1.

In Re: Petitioner seeking for Clarification as to the Validity and Forceful Effect of Two
(2) Final and Executory But Conflicting Decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court

Group Commander, Intelligence and Security Group, Philippine Army, represented by

Colonel Pedro R. Cabuay, Jr., petitioner, vs. Dr. Potencia Malvar and Marcelino Lopez,
respondents. Heirs of Elino Adia, represented by Juliana Adia, intervenors.
G.R. No. 123780 September 24, 2002

Facts:
This case involves who will be the lawful owner of the property. The first Division
rendered that Ambrosio Aguilar, successor-in-interest of Hermogenes Lopez was the lawful
owner of the property which became final and executory. However, the deed of sale was
annulled between Hermogenez Lope and Ambrosio Aguilar and restored to the Lopez heirs
possession of the property. On the other hand, the heirs of the late Adia argue that they should be
the lawful owner of the said property so they filed a complaint to the LMB Director Palad which
thus ruled that the heirs of Adia are the lawful owner of the property. Consequently, the Supreme
Court (Third Division) recognized that Adia heirs’ are the lawful owners of the property
Dr. Potenciano Malvar bought a portion to the Land from the Lopez heirs while Col.
Pedro R. Cabuay, Jr. bought a portion to the Land from the Adia heirs. Cabuay filed a petition
seeking for clarification as to the Validity and Forceful Effect of Two Final and Executory but
Conflicting Decisions of the Supreme Court. The Court En Banc resolved to accept the present
case only in 2000.

Issue: WON the ruling of the third division of this Court prevails over the decision
rendered by the First Division?

Ruling: the Lopez heirs are the lawful and rightful owner of the property.
The Court used the law of the case doctrine. It need not be stated that the supreme court, being
the court of last resort, is the final arbiter of all legal questions properly brought before it and that
its decision in any given case constitutes the law of that particular case. Once its judgment
becomes final it is binding on all inferior courts, and hence beyond their power and authority to
alter or modify. Reasons of public policy, judicial orderliness, economy and judicial time and the
interests of litigants, as well as the peace and order of society, all require that stability be
accorded the solemn and final judgments of the courts or tribunals of competent jurisdiction.
There can be no question that such reasons apply with greater force on final judgments of the
highest Court of the land.
The third Division of the Supreme Court was misled. Under Section 4, sub-paragraph (3),
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no doctrine or principle of law laid
down by the Supreme Court en banc or its divisions may be modified or reversed except by
the Court sitting en banc.