Res judicata in the mode of conclusiveness of judgment. CITY OF CEBU vs. APO O!IO ". #E#A"O$ %R. &.R.

!o. '()*+) %anua,- ./$ )/'. REYE0$ J.: FACT01 This is an off-shoot of Civil Case for eminent domain over 2 parcels of land owned by spouses Dedamo filed by the petitioner before the RTC Cebu City. The petitioner immediately took possession of the lots after depositing P !"! #.$$ with the P%& pursuant to 'ection !( of R). *!#$.+ During the pendency" petitioner and 'pouses Dedamo entered into a Compromise )greement whereby the latter agreed to part with the ownership of the parcels of land in consideration of P!.*,- as provisional payment and .ust compensation in an amount to be determined by a panel of commissioners. /orthwith" the panel was constituted and a report was submitted to the RTC recommending the sum of P2$.0,- as .ust compensation. The report was adopted and approved by the RTC in its 1rder The RTC 1rder was affirmed by the C) and then by the Court when the matter was elevated for review 2hen the said decision became final and e3ecutory" the case was remanded for e3ecution to the RTC" before which" a motion for the issuance of a writ of e3ecution was filed by 'pouses Dedamo. RTC granted the motion and ordered the issuance of the writ. 'pouses Dedamo passed away and they were substituted in the case by herein respondent. Petitioner paid the respondent the sum of P!("$4("(4(. $ which is the difference between the .ust compensation due and the provisional payment already made. The respondent filed a ,otion before the RTC to order the petitioner to pay interest on the .ust compensation computed from the time of actual taking of the lands. RTC denied the motion and ruled it can no longer amend a final and e3ecutory .udgment that did not specifically direct the payment of legal interest. )damant" the respondent sought recourse before the C) asserting that the petitioner is liable to pay5 6a7 !28 legal interest on the unpaid balance from the time of actual taking of the property up to the date of payment of .ust compensation9 and 6b7 !28 legal interest from the time the decision awarding .ust compensation became final and e3ecutory until its satisfaction on December 24" 2$$4. C) re.ected the respondent:s first claim 6belatedly raised7 and found the respondent:s second contention meritorious. The C) awarded legal interest accruing from the time the RTC 1rder dated December 2*" !((# awarding .ust compensation was affirmed with finality by the 'upreme Court up to the time of full payment thereof in line with the ruling in ;astern 'hipping <ines" =nc. v. Court of )ppeals # that when a court .udgment awarding a sum of money becomes final and e3ecutory" it shall earn legal interest of !28 per annum reckoned from such finality until satisfaction. )t bar is the recourse interposed by the petitioner wherein he seeks the setting aside of the same C) Decision dated %ovember 4$" 2$$ . Respondent moved for the consolidation of the present petition with >.R. %o. !*2(+2. The motion was denied in view of the prior denial of >.R. %o. !*2(+2

=''?;5 2@n the the petition should be denied based on the principle of conclusive of .udgment A;<D5

The 2etition is denied on the g,ound of ,es judicata in the mode of conclusiveness of judgment. ) perusal of the allegations in the present case evidently shows that the petitioner broaches the issues similarly raised and already resolved in >.R. %o. !*2(+2. ?nder the principle of conclusiveness of .udgment" when a right or fact has been .udicially tried and determined by a court of competent .urisdiction" or when an opportunity for such trial has been given" the .udgment of the court" as long as it remains unreversed" should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them.!+ 'tated differently" conclusiveness of .udgment bars the re-litigation in a second case of a fact or Buestion already settled in a previous case. The ad.udication in >.R. %o. !*2(+2 has become binding and conclusive on the petitioner who can no longer Buestion the respondent:s entitlement to the !28 legal interest awarded by the C). The Court:s determination in >.R. %o. !*2(+2 on the reckoning point of the !28 legal interest is likewise binding on the petitioner who cannot re-litigate the said matter anew through the present recourse. Thus" the .udgment in >.R. %o. !*2(+2 bars the present case as the relief sought in the latter is ine3tricably related to the ruling in the former.