Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > July 1999 Decisions > G.R. No. 130381 July 14, 1999 - FRANCISCO HERRERA v. PATERNO CANLAS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 130381. July 14, 1999.]

FRANCISCO HERRERA, represented by heirs of FRANCISCO HERRERA, Petitioner, v. ATTY. and MRS. PATERNO CANLAS, TOMAS and MRS. MANINGDING, and OSCAR and MRS. PERLAS, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


ROMERO, J.:


In this petition for certiorari, petitioner seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 30, 1997 and its resolution dated August 25, 1997 affirming the dismissal by the trial court of petitioner’s complaint for Reconveyance with Damages.cralawnad

In G.R. No. 77691 entitled Paterno R. Canlas v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Francisco Herrera which was promulgated on August 8, 1988, it was established that the late Francisco Herrera was the registered owner of eight (8) parcels of land located in Quezon City which he mortgaged in favor of L and R Corporation. The lots were later foreclosed by the financing company and Herrera, being unable to pay his loans and redeem his property, entered into an agreement with his lawyer, herein respondent Atty. Canlas. Under the Deed of Sale and Transfer of Rights of Redemption and/or to Redeem, Atty. Canlas was given the right to redeem the lots of his client. Having exercised the right of redemption over the lots in question, Atty. Canlas was able to register the properties in his name.

In 1983 Herrera filed in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City an action for reconveyance and reformation of the contract, alleging that respondent Canlas fraudulently deprived him of his properties by falsifying the agreement they signed. During the pendency of the case, Canlas sold the properties to herein respondent spouses Maningding and spouses Perlas who were able to transfer the titles to their respective names. Only the lot covered by TCT No. 330674 remained in Canlas’ name. The RTC ruled in favor of respondent Canlas and the dismissal of the complaint became final.

Undaunted, Herrera then filed for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals in answer to which Canlas filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata and other procedural issues. The Court of Appeals denied the motion to dismiss so Canlas went to this Court for relief. The Court agreed with Canlas as regards the procedural aspect of the case but rendered a decision against him on the merits. It invalidated the transfer of the properties to respondent Canlas on the ground that the transaction was one where the lawyer took undue advantage of his client. The Court, however, did not order the reconveyance of the subject lots, on the ground that since the properties have been conveyed to third persons who were presumed to be innocent purchasers for value, Canlas was instead held liable to Herrera, by way of actual damages, for such loss of properties. Canlas was thus ordered to pay petitioner P1,000,000.00, the sum which Canlas earned from the properties he sold. Herrera, on the other hand, was held liable to Canlas for the amount of P654,000.00 representing the redemption price for the lots. The difference of P324,000.00 thus served as the actual amount Herrera obtained on execution.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In 1990, Herrera filed another case for reconveyance with damages in the RTC against herein respondent spouses Canlas, spouses Maningding, and spouses Perlas alleging that the respondents acquired the subject properties in bad faith. The trial court dismissed the complaint saying that Herrera, having accepted as final the decision of this Court awarding him actual damages instead of reconveyance and other damages, no longer had a cause of action against Canlas and his successors in interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC explaining that the Supreme Court, in writing finis to the controversy, presumed that the third persons who bought the lots from Canlas were innocent purchasers for value and it is for this reason that the High Court awarded Herrera actual damages instead of ordering reconveyance.

Hence, the heirs of Herrera filed the present petition. They now contend that the trial court and the Court of Appeals both erred in dismissing the case on the ground of res judicata because, (1) the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 330674 which is still in respondent Canlas’ name is not covered by the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, and (2) there is no identity of parties in the present case and the previous one since the buyers, spouses Maningding and spouses Perlas, were not impleaded in the first case for reconveyance.

Respondent spouses Canlas and spouses Perlas filed their respective Comments but the spouses Maningding have not to date filed their Comment as their address is unknown and they could not be served a copy of the petition. Spouses Canlas averred that the petition for review was filed out of time and that the issues raised by the petitioner were already decided upon in G.R. No. 77691. For their part, spouses Perlas likewise interposed the defense of res judicata, claiming that although they were not actual parties in the previous case, they were nevertheless bound by the decision of the Court as successors in interest of Canlas with respect to the lots under litigation. Respondents Perlas further maintained that since Herrera received the value of the properties sold by Canlas, he cannot now ask for reconveyance for this smacks of bad faith and greed. Moreover, respondents Perlas added, if petitioner had felt aggrieved by the Court’s finding that the third persons who bought the lots were innocent purchasers for value, he should have questioned such pronouncement instead of proceeding to execute upon his judgment claim.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

As to the first issue regarding the lack of identity in the subject matter of the case, it should be noted that the award of P1,000,000.00 ordered by the Court in G.R. No. 77691 refers only to the value of the properties sold by respondent Canlas to third persons. To reproduce the holding of the Court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"At any rate, the transfer, so we hold, is not subject to the injunction of Article 1491 of the Civil Code. But like all voidable contracts, it is open to annulment on the ground of mistake, fraud, or undue influence, which is in turn subject to the rights of innocent purchasers for value.

For this reason, we invalidate the transfer in question specifically for undue influence as earlier detailed. While the respondent Herrera has not specifically prayed for invalidation, this is the clear tenor of his petition for annulment in the Appellate Court. It appearing however, that the properties have been conveyed to third persons whom we presume to be innocent purchasers for value, the petitioner, Atty. Paterno Canlas, must be held liable, by way of actual damages, for such a loss of properties." (Emphasis supplied). 1chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

From the foregoing, it is clear that the decision in G.R. No. 77691 relates to those lots which can no longer be ordered reconveyed to Herrera, the same having been already transferred to persons whom the Court considered to be innocent purchasers for value, namely, herein respondent spouses Maningding and spouses Perlas. However, with respect to the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 330674 which is still in the name of the Canlas spouses and which fact was not denied by the latter, res judicata cannot be invoked as to bar the recovery of the said lot as it was not adjudicated upon in the previously decided case.

With respect to the question regarding the identity of parties, worth reiterating is the Court’s ruling in Sempio v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., where it was held that complete identity of parties is not required for res judicata to lie. Thus,

"The foregoing argument is, however, premised on the wrong notion that identity of parties is calibrated by their strict sameness or a total lack of differentiation among them.chanrobles law library : red

Well settled is the rule that only substantial, and not absolute, identity of parties is required for lis pendens, or in any case, res judicata, to lie. There is substantial identity of parties when there is community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case albeit the latter was not impleaded in the first case." 2

In the case at bar, the buyers of the lots were virtually made parties to the decided case (G.R 77691), because, first, the Court in effect confirmed their rights over the properties when it expressly presumed them to be innocent purchasers for value. Second, the buyers are deemed successors in interest of respondent Canlas and as such, they shared a community of interest with the latter as regards the outcome of the case.

Furthermore, this Court has had occasion to rule that" [i]f the record of the former trial shows that the judgment could not have been rendered without deciding the particular matter, it will be considered as having settled that matter as to all future actions between the parties, and if a judgment necessarily presupposes certain premises, they are as conclusive as the judgment itself." 3 Thus, the premise relied upon by the Court that the buyers of the properties were innocent purchasers for value is as conclusive as the award of actual damages granted to Herrera.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In another case, this Court likewise held that when material facts which were in issue in a former action and were admitted or judicially determined therein, such facts become res judicata and may not again be litigated in a subsequent action between the same parties or their privies. 4 These principles squarely apply to the case at bar.

Finally, to allow reconveyance of the lots to Herrera would be tantamount to unjust enrichment at the expense of herein respondents. Herrera, by obtaining execution for the judgment in G.R. No. 77691, already satisfied his claim over the lots which are now in the name of the spouses Maningding and spouses Perlas. He can no longer recover the said lots as he had already been paid the value thereof.

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PREMISES, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Thus, petitioners may recover the lot covered by TCT No. 330674 which was still in the name of the Canlas spouses at the time of the finality of the judgment in G.R. No. 77601 in appropriate proceedings, without prejudice, of course, to the rights of innocent purchasers for value. Petitioners are, however, barred by the principle of res judicata from recovering the lots now owned by the spouses Maningding and spouses Perlas and for which petitioners had been paid actual damages by respondents Canlas. No costs.chanrobles law library

SO ORDERED.

Vitug, Panganiban, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 170.

2. G.R. No. 124326, July 22, 1998.

3. Concepcion v. Agana, 268 SCRA 307 (1997).

4. Carlet v. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 97 (1997).




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






July-1999 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 104600 July 2, 1999 - RILLORAZA ET AL. v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILS., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109493 July 2, 1999 - SERAFIN AQUINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116151 July 2, 1999 - ESTER JANE VIRGINIA F. ALMORA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119398 July 2, 1999 - EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120642 July 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE REYES and NESTOR PAGAL

  • G.R. No. 124765 July 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ERNESTO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 125498 July 2, 1999 - CONRADO B. RODRIGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 126044-45 July 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NONOY DIZON

  • G.R. No. 126950 July 2, 1999 - NELSON NUFABLE, ET AL. v. GENEROSA NUFABLE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 129120 July 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134090 July 2, 1999 - ERNESTO R. CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134503 July 2, 1999 - JASPER AGBAY v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312 July 5, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUSTOM BERMAS and GALMA ARCILLA

  • G.R. No. 97347 July 6, 1999 - JAIME G. ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110085 July 6, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES R. MACUHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121662-64 July 6, 1999 - VLASON ENTERPRISES CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 127125 & 138952 July 6, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX PANIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131618 July 6, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR MANGAT Y PALOMATA

  • G.R. No. 134826 July 6, 1999 - RENE CORDERO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119942 July 8, 1999 - FELIPE E. PEPITO ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121176 July 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON PARAZO

  • G.R. No. 126258 July 8, 1999 - TALSAN ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. BALIWAG TRANSIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128875 July 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO NUÑEZ Y DUBDUBAN

  • G.R. No. 122917 July 12, 1999 - MARITES BERNARDO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-98-1267 July 13, 1999 - ALFREDO S. CAIN v. EVELYN R. NERI

  • AM No. RTJ-99-1455 July 13, 1999 - REYNALDO DE VERA v. SANCHO A. DAMES II

  • G.R. No. 120160 July 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ATREJENIO y LIBANAN

  • G.R. No. 128074 July 13, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISA ABDUL ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104302 July 14, 1999 - REBECCA R. VELOSO v. CHINA AIRLINES LTD.

  • G.R. No. 106435 July 14, 1999 - PAMECA WOOD TREATMENT PLANT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123646 July 14, 1999 - NAZARIO C. AUSTRIA v. NLRC, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 124873 July 14, 1999 - UNITED BF HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION v. BF HOMES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 130381 July 14, 1999 - FRANCISCO HERRERA v. PATERNO CANLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130636 July 14, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO QUIBOYEN

  • G.R. No. 126947 July 15, 1999 - HARRY ANG PING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133215 July 15, 1999 - PAGPALAIN HAULERS v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137796 July 15, 1999 - MONDRAGON LEISURE AND RESORTS CORP, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110086 July 19, 1999 - PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120972 July 19, 1999 - JOSE AGUILAR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121315 & 122136 July 19, 1999 - COMPLEX ELECTRONICS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CEEA) v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123143 July 19, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIL TADEJE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 123550-51 July 19, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO AQUINO Y CALOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127005 July 19, 1999 - JOSE ROSARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127485 July 19, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO RAMILLA

  • G.R. No. 131522 July 19, 1999 - PACITA I. HABANA, ET AL. v. FELICIDAD C. ROBLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134015 July 19, 1999 - JUAN DOMINO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134998 July 19, 1999 - SILVESTRE TIU v. DANIEL MIDDLETON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 95-11-P July 20, 1999 - ELEONOR T.F. MARBAS-VIZCARRA v. GREGORIA R. FLORENDO

  • A.M. No. 99-5-26-SC July 20, 1999 - RE: DONATION BY THE PROVINCE OF BILIRAN

  • A.M. No. 99-7-07-SC July 20, 1999 - RESOLUTION PRESCRIBING GUIDELINES FOR QUALIFYING FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE

  • G.R. No. 100789 July 20, 1999 - AUGUSTO A. CAMARA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103547 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO MALLARI

  • G.R. No. 110798 July 20, 1999 - ODELON T. BUSCAINO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 112963 July 20, 1999 - PHIL. WIRELESS INC. (Pocketbell), ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120236 July 20, 1999 - E.G.V. REALTY DEV’T. CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122122 July 20, 1999 - PHIL. FRUIT & VEGETABLE INDUSTRIES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123010 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGED T. GHARBIA

  • G.R. No. 124032 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONTGOMERY VIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127122 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVITO LOSANO

  • G.R. No. 127574 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO SUGANO

  • G.R. No. 128286 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT BASAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128839 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO TEVES

  • G.R. No. 129535 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CALIXTO RECONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130372 July 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUIAMAD MANTUNG

  • G.R. No. 131099 July 20, 1999 - DOMINGO CELENDRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131405 July 20, 1999 - LEILANI MENDOZA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134213 July 20, 1999 - ROMEO J. GAMBOA, JR. v. MARCELO AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111762 July 22, 1999 - ROY A. DIZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121038 July 22, 1999 - TEOTIMO EDUARTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 122947 July 22, 1999 - TIMOTEO BALUYOT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123926 July 22, 1999 - ROGELIO MARISCAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129254 July 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO JANAIRO

  • G.R. No. 129112 July 23, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY MIJANO

  • A.M. No. 98-12-377-RTC July 26, 1999 - RE: CASES LEFT UNDECIDED BY JUDGE SEGUNDO B. CATRAL

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1464 July 26, 1999 - EUSEBIO GO, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN A. BONGOLAN

  • G.R. No. 120998 July 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONEL MEREN

  • G.R. No. 126096 July 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADO SANDRIAS JAVIER

  • G.R. No. 126745 July 26, 1999 - AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130092 July 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO BRANDARES

  • G.R. No. 130546 July 26, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON FLORES

  • G.R. No. 125539 July 27, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO PATALIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132242 July 27, 1999 - ROBERTO S. ALBERTO v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 137718 July 27, 1999 - REYNALDO O. MALONZO, ET AL. v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-98-1264 July 28, 1999 - BASILIO P. MAMANTEO v. MANUEL M. MAGUMUN

  • SB-99-9-J July 28, 1999 - JEWEL F. CANSON v. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76272 July 28, 1999 - JARDINE DAVIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76340-41 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO SALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107746 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO MORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110001 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ELMER HEREDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118312-13 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO PINEDA

  • G.R. No. 118777 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO MANGAHAS

  • G.R. No. 122453 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY REYES

  • G.R. No. 122627 July 28, 1999 - WILSON ABA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124452 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO TAMBIS

  • G.R. No. 124823 July 28, 1999 - PASVIL/PASCUAL LINER v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125086 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO MILAN and VIRGILIO MILAN

  • G.R. No. 125550 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUDIGARIO CANDELARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126650 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMARJONEL FRANCISCO TOMOLIN

  • G.R. No. 127937 July 28, 1999 - NAT’L. TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129051 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO MOLINA

  • G.R. No. 130334 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO POÑADO

  • G.R. No. 130507 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 130654 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO BASIN JAVIER

  • G.R. Nos. 131149-50 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIPOLITO DIAZ y DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 133186 July 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL YABUT

  • G.R. No. 135150 July 28, 1999 - ROMEO LONZANIDA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136351 July 28, 1999 - JOEL G. MIRANDA v. ANTONIO M. ABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137149 July 28, 1999 - ISMAEL A. MATHAY v. FELT FOODS

  • G.R. No. 123544 July 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL BERANA

  • G.R. No. 129289 July 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE CARULLO

  • G.R. No. 130681 July 29, 1999 - JOSE V. LORETO v. RENATO BRION, ET AL.