April 1961 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > April 1961 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-16051 April 25, 1961 - FERNANDO GOCHOCO, ET AL. v. CHANG HIOK, ET AL. :
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-16051. April 25, 1961.]
FERNANDO GOCHOCO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHANG HIOK @ YU TIAN HUAT, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.
Jose L. Uy & Associates, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Mabanag, Elegir & Associates for Defendants-Appellees.
D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, Actg. C.J. p:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Appeal from the order of Hon. Eulogio Mencias, Judge of the Rizal court of first instance dismissing this case on the grounds: (a) plaintiffs have no legal interest in the property which is the subject of controversy, and (b) there is a pending litigation between the same parties concerning identical subject-matter and cause of action.
As the appeal may be decided upon the second ground, the following statement of the case should be deemed sufficient.
Plaintiffs desire to annul the sale of certain real property made by defendant Chang Hiok to defendant Leona Piano (alias Simeona Piano), and the subsequent sale made by the latter to defendant Rosario Chang. They allege in the complaint that both sales were simulated and/or made in fraud of creditors. They further allege they had obtained a decision against defendant Chang Hiok in Civil Case No. 72996 of the Manila court of first instance for about P14,000.00 — which judgment is still pending revision in the Court of Appeals. Lastly, they allege they vision in the Court of Appeals. Lastly, they allege they seek the annulment for the protection of their interests, "considering that only P5,956.00 have so far been actually executed against Chang Hiok pursuant to said decision" who "has at present no other visible property."cralaw virtua1aw library
The defendants moved to dismiss for the reason that plaintiffs were not parties to the aforesaid contracts of sale, and principally for the reason that there was an action pending between the same parties involving the same subject and cause. In support of their motion, defendants exhibited copies of the complaint, the answer and the decision in the Manila case No. 27996. Over the opposition of plaintiffs, the judge, as stated, sustained the motion and dismissed the suit.
Wherefore, plaintiffs appealed.
According to the Rules of Court, a motion to dismiss may rest on the ground "that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause." (Rule 8, sec. 1).
Our decisions hold that "in order that this ground may be invoked, there must be, between the action under consideration and the other action, (1) identity of parties, or at least such as represent the same interest in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (3) the identity on the two preceding particulars should be such that any judgment which may be rendered on the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicata in the action under consideration." (Moran, Rules of Court [1957 Ed. ] Vol. 1, p. 139.)
Admitting the identity of parties and of the subject matter, appellants here contend it was error for the trial court to dismiss, since their cause of action in the Manila court is different from the cause of action in the present litigation. "Whereas in the Manila court," they say, "our cause of action was the simulation of transfer and the fraud on creditors," our cause of action here is Chang Hiok’s "failure to fully satisfy the decision in Civil Case No. 27996 which we now assert."cralaw virtua1aw library
However, the mere failure of Chang Hiok is no reason to annul the sales. The truth is, and defendants must admit it , they cannot annul the sales to Leona and Rosario unless they prove, and obtain judgment; that such conveyances were fictitious or made in fraud of creditors. These two issues (simulation and fraud) were raised in Civil Case No. 27996, because plaintiffs’ allegations therein were these: "that the defendant (Chang Hiok) . . . went to the extreme of selling fictitiously his property . . . to one Simeona Piano, here co-defendant in this case, for a meager and inadequate price of P3,000.00 for the sole purpose of evading liability in the event any civil action may be filed by the plaintiffs against him; that . . . the defendant Simeona Piano was ordered again by the defendant Chang Hiok to resell the same property in a simulated manner in favor of Rosario Chang, daughter of the defendant Chang Hiok; that all the above transfers were made without consideration and intentionally for the purpose of avoiding any further personal responsibility in case any court action may be filed by the plaintiffs against him." (Record on Appeal, pp. 39, 40.)
On the other hand, defendants therein averred specifically that the sales were supported by valuable consideration and were made in good faith.
In other words, any final decision by the court in Civil Case No. 27996 will be res judicata on the validity of the sales which plaintiffs question in the case at bar.
WHEREFORE, the trial acted correctly; and his order of dismissal is accordingly affirmed, with costs against appellants.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., took no part.
Appeal from the order of Hon. Eulogio Mencias, Judge of the Rizal court of first instance dismissing this case on the grounds: (a) plaintiffs have no legal interest in the property which is the subject of controversy, and (b) there is a pending litigation between the same parties concerning identical subject-matter and cause of action.
As the appeal may be decided upon the second ground, the following statement of the case should be deemed sufficient.
Plaintiffs desire to annul the sale of certain real property made by defendant Chang Hiok to defendant Leona Piano (alias Simeona Piano), and the subsequent sale made by the latter to defendant Rosario Chang. They allege in the complaint that both sales were simulated and/or made in fraud of creditors. They further allege they had obtained a decision against defendant Chang Hiok in Civil Case No. 72996 of the Manila court of first instance for about P14,000.00 — which judgment is still pending revision in the Court of Appeals. Lastly, they allege they vision in the Court of Appeals. Lastly, they allege they seek the annulment for the protection of their interests, "considering that only P5,956.00 have so far been actually executed against Chang Hiok pursuant to said decision" who "has at present no other visible property."cralaw virtua1aw library
The defendants moved to dismiss for the reason that plaintiffs were not parties to the aforesaid contracts of sale, and principally for the reason that there was an action pending between the same parties involving the same subject and cause. In support of their motion, defendants exhibited copies of the complaint, the answer and the decision in the Manila case No. 27996. Over the opposition of plaintiffs, the judge, as stated, sustained the motion and dismissed the suit.
Wherefore, plaintiffs appealed.
According to the Rules of Court, a motion to dismiss may rest on the ground "that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause." (Rule 8, sec. 1).
Our decisions hold that "in order that this ground may be invoked, there must be, between the action under consideration and the other action, (1) identity of parties, or at least such as represent the same interest in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (3) the identity on the two preceding particulars should be such that any judgment which may be rendered on the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicata in the action under consideration." (Moran, Rules of Court [1957 Ed. ] Vol. 1, p. 139.)
Admitting the identity of parties and of the subject matter, appellants here contend it was error for the trial court to dismiss, since their cause of action in the Manila court is different from the cause of action in the present litigation. "Whereas in the Manila court," they say, "our cause of action was the simulation of transfer and the fraud on creditors," our cause of action here is Chang Hiok’s "failure to fully satisfy the decision in Civil Case No. 27996 which we now assert."cralaw virtua1aw library
However, the mere failure of Chang Hiok is no reason to annul the sales. The truth is, and defendants must admit it , they cannot annul the sales to Leona and Rosario unless they prove, and obtain judgment; that such conveyances were fictitious or made in fraud of creditors. These two issues (simulation and fraud) were raised in Civil Case No. 27996, because plaintiffs’ allegations therein were these: "that the defendant (Chang Hiok) . . . went to the extreme of selling fictitiously his property . . . to one Simeona Piano, here co-defendant in this case, for a meager and inadequate price of P3,000.00 for the sole purpose of evading liability in the event any civil action may be filed by the plaintiffs against him; that . . . the defendant Simeona Piano was ordered again by the defendant Chang Hiok to resell the same property in a simulated manner in favor of Rosario Chang, daughter of the defendant Chang Hiok; that all the above transfers were made without consideration and intentionally for the purpose of avoiding any further personal responsibility in case any court action may be filed by the plaintiffs against him." (Record on Appeal, pp. 39, 40.)
On the other hand, defendants therein averred specifically that the sales were supported by valuable consideration and were made in good faith.
In other words, any final decision by the court in Civil Case No. 27996 will be res judicata on the validity of the sales which plaintiffs question in the case at bar.
WHEREFORE, the trial acted correctly; and his order of dismissal is accordingly affirmed, with costs against appellants.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., took no part.
