MELINA P. MACAHILIG, petitioner, vs. the Heirs of GRACE M. MAGALIT, respondents.

G.R. No. 141423. November 15, 2000

PONENTE: PANGANIBAN, J.

FACTS:

The case is about the Lot 4417, which had an area of 2.0805 hectares and was subject of the
fishpond application of Pepito Magalit, now represented by his heirs. Both the petitioners and the
respondent are claiming rights over the land, which is occupied by Macahilig. The BFAR, as
well as the Secretary of Agriculture and the Office of the President adjudged that that lot belongs
to Magalit and that the denial of the petition of Macahilig is final. Macahilig still proceeded with
the Court of Appeals and filed “Petition for Review with Prayer for an Issuance of a Writ of
Injunction and/or Restraining Order, which was again denied. This now prompt Magalit to
institute a civil case for the issuance of writ of execution. Dr. Magalit contended that the Writ of
Execution was not satisfied, because the spouses had refused to give up the fishpond in question.
However, on September 17, 1992 the RTC held that its court has no jurisdiction over her claim.
Instead of appealing, Magalit just filed a “Petition for Contempt against Melina Macahilig”
because of the continuous refusal to turn over the land. On June 18, 1993, the court granted the
relief of Magalit and ordered Macahilig to vacate the premises of the land.

Petitioner now claims that the September 17, 1992 bars the subsequent order of the court on June
18, 1993 since Magalit did not appeal the first case hence, become final.

ISSUE:

Did the September 17, 1992 Order constitute res adjudicata barring the June 18, 1993 Orders of
the trial court?

HELD:

NO. In this case, the court ruled that the September 17, 1992 is an interlocutory order as the
judgment is not rendered on its merits but only on the technical point. A judgment or an order
on the merits is one rendered after a determination of which party is upheld, as
distinguished from an order rendered upon some preliminary or formal or merely technical
point.

An interlocutory order cannot give rise to res judicata. Only a final and unappealable judgment
on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction can effectively bar another action that
has identical parties, subject matter and cause of action as the prior one.