the petitioners to stop the enforcement of the final and executory decision.

5. Whether petitioner Tan had notice of private respondent's interest over the lot at the time of the sale.

6. Whether petitioner Tan is a buyer in bad faith given her knowledge of the flaws and defects in the title of her seller.

7. Whether the decision in the pending litigation involving the property is binding upon petitioner Tan.

8. Whether or not the delivery of possession is included in the Court's decision declaring Damalerio as the absolute owner of the property.

9. Whether or not the trial court violated the doctrines by denying the motion for a writ of possession.

10. Whether or not the order of the respondent court to file a separate civil action to annul private respondent Tan's titles re-opens the decision and alters the final decision of the Court of Appeals.

RULING:

1. Yes, the principle of res judicata applies in this case. All the elements of res judicata are present, such as the finality of the judgment, jurisdiction of the court, judgment on the merits, and identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.

2. No, a direct or independent civil action for cancellation of titles is not the proper remedy. The same facts, circumstances, evidence, and arguments invoked in the previous case are the same matters that would be established in an independent suit for cancellation of title. The test of identity of causes of action is not based on the form of the case but on whether the same evidence would support both causes of action.

3. Yes, mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the surrender of duplicate titles. The execution of a final and executory judgment, particularly the issuance of titles, is a ministerial function of the courts. The surrender of the duplicate title is implied from the executory decision, and it is a ministerial duty of the Register of Deeds to comply with the court's decision.

4. No, a writ of preliminary injunction could not have been availed by the petitioners to stop the enforcement of the final and executory decision. Procedural matters become moot and academic after a decision on the merits has become final and executory, and there were no legal or equitable justifications to support the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

5. Yes, petitioner Tan had notice of private respondent's interest over the lot at the time of the sale. Petitioner Tan even furnished the amount used by petitioner Banaga for the attempted redemption. One who redeems in vain a property of another acquires notice that there could be a controversy. Petitioner Tan was buying a property not registered in the seller's name, and the deed of absolute sale mentioned that the certificates of title were still in the name of the private respondent. A party dealing with registered land need not go beyond the certificate of title to determine the true owner, and petitioner Tan should have investigated further into the title of her seller.

6. Petitioner Tan is a buyer in bad faith. She had full knowledge of the flaws and defects in the title of her seller, who was not the registered owner of the property. Petitioner Tan's purchase of the property with such knowledge shows her bad faith in acquiring the property.

7. The decision in the pending litigation involving the property is binding upon petitioner Tan. As a transferee pendente lite, she stands in the shoes of her transferor and must respect any judgment or decree which may be rendered in the litigation. Her interest in the property is subject to the incidents or results of the pending suit.

8. The delivery of possession is considered included in the Court's decision declaring Damalerio as the absolute owner of the property. This can be enforced by a writ of possession.

9. The trial court violated the doctrines by denying the motion for a writ of possession, as it contradicted the Court's decision and prevented the implementation of the decision.

10. The order of the respondent court to file a separate civil action to annul private respondent Tan's titles re-opens the decision and alters the final decision of the Court of Appeals, which is not within its authority.

PRINCIPLES:

• One who buys property with full knowledge of the flaws and defects in the title of his vendor is considered to be in bad faith and cannot claim acquisition of title in good faith as against the owner or an interest therein.

• A buyer in bad faith cannot acquire better rights than the predecessor in interest and is bound by the outcome of the pending suit involving the property.

• Possession is a necessary incident of ownership. The delivery of possession is included in the adjudication of ownership, and a buyer in bad faith who has no valid right over the property cannot retain possession of the same.

• Delivery of possession is considered included in a court's decision declaring someone as the absolute owner of a property.

• The denial of a motion for a writ of possession that contradicts a court's decision violates the doctrines.

• A court does not have authority to re-open a final decision and alter its consequences in a separate civil action.