Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > February 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-8965. February 29, 1956.] CATALINA M. DE LEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ROSARIO M. DE LEON, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.:




FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-8965.  February 29, 1956.]

CATALINA M. DE LEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ROSARIO M. DE LEON, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

 

D E C I S I O N

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

Catalina M. de Leon commenced this action in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City to make effective the purchase she made of one-half of a parcel of land from spouses Rosario B. de Leon and Francisco de Leon for the sum of P1,000. She avers that said spouses acquired the land from Perfecto Roque and Aurelio Bautista by virtue of a document executed on July 11, 1949 which was ratified before a notary public; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat Perfecta Roque and Aurelio Bautista in turn acquired the land from the People Homesite Corporation on installment basis; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat Plaintiff demanded from the spouses Rosario B. de Leon and Francisco de Leon the formal execution of the transfer made in her favor as well as the registration of the transfer in the office of the People’s Homesite Corporation but said spouses refused to agree to her demand; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat Perfecta Roque and Aurelio Bautista, instead of recording the transfer they made of the land to spouses Rosario B. de Leon and Francisco de Leon with the People’s Homesite Corporation, fraudulently conveyed it to one Petronilo Castañeda; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat the People’s Homesite Corporation refused to recognize her right over one-half of the land notwithstanding her demand, and to make effective her right she instituted the present action making as party Defendants all the parties in interest as above mentioned. Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants conspired to defeat and render ineffective her right over the land and, as a consequence, she prays for damages in the amount of P18,000.

Defendants Perfecta Roque and Aurelio Bautista filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the action is already barred by a prior judgment and the complaint states no cause of action. Main basis of the motion is a decision rendered by the Court of First Instance of Quezon City on December 22, 1950, wherein the transfer of the land made by Perfecta Roque and Aurelio Bautista to spouses Rosario B. de Leon and Francisco de Leon was declared rescinded and without effect and, hence, said spouses could not have transferred any right to the Plaintiff.

Judge Magno S. Gatmaitan, then presiding over the court, denied the motion stating that the grounds alleged do not appear to be indubitable it appearing that Plaintiff was not a party to the case invoked and she alleged conspiracy on the part of the Defendants. But, on a motion for reconsideration, Judge Hermogenes Caluag, who took over the court, reversed the former ruling and dismissed the case without pronouncement as to costs. This is the order which is now the subject of the present appeal.

In its order dismissing the case for lack of sufficient cause of action, the trial court took into account the decision rendered in Civil Case No. 9366 wherein the transfer of the land made by Perfecta Roque and Aurelio Bautista in favor of spouses Rosario B. de Leon and Francisco de Leon was rescinded and it concluded that as a result of such rescission, Plaintiff could not have acquired any right from said spouses which may be the basis of relief in the present action. The reasoning of the trial court is that, Catalina de Leon, Plaintiff herein, being merely a successor in interest of spouses De Leon, the judgment rendered in said case against them is binding upon her.

The finding of the trial court that the decision rendered in Civil Case No. 9366 has the effect of res judicata which bars Plaintiff from pressing her claim in the present action is based on a wrong premise for it ignores the fact that Plaintiff had acquired her interest in the land prior to the institution of said case, and hence she could not be considered as successor in interest of spouses De Leon. This is the postulate of section 44 (b), Rule 39, which provide that “In other cases the judgment so ordered is, in respect to the matter directly adjudged, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity.” Note that to be a successor in interest a purchaser must acquire subsequent to the commencement of the action, and not before as in the present case. If an action is filed against the vendor after he had parted with his title in favor of a third person, the latter is not bound by any judgment which may be rendered against the former. In such a case the principle of res judicata. does not apply (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. I, 1952 ed., 870). The trial court therefore erred in applying this principle to the present case.

Another factor that the trial court has overlooked is the fact that the complaint alleges collusion and conspiracy on the part of the Defendants to defeat and render ineffective the right acquired by the Plaintiff which claim necessarily puts in issue the alleged rescission of the transfer made by Perfecta Roque and Aurelio Bautista to spouses Rosario B. de Leon and Francisco de Leon. With the presentation of the motion to dismiss Defendants are deemed to have admitted the aforesaid claim of conspiracy and this creates a situation which negatives any favorable action on the motion to dismiss. The proper course the trial court would have taken is to defer consideration of the motion until trial pursuant to section 3, Rule 8, considering that the ground alleged does not appear to be indubitable, as was done by Judge Gatmaitan who originally acted on the motion to dismiss.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is set aside. The case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings, with costs against Appellees.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and Endencia JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-9307. February 9, 1956.] HELEN SMITH and SVEN SMITH, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE RUPERTO KAPUNAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, HONORABLE RAMON ICASIANO, Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila and TERESA PEYER, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7200. February 11, 1956.] JUAN BAUTISTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MANDALUYONG, RIZAL, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-6971. February 17, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. PETRONIO REMERATA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8091. February 17, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALFREDO PUYAL, ET AL., Defendants, MANILA SURETY AND FIDELITY CO., INC., bondsman-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8491. February 17, 1956.] HERMENEGILDO CALO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF AGUSAN and LUIS PEGGY, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8673. February 18, 1956.] PEDRO P. ARONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MIGUEL RAFFI�AN and A. INCLINO, as City Mayor and City Treasurer of Cebu City, respectively, Defendants-Appellees. [G.R. No. L-8674. February 18, 1956.] JOHN D. YOUNG, FELIX A. BARBA, PEDRO P. ARONG, SIXTO J. ARCILLA, AHING LEE, JESUS C. OSME�A, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. MIGUEL RAFFI�AN, and JESUS E. ZABATE, as City Mayor and Acting City Treasurer of Cebu City, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7255. February 21, 1956.] BIBIANA DEFENSOR, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. VICENTE BRILLO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7548. February 27, 1956.] JOHANNA HOFER BORROMEO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. Dr. VENUSTIANO H. J. BORROMEO, DR. JOSE C. BORROMEO and ESTATE OF DR. MAXIMO BORROMEO, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7881. February 27, 1956.] CAYETANO B. LIWANAG, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. ROBERT S. HAMILL, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7898. February 27, 1956.] MASBATE CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7953. February 27, 1956.] JOSE FRANCISCO and ABELARDO FRANCISCO (Legal Heirs of Carlos N. Francisco, deceased) and CEFERINO FRANCISCO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. JOSE DE BORJA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8191. February 27, 1956.] DIOSDADO A. SITCHON, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. ALEJO AQUINO, in his capacity as City Engineer of the City of Manila, Respondent-Appellee. [G.R. No. L-8397. February 27, 1956] RICARDO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. ALEJO AQUINO, in his capacity as City Engineer of the City of Manila, Respondent-Appellee. [G.R. No. L-8500. February 27, 1956] FELINO PE�A, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. ALEJO AQUINO, in his capacity as City Engineer of the City of Manila, Respondent-Appellee. [G.R. No. L-8513. February 27, 1956] SANTIAGO BROTAMONTE, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. ALEJO AQUINO, in his capacity as City Engineer of the City of Manila, Respondent-Appellee. [G.R. No. L-8516. February 27, 1956] ERNESTO NAVARRO, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. ALEJO AQUINO, in his capacity as the City Engineer of the City of Manila, Respondent-Appellee. [G.R. No. L-8620. February 27, 1956] AMADO SAYO, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. ALEJO AQUINO, in his capacity as City Engineer of the City of Manila, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8455. February 27, 1956.] GAUDENCIO MANIGBAS, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellees, vs. JUDGE CALIXTO P. LUNA, ETC., ET AL., Respondents. JUDGE CALIXTO P. LUNA, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-5893. February 28, 1956.] CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA y LOPEZ MANZANO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EL HOGAR FILIPINO, INC., MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. and ERNEST BERG, Defendants; EL HOGAR FILIPINO, INC. and MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-6767. February 28, 1956.] DOLORES VASQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JAIME L. PORTA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6992. February 28, 1956.] COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. JUNIOR WOMEN�S CLUB OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8105. February 28, 1956.] CONSTANTINO VIVERO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FELIPE R. SANTOS, ET AL., Defendants. EUGENIO BALO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6630. February 29, 1956.] ALFONSO RILI and TRINIDAD VDA. DE MIRAFLORES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. CIRIACO CHUNACO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-6639-40. February 29, 1956.] CONSUELO L. VDA. DE PRIETO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIA SANTOS and her husband JOHN DOE, Defendants-Appellants. CONSUELO L. VDA. DE PRIETO, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ALEJO GADDI, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6998. February 29, 1956.] CLARO RIVERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. AMADEO MATUTE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7131. February 29, 1956.] ISIDRO P. SIBUG, and MAXIMA SY-JUECO, Plaintiff�s-Appellants, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY, PROVINCE OF BULACAN, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7380. February 29, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LOURDES RAMILO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7458. February 29, 1956.] TEOFILA SALVADOR, Petitioner, vs. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ETC., and THE YEK TONG LIN FIRE & INSURANCE CO., LTD., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7668. February 29, 1956.] PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS, Petitioner, vs. PASUMIL WORKERS UNION, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7788. February 29, 1956.] NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. NARIC WORKERS� UNION, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8079. February 29, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge of the Second Branch of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, 12th Judicial District, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8175. February 29, 1956.] DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE BUREAU, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, vs. UNITED EMPLOYEE�S WELFARE ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8492. February 29, 1956.] In the Matter of the Declaration of the Civil Status of: LOURDES G. LUKBAN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8531. February 29, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SANTIAGO SIGUENZA, accused-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8817. February 29, 1956.] FELIX ASTURIAS, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8942. February 29, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE DE LARA, accused-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8963. February 29, 1956.] MARIANO GONZALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DONATO AMON, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8965. February 29, 1956.] CATALINA M. DE LEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ROSARIO M. DE LEON, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8965. February 29, 1956.] CATALINA M. DE LEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ROSARIO M. DE LEON, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9097. February 29, 1956.] In the Matter of the Petition for Admission to Philippine Citizenship: DEE SAM, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8093. February 11, 1956.] DOMINADOR NICOLAS and OLIMPIA MATIAS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. VICENTA MATIAS, AMADO CORNEJO, JR., JOSE POLICARPIO and MATILDE MANUEL, Defendants-Appellees.