The sole issue to be determined upon by this Board is:

WHETHER OR NOT THE APPEAL IS TENABLE.

After a judicious scrutiny of the records of this case, this Board

rules in the affirmative.

In this case, the right of petitioner-appellees to eject the

respondent-appellants emanates from the decision of the PARAD a
quo and this Board in a separate case, both declaring the former as
the lawful successor and owner of the subject land. However this
Board, in its Decision dated February 8, 1996, has previously
reversed and set aside the April 19, 1990 Decision that declared
Romeo as the lawful successor and bona fide farmer beneficiary of
the subject land. In the February 8, 1996 Decision, this Board
declared that Vivencio Sangalang as the rightful beneficiary-allocatee
of the subject land with all the rights and privileges to acquire the land
pursuant to the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program of the
government.

It is also beyond dispute that the February 8, 1996 Decision has

attained finality in view of Romeo’s abandonment of his appeal.
Moreover, records show that that the said Decision was adjudicated
on the merits, i.e., it was rendered after a consideration of the
evidence or stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial of the
case.

Consequently, the judgment rendered by this Board on

February 8, 1996, which has attained finality, becomes the law of the
case between the herein parties. The case of Clement L. Cucueco
vs. Court of Appeals, Golden "L" Films International, Orlando
Lapid, Francisco Lapid, Diosdado Lapid, Lea Productions, Inc.,
and Emilia S. Blas1, is instructive:

“Law of the case" has been defined as the opinion

delivered on a former appeal. It is a term applied to an
established rule that when an appellate court passes on a
question and remands the case to the lower court for further
proceedings, the question there settled becomes the law of
the case upon subsequent appeal. It means that whatever is
once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or
decision between the same parties in the same case
continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on
general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such
decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case
before the court. As a general rule, a decision on a prior
1
G.R. No. 139278, promulgated on October 25, 2004
 DARAB CASE NO. 17787
Decision Page 2 of 3
----------------------------------
appeal of the same case is held to be the law of the case
whether that question is right or wrong, the remedy of the
party deeming himself aggrieved being to seek a rehearing.

Again, a court need not go into the probative value

and/or evaluation of the evidence on hand to determine
whether the doctrine of the "law of the case" is applicable in a
given case or not. In fact, a mere perusal of the pleadings,
orders, and other documents would suffice for a court to
determine the applicability of such doctrine. The appellate
court need even not delve into the truth or falsity of the
evidence presented by the parties during the hearing on the
application for a writ of preliminary injunction, or the findings of
the trial court in said hearing, rather, the appellate court
merely had to determine whether such evidence and findings
are conclusive to be considered as "law of the case" on the
controversy at hand.”

Further, in Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation vs.

Bureau of Customs2, the High Court explained the rationale for the
rule:

“Once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of

the case irrespective of whether the decision is erroneous or
not and no court - not even the Supreme Court - has the
power to revise, review, change or alter the same. The basic
rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental
principle of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of
occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of
quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite
date fixed by law.”

Based on the foregoing, the Decision rendered by this Board on

February 8, 1996 which has attained finality becomes the controlling
law of the instant case. Said Decision declared Vivencio Sangalang
as the rightful beneficiary-allocatee of the subject land with all the
rights and privileges to acquire the land pursuant to the Operation
Land Transfer program of the government under Presidential Decree
No. 27 and other applicable agrarian laws, rules and regulations.
Consequently, said Decision remains standing and undisturbed. As
such, the conclusively settled fact or question therein involving the
right to possess the subject land cannot again be litigated in any
future or other action between the same parties or their privies and
successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent
jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of action.

WHEREFORE, the Appeal is GRANTED. Accordingly, the

Decision dated 25 January 1994 of the PARAD is hereby

2
G.R. No. 209830, promulgated on June 17, 2015
 DARAB CASE NO. 17787
Decision Page 3 of 3
----------------------------------
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A New Judgment is hereby entered
DISMISSING the case for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

JOHN R. CASTRICIONES 
Chairman