The instant case is the fourth case that reached this Court involving the same parties and property.

In this case, the heirs of Marcos Mata (petitioners) seek the reversal of the decision, dated 31 July 1991, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 24434, permanently enjoining the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Tagum, Davao City, from proceeding with Civil Case No. 2468, an action to enforce petitioner's right to repurchase the subject lot under Section 119 of the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended).

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Sometime in 1940, spouses Marcos and Codidi Mata, members of a non-christian cultural minority in Davao and predecessors-in-interest of petitioners, were granted a homestead patent over a parcel of land situated in Tagum, Davao del Norte containing an area of 4.5777 hectares. Original Certificate of Title No. 3019 covering the subject lot was issued in their favor.

On 10 June 1945, Marcos Mata (Mata) executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the ownership of the subject lot in favor of Claro L. Laureta the predecessor-in-interest of private respondents. On 10 May 1947, Mata executed another document selling the same property to Fermin Caram, Jr. (Caram), who caused the cancellation of OCT No. 3019. In lieu thereof, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 140 was issued in Caram's name.

On 25 June 1956, Laureta filed before the Court of First Instance of Tagum (now RTC) an action, docketed as Civil Case No. 3083, to declare the first sale of the subject lot in his favor valid and the second sale thereof to Caram void.

On 29 February 1964, the CFI of Tagum rendered judgment as follows: Xsc

On appeal by the spouses Mata and Caram, the CA affirmed the aforesaid decision of the CFI. Two (2) separate petitions for review were then filed by the Matas and Caram with this Court. The petition filed by the spouses Mata, docketed as G.R. No. L-29147, was dismissed by the Court for lack of merit on 20 June 1968. Said decision became final and executory on 26 July 1968. Upon the other hand, the petition filed by Caram, docketed as G.R. No. L-28740, was dismissed by the Court on 24 February 1981.2 [Caram, Jr. vs. Laureta, 103 SCRA 7 (1981)] Said decision became final and executory on 12 February 1982.

Meanwhile, on 23 February 1979, spouses Mata filed with the Court of First Instance (now RTC), Branch 1 of Tagum, Davao del Norte, Civil Case No. 1071 against the Lauretas for recovery of ownership and possession of the subject lot. The spouses Mata alleged that the deed of sale executed between Mata and Laureta involving the subject lot is null and void and/or unenforceable because the same had not been approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources as required by law and as directed by the CFI of Davao in its decision of 29 February 1964 in Civil Case No. 3083, and that said decision could no longer be executed as the same had already prescribed. Sppedjo

On 12 February 1983, an alias writ of execution was issued by the CFI enforcing its decision in Civil Case No. 3083. By then, Mata was already dead while his heirs (petitioners) refused to acknowledge the deed of sale in accordance with the said decision. In lieu of the requisite acknowledgement, the officer-in-charge of the court (now RTC, Branch VIII, Davao City) certified and affirmed the due execution of the deed of sale executed between Mata and Laureta. Thereafter, on 21 February 1984, the deed of absolute sale in favor of Laureta was duly approved by the Minister of Natural Resources. Finally, on 9 May 1985, TCT No. T-46346 covering the subject lot was issued in the name of Laureta.

On 20 April 1983, the RTC rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 1071 declaring, among others, that the decision in Civil Case No. 3083 in favor of private respondents had "become stale and unenforceable due to prescription." It ordered the return of the ownership of the subject lot to petitioners.

On appeal by private respondents, the CA affirmed in toto the CFI decision in Civil Case No. 1071. The case was then elevated to the Supreme Court which reversed and set aside the decision of the CA. Speaking through Justice Regalado, the Court, in its decision3 [Heirs of Claro L. Laureta vs. Intermediate Apellate Court, 184 SCRA 157 (1990)] in G.R. No. 72194 promulgated on 5 April 1990, ruled that the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 3083 was not time-barred because the ten-year period for the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 3083 commenced to run only on 12 February 1982 when the decision denying Caram's petition became final and executory .

Upon the belief that they could still exercise their right to repurchase the subject lot under the Public Land Act, on 22 November 1990, petitioners filed with the RTC, Branch 1 of Tagum, Davao City, an action against private respondents for legal redemption, reconveyance and consignation, docketed as Civil Case No. 2468.

Maintaining that Civil Case No. 2468 would render nugatory and ineffectual the decision of the court in G.R. No. 72194, private respondents instituted with this Court a petition for injunction and prohibition seeking, among others, to restrain the trial court from proceeding with said case. On 11 March 1991, this Court referred the same to the CA for resolution.

The CA ruled in favor of private respondents and permanently enjoined the RTC from further proceeding with Civil Case No. 2468. The CA categorically declared that petitioner's right to repurchase the subject lot under the Public Land Act had already prescribed.4 [CA Decision, Rollo, pp. 32-38.] Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in its resolution, dated 12 November 1991.

Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the instant Petition for review alleging in the main that respondent CA erred in holding that petitioners’ right to repurchase the subject property under Section 119 of the Public Land Act had already prescribed.

After the parties have submitted their respective pleadings, this Court issued a resolution, dated 5 September 1994, denying the petition for review for failure of the petitioners to sufficiently show that respondent court committed any reversible error in rendering the assailed decision. Miso

Upon petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, dated 27 September 1994, however, this Court, in its resolution, dated 24 October 1994, reinstated the instant petition, gave due course to the same and directed the parties to file their respective memoranda.

In their petition, the fundamental issue raised by petitioners is whether or not they could still exercise their right to repurchase the subject lot under the Public Land Act. In their motion for reconsideration and memorandum, however, petitioners question the validity of the sale of the subject lot to Laureta. They contend that said sale was void because the document evidencing the same was written in English, a language not understood by the vendor, and that it was not approved by the Office for the Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC) in violation of Section 4(n), Republic Act No. 1888, as amended, in relation to Section 120 of the Public Land Act.

Subsequently, the various pleadings separately filed by petitioners themselves, on one hand, and Atty. Rodolfo U. Jimenez, their counsel, and Isidro Sembrano, their purported attorney-in-fact, on the other hand, have left this Court baffled as to petitioners’ real stand on the matter. Thus:

Given the dizzying and seeemingly interminable equivocation in the stance of the petitioners vis-à-vis the proposed amicable settlement of 23 November 1995, we are constrained to disregard the same and proceed with the resolution of the case on the merits.

I

As stated earlier, in their Motion for Reconsideration and Memorandum, petitioners harp on the alleged nullity of the deed of sale executed between Mata and Laureta in 1945 on the ground that it was written in English, a language not understood by the former, and that it was not approved by the OSCC in violation of Section 4(n), Republic Act No. 1888, as amended, in relation to Section 120 of the Public Land Act. The issue of the validity or nullity of the aforesaid deed of sale, however, had already been passed upon by this Court in the case of Caram, Jr. vs. Laureta,5 [See Note 2.] the first case decided at length by this Court involving the subject property. Previously, another petition filed by Mata questioning the decision of the CA which upheld the sale of the subject property to Laureta was dismissed by this Court on 24 February 1981.

In the Caram case, the issue raised was which sale was valid considering that Mata sold the same property twice: first to Laureta and later on to Caram. We upheld therein the validity of the sale in favor of Laureta as we as we affirmed the findings of the lower court to the effect that while the sale to Laureta was voidable, as it was procured by force, the same "was cured when, after the lapse of four years from the time the intimidation ceased, Marcos Mata lost both his rights to file an action for annulment or set up the nullity of the contract as a defense in an action to enforce the same."6 [Id., at 17.] We stated therein that "the first sale in favor of Laureta prevails over the sale in favor of Caram."7 [Id., at 19.] This pronouncement cannot be construed in any other way but that the Court affirmed the validity of the sale of the subject property in favor of Laureta as against the sale of the same to Caram, which we categorically declared as void. Manikan

Then again, in the case of Heirs of Claro L. Laureta vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,8 [See Note 3.] this Court ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. 1071 filed by petitioners. It must be noted that in their complaint therein, petitioners also raised the issue of the nullity of the deed of sale executed between Mata and Laureta on the ground that, among others, it had not been approved by the then Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources as required by law. Thus, by ordering the dismissal of Civil Case No. 1071, we, in effect, upheld anew the validity of the sale of the subject property in favor of Laureta. In the said decision, we likewise allowed private respondents to proceed with the execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 3083 as the same was not yet time-barred.

The foregoing rulings in the earlier related cases, which had long attained finality, upholding the validity of the sale of the subject property in favor of Laureta effectively foreclose any further inquiry as to its validity. This is in consonance with the doctrine of res judicata as embodied in Rule 39, Section 47 of the Rules of Court:

The doctrine of res judicata 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.9 [Camara vs. Court of Appeals,, G.R. No. 100789, 20 July 1999.] In the present case, the second concept – conclusiveness of judgment – applies. The said concept is explained in this manner:

Although the action instituted by petitioners in the lower court in this case (action for reconveyance) is different from the actions they instituted in the earlier cases, 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."11 [Id., at 99.]

Simply 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,12 [76 SCRA 179 (1977)] we expounded on the concept of conclusiveness of judgment as follows:

There is no question that the issue of the validity or nullity of the sale of the subject property in favor of Laureta had already been passed upon by this Court in Caram, where we categorically pronounced that the sale in favor of Laureta prevails over that of Caram, which we declared void, and in Laureta, where we stated that private respondents may still validly proceed with the execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 3083. Caram became final and executory on 12 February 1982 while Laureta on 5 July 1990. Applying the rule on conclusiveness of judgment, the matter may no longer be relitigated in this case.

As held in Legarda vs. Savellano14 [158 SCRA 194 (1988)] –

II

The next issue is whether or not petitioners can still validly exercise their right to repurchase the subject property pursuant to Section 119 of the Public Land Act:

The term "conveyance" imports the transfer of legal title from one person to another. It usually takes place upon the execution of the deed purporting to transfer the ownership of the land as the same is already valid and binding against the parties thereto even without the act of registration. The registration is intended to protect the buyer against claims of third parties against subsequent alienations by the vendor, and is certainly not necessary to give effect, as between the parties, to their deed of sale. Thus, for the purpose of reckoning the five-year period to exercise the right to repurchase, the date of conveyance is construed to refer to the date of the execution of the deed transferring the ownership of the land to the buyer.16 [Galanza vs. Nuesa, 95 Phil. 713 (1954) citing Carillo vs. Salak, 91 Phil 265 (1952). See also Galisinao vs. Austria, 97 Phil. 82 (1955)]

In this case, Mata conveyed the ownership of the subject property to Laureta by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale, dsated 10 June 1945. Petitioners, as heirs of Marcos Mata, filed the action for reconveyance (Civil Case No. 2468) on 24 November 1990. From this date up to the time of the filing of the action for reconveyance, more than forty-five (45) years had lapsed. Clearly, petitioners’ right to redeem the subject property had already prescribed by the time they went to court. As correctly pointed out by the CA, if the five-year period to repurchase were to be reckoned form 12 February 1982, the date of finality of our decision in the Caram case17 [See Note 2.] where we declared that the sale in favor of Laureta prevails over that in favor of Caram, prescription of the right to repurchase had set in.

The same conclusion would obtain even if the running of the five-year period were to start from 9 May 1985, when Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-46346 covering the subject property was issued in favor Laureta after the sale in his favor was approved by the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with the decision in Civil Case No. 3083, petitioners’ action to repurchase the subject property would still be time-barred, as more than five (5) years had already lapsed. Ncmmis

Petitioners further argue that the five-year period should be reckoned from September 1990, when the decision of this Court in Laureta 18 [See Note 3.] allegedly became final and executory. Petitioners maintain that prior to the said date, they could not exercise their right to repurchase since the issue of its ownership was still then under litigation. This contention is without merit. As earlier discussed, the act of conveyance within the meaning of the Section 119 of the Public Land Act had already been made long before the finality of our decision in Laureta. At any rate, said case resolved an entirely different issue, i.e., whether or not private respondents’ motion for execution of the judgment in Civil Case No. 3083 was time-barred. Accordingly, the CA correctly ordered the dismissal of petitioners’ action for reconveyance on ground of prescription.

III

With respect to the procedural issue raised by petitioners, i.e., whether the CA erred in granting private respondents’ petition for injunction as it had allegedly the effect of disposing the case without trial on the merits, suffice it to say that since private respondents’ right to injunctive relief was clear, the CA properly granted the same. The CA, likewise, correctly ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. 2468 as the records of the case clearly showed that petitioners’ right to repurchase had already prescribed. A trial on the merits thereon would serve no other purpose and would only result in needless delay.

Indeed, this controversy has already dragged on for more than half a century, it is, thus, high time that we write finis to it.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.