ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
October-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-97-1123 October 2, 1997 - JOSELITO R. ENRIQUEZ v. RUBY B. CAMARISTA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1255 October 2, 1997 - SIBANAH E. USMAN v. JULIUS G. CABE

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1080 October 2, 1997 - HANSON SANTOS v. SANCHO DAMES II, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102900 October 2, 1997 - MARCELINO ARCELONA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108897 October 2, 1997 - SARKIES TOURS PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116184 October 2, 1997 - NATION BROADCASTING CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116720 October 2, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROEL ENCINADA

  • G.R. No. 117240 October 2, 1997 - PNCC v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120961 October 2, 1997 - DISTILLERIA WASHINGTON v. LA TONDEÑA DISTILLERS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121449 October 2, 1997 - SANYO TRAVEL CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123172 October 2, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX DE GUIA

  • G.R. No. 102366 October 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HECTOR VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1250 October 6, 1997 - DOMINADOR D. BORNASAL, JR. v. JAIME T. MONTES

  • G.R. No. 83402 October 6, 1997 - ALGON ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103585 October 6, 1997 - NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118935 October 6, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO LO-AR

  • G.R. No. 123445 October 6, 1997 - BENJAMIN TOLENTINO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104774-75 October 8, 1997 - ZACARIAS OARDE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107992 October 8, 1997 - ODYSSEY PARK, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110115 October 8, 1997 - RODOLFO TIGNO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125616 October 8, 1997 - MARIO RABAJA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95694 October 9, 1997 - VICENTE VILLAFLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98328 October 9, 1997 - JUAN C. CARVAJAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106632 & 106678 October 9, 1997 - DORIS TERESA HO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111194 October 9, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO G. TEODORO

  • G.R. No. 113447 October 9, 1997 - ALAIN MANALILI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118992 October 9, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELERINO CASTROMERO

  • Adm. Case No. 4467 October 10, 1997 - GIL A. DE LEON, ET AL. v. RODOLFO BONIFACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103028 October 10, 1997 - CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE DELA ROSA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 107434 October 10, 1997 - CITIBANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111148 October 10, 1997 - ENRIQUE A. SOBREPEÑA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115938 October 10, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO GALERA

  • G.R. No. 119360 October 10, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119523 October 10, 1997 - ISABELO VIOLETA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120191 October 10, 1997 - LORETO ADALIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1199 October 13, 1997 - VLADIMIR BRUSOLA v. EUDARLIO B. VALENCIA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 68166 October 13, 1997 - HEIRS OF EMILIANO NAVARRO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-91-562 October 16, 1997 - EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-97-1139 October 16, 1997 - ROBERTO ESPIRITU v. EDUARDO JOVELLANOS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-92-747 October 16, 1997 - JESUS R. LLAMADO v. ARMANDO RAVELO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1189 October 16, 1997 - LELU P. CONTRERAS v. SALVADOR C. MIRANDO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1207 October 16, 1997 - D. ROY A. MASADAO, ET AL. v. GERALDINE GLORIOSO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1252 October 16, 1997 - ORESTES R. SANTOS v. NORBERTO V. DOBLADA, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1375 October 16, 1997 - ROMULO B. MACALINTAL v. ANGELITO C. TEH

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1391 October 16, 1997 - ROMULO A. RIVERA v. EFREN A. LAMORENA

  • Adm. Matter No. 97-9-97-MCTC October 16, 1997 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT OF THE MCTC OF DINGLE-DUENAS, ILOILO

  • G.R. No. 94457 October 16, 1997 - VICTORIA LEGARDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 102936 October 16, 1997 - LEVY AGAO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105668 October 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO DALABAJAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112745 October 16, 1997 - AQUILINO T. LARIN v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113271 October 16, 1997 - WATEROUS DRUG CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115282 October 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MEDEL MAMALAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117399-117400 October 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY JAGOLINGAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118230 October 16, 1997 - ABUNDIA BINGCOY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118651 October 16, 1997 - PIONEER TEXTURIZING CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118853 October 16, 1997 - BRAHM INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118946 October 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICO JAMLAN SALEM

  • G.R. No. 121582 October 16, 1997 - SOUTHERN COTABATO DEV. & CONSTRUCTION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121687 October 16, 1997 - HEIRS OF MARCELINO PAGOBO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123248 October 16, 1997 - TWIN ACE HOLDINGS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128054 October 16, 1997 - KILOSBAYAN, INC., ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113003 October 17, 1997 - ALBERTA YOBIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113788 October 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORLITO GERON

  • G.R. No. 117459 October 17, 1997 - MOISES B. PANLILIO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122474-76 October 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR ABRECINOZ

  • G.R. No. 128119 October 17, 1997 - MURLI SADHWANI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1393 October 20, 1997 - ALAN SUASIN v. ERNESTO DINOPOL

  • G.R. No. 107747 October 20, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD TALINGTING

  • G.R. No. 99838 October 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105008 October 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMENCIANO VASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 108905 October 23, 1997 - GRACE CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111155 October 23, 1997 - COSMOS BOTTLING CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111662 October 23, 1997 - A.G. DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118192 October 23, 1997 - PRO LINE SPORTS CENTER, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119777 & 120690 October 23, 1997 - HEIRS OF PEDRO ESCANLAR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126321 October 23, 1997 - TOYOTA CUBAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112733 October 24, 1997 - PEOPLE’S INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114398 October 24, 1997 - CARMEN LIWANAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125469 October 27, 1997 - PHILIPPINE STOCK EXCHANGE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130644 October 27, 1997 - FRANCISCO JUAN LARRANAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118240 October 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIOVANNI BAJAR

  • G.R. No. 124099 October 30, 1997 - MANUEL G. REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104504 October 31, 1997 - PEDRITO PASTRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 111662   October 23, 1997 - A.G. DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 111662. October 23, 1997.]

    A.G. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE IGNACIO CAPULONG, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 134; NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY; and A. FRANCISCO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.


    D E C I S I O N


    ROMERO, J.:


    Challenged in this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the decision of respondent Court of Appeals in CA G.R. S.P. No. 30227 which upheld the order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 134, Makati, dismissing petitioner’s complaint on the ground of the lack of jurisdiction.

    The pertinent facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On November 4, 1981, petitioner A.G. Development (AGDC) and public respondent National Housing Authority (NHA) entered into a "Memorandum of Agreement," 1 wherein the former agreed to construct on its lot a dormitory-apartment-commercial building for the latter at a total cost of Eleven Million Four Hundred Fifty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Nine Pesos (P11,452,989.00). Pursuant to the agreement, AGDC executed in favor of NHA a promissory note 2 and a real estate mortgage 3 over the land as a security for the obligation. Thereafter, NHA made an initial payment of three million three hundred eight thousand four hundred forty (P3,308,440.00) to AGDC to cover a portion of the contract price.

    On August 30, 1983, however, NHA rescinded the agreement and demanded the immediate return of the initial amount paid on the ground that AGDC was not able to complete the project on time. The demand was refused, as a result of which, the real estate mortgage was extra-judicially foreclosed and the property sold to NHA as the highest bidder. The one-year period to redeem having expired, a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was issued in favor of NHA; thereafter, a writ of possession was applied for and granted by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City docketed as LRC Case No. 3067 (85).

    On December 3, 1986, AGDC filed a complaint against NHA before the Makati RTC docketed as Civil Case No. 15495 for breach of contract, declaration of nullity of the promissory note and real estate mortgage, and annulment of foreclosure sale and reversion of possession and title. NHA filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia, which was denied by the trial court. While the case was pending, private respondent A. Francisco Realty and Development Corp. (AFRDC) filed a Motion to intervene claiming that it is an innocent purchaser for value of the subject property since it had already bought the foreclosed property from NHA. 4

    Consequently, AFRDC filed a motion to dismiss before the Makati RTC, reasoning that the said court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and annul the writ issued by the Quezon City RTC since both are co-equal or coordinate jurisdiction. The Makati RTC ruled in favor of AFRDC and dismissed AGDC’s complaint. 5 Recourse to the Court of Appeals proved futile. Hence, this petition.

    In resolving the instant petition, the principal issue to be addressed is whether the issuance of a writ of possession by the Quezon City RTC constitutes res judicata as to bar the complaint filed by AGDC.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

    It is an oft-repeated rule that for res judicata to apply, the following requisites must concur:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    a) the former judgment must be final;

    b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;

    c) the judgment must be on the merits; and

    d) there must be between the first and second actions identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. 6

    Although not explicitly stated, a basic requisite for res judicata to apply is that there are two cases which have been decided on the merits.

    In affirming the Makati RTC’s dismissal of AGDC’s complaint, the Court of Appeals ruled that the issuance of the writ of possession has the effect of confirming the title of NHA over the property in question. 7 As such, the grant of said writ constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action. It is final as to the claim of nullity of the promissory note, real estate mortgage and the resultant extra-judicial foreclosure sale. We cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that the action to annul both the real estate mortgage and the foreclosure sale is barred by res judicata.

    The issuance of a writ of possession is not a judgment on the merits. A writ of possession is generally understood to be an order whereby the sheriff is commanded to place a person in possession of a real or personal property, 8 such as when a property is extrajudicially foreclosed. 9 In this regard, the issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure is merely a ministerial function. 10 As such, the Court neither exercises its official discretion nor judgment. 11 In other words, the issuance of the writ of possession is summary in nature, 12 hence the same cannot be considered a judgment on the merits which is defined as one rendered after a determination of which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal technical point. 13

    Furthermore, the doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of administrative powers or to legislative, executive or ministerial determination. 14 Accordingly, cases disposed of on technical grounds do not fall within the doctrine of res judicata. 15 Hence, the issuance of the writ of possession by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City was not a judgment on the merits but simply an incident in the transfer of title.

    We also note that LRC Case No. 3067 (85) is not an action as defined by law. An action is an act by which one sues another in a court of justice for the enforcement or protection. of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong 16 and such is commenced by filing a complaint with the Court. 17 However, in the procedure for the issuance of a writ of possession, no complaint is necessary, the filing of an ex parte motion being enough. 18 Indeed, the term "action" does not include non-judicial proceedings, although they are before a court, as in cases where the court does not act in a judicial capacity. 19

    There is also another consideration that supports this conclusion since an extra-judicial foreclosure only requires the posting and publication of the notices to effect the same. 20 It has been held that a proceeding to foreclose a mortgage by advertisement is not an action. 21

    In the absence of the necessary elements, the doctrine of res judicata cannot be applied in the instant petition.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby GRANTED. Civil Case No. 15495 is hereby REINSTATED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Melo, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Narvasa, C.J., is on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 50-58.

    2. Ibid., p. 65.

    3. Id., pp. 66-68.

    4. Id., pp. 78-80.

    5. Id., pp. 110-111.

    6. Mangoma v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 21 (1995); Guevarra v. Benito, 247 SCRA 570 (1995); Cokaliong Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Amin, 260 SCRA 122 (1996).

    7. Rollo, p. 145.

    8. Moreno, Philippine Law Dictionary, 1972.

    9. Sec. 7 of Act 3135, as amended.

    10. Vaca v. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 146 (1994); F. David Enterprises v. Insular Bank of America, 191 SCRA 516 (1990).

    11. Lamb v. Philipps, 22 Phil 456 (1912).

    12. Tabios, Problems Involving A Writ of Possession, 218 SCRA 585 (1993).

    13. Santos v. IAC, 145 SCRA 238 (1986).

    14. 50 C.J.S. 27 603.

    15. 46 Am Jur 2d 477.

    16. Hagans v. Wislenzenus, 42 Phil. 880 (1922).

    17. Sec. 5, Rule 1, 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.

    18. Sec. 7, Act 3135, as amended.

    19. Patterson v. Murray, 53 NC 278.

    20. Sec. 3, Act 3135, as amended.

    21. Golcher v. Brisbin, 20 Minn. 453.

    G.R. No. 111662   October 23, 1997 - A.G. DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED