GERARDA A. DIZON-ABILLA and the HEIRS OF RONALDO P. ABILLA v. SPS. CARLOS AND THERESITA GOBONSENG
577 SCRA 401 (2009)
A litigant whose rights have been adjudicated by a final judgment does not have unbridled license to litigate for another try.
Gerarda A. Dizon-Abilla and the Heirs of Ronaldo P. Abilla extended to Spouses Carlos and Theresita Gobonseng a loan in the amount of Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P550, 000.00). Spouses Gobonseng, however, failed to settle the same. They then executed a ―Deed of Sale‖ covering Seventeen (17) lots in favor of Dizon-Abilla and Heirs of Abilla. The Deed provides an option to buy the lots within six (6) months in favor of Spouses Gobonseng which they failed to exercise.
Dizon-Abilla and Heir of Abilla filed a case of specific performance and damages for the expenses attendant to the ―Preparation and Registration‖ of the Deed of Sale. The RTC of Dumaguete City ruled the option to buy was null and void. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court‘s decision.
Nineteen (19) days after the decision of the CA became final, an ―Urgent Motion to Repurchase‖ was filed to the trial court by Spouses Gobonseng alleging that they made a tender of payment to RCBC Dumaguete Branch, but was denied. The case was raffled to a new judge which ordered the release of the deposited money as payment for the repurchase. Dizon-Abilla and Heirs of Abilla filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the trial court‘s decision allowing Spouses Gobonseng‘s repurchase. The Supreme Court denied their petition.
Dizon-Abilla and Heirs of Abilla subsequently filed another case to the trial court asserting that they are entitled to 2% monthly interest. The trial court ruled in favor of Spouses Gobonseng which was affirmed by the CA. The appellate court ruled that the case has already been closed and terminated.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in its decision to consider the case closed and terminated
HELD:
The amount tendered by Spouses Domonseng, the correctness of which had already been passed upon by the appellate court, has been determined with finality.
Every litigation must necessarily come to an end. Access to courts is guaranteed, but once a litigant‘s right has been adjudicated in a valid final judgment of a competent court, he should not be granted an unbridled license to go back for another try. The prevailing party should not be harassed by subsequent suits. For, if endless litigations were to be encouraged, unscrupulous litigations would multiply in number to the detriment of the administration of justice.
