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
 

   
August-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 126899 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICITO T. BARBOSA

  • G.R. No. 128137 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO HAMTO

  • G.R. No. 131203 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 137473 August 2, 2001 - ESTELITO V. REMOLONA v. CSC

  • G.R. Nos. 141702-03 August 2, 2001 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128816 & 139979-80 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO P. CABILTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131817 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE L. DOMINGO

  • G.R. Nos. 133791-94 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO SUPNAD

  • G.R. No. 135065 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY CABANGCALA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 4982 August 9, 2001 - KATRINA JOAQUIN CARIÑO v. ARTURO DE LOS REYES

  • A.M. No. 01-2-47-RTC August 9, 2001 - RE: JUDGE GUILLERMO L. LOJA,

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1365 August 9, 2001 - CESINA EBALLA v. ESTRELLITA M. PAAS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-01-1495 August 9, 2001 - ESMERALDO D. VISITACION v. GREDAM P. EDIZA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1506 August 9, 2001 - JOSEFINA MERONTOS Vda. de SAYSON v. OSCAR E. ZERNA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1489 August 9, 2001 - CATALINO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. AMELITA O. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 110740 August 9, 2001 - NDC-GUTHRIE PLANTATIONS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112485 August 9, 2001 - EMILIA MANZANO v. MIGUEL PEREZ SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129209 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESEMIEL MOSQUERRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134565 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. LUDIVINO MIANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138472-73 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 138964 August 9, 2001 - VICENTE RELLOSA, ET AL. v. GONZALO PELLOSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139411 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO TORALBA

  • G.R. No. 139532 August 9, 2001 - REGAL FILMS v. GABRIEL CONCEPCION

  • G.R. No. 139665 August 9, 2001 - MA. VILMA S. LABAD v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHEASTERN PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140347 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO OLITA

  • G.R. No. 142546 August 9, 2001 - ANASTACIO FABELA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142838 August 9, 2001 - ABELARDO B. LICAROS v. ANTONIO P. GATMAITAN

  • G.R. No. 143881 August 9, 2001 - DANILO EVANGELISTA v. PEDRO SISTOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143949 August 9, 2001 - ATCI OVERSEAS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144089 August 9, 2001 - CONCORDE HOTEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126480 August 10, 2001 - MARIA TIN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129162 August 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLY FIGURACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130998 August 10, 2001 - MARUBENI CORP. ET AL. v. FELIX LIRAG

  • G.R. Nos. 137934 & 137936 August 10, 2001 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN M. BITANGA. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143673 August 10, 2001 - CONRADO TUAZON, ET AL. v. ERNESTO GARILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144708 August 10, 2001 - RAFAEL ALBANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146724 August 10, 2001 - GIL TAROJA VILLOTA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136266 August 13, 2001 - EUTIQUIO A. PELIGRINO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1612 August 14, 2001 - MARCO FRANCISCO SEVILLEJA v. ANTONIO N. LAGGUI

  • A.M. No. P-00-1438 August 14, 2001 - JUNN F. FLORES v. ROGER S. CONANAN

  • G.R. No. 135482 August 14, 2001 - ORLANDO SALVADOR v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136192 August 14, 2001 - PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141617 August 14, 2001 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO and MERRYLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RITA C. MEJIA

  • G.R. No. 142276 August 14, 2001 - FLORENTINO GO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142662 August 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY FERRER

  • A.C. No. 5486 August 15, 2001 - IN RE: ATTY. DAVID BRIONES.

  • A.M. RTJ No. 89-403 August 15, 2001 - MOLINTO D. PAGAYAO v. FAUSTO H. IMBING

  • A.M. No. 96-9-332-RTC August 15, 2001 - DIRECTOR, PNP NARCOTICS COMMAND v. JAIME N. SALAZAR

  • A.M. No. P-99-1311 August 15, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ALBERTO V. GARONG

  • G.R. Nos. 113822-23 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL L. PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118492 August 15, 2001 - GREGORIO H. REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120468 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE B. LIWANAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128177 August 15, 2001 - ROMAN SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129295 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN MORIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129598 August 15, 2001 - PNB MADECOR v. GERARDO C. UY

  • G.R. No. 130360 August 15, 2001 - WILSON ONG CHING KIAN CHUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136834 August 15, 2001 - FELIX SENDON, ET AL. v. FRATERNIDAD O. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137271 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. REYNALDO CORRE JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137509 August 15, 2001 - PEVET ADALID FELIZARDO, ET AL v. SIEGFREDO FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 137969-71 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RAFAEL SALALIMA

  • G.R. No. 139337 August 15, 2001 - MA. CARMINIA C. ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139420 August 15, 2001 - ROBERTO R. SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140900 & 140911 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODERICK LICAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143340 August 15, 2001 - LILIBETH SUNGA-CHAN, ET AL v. LAMBERTO T. CHUA

  • G.R. No. 144813 August 15, 2001 - GOLD LINE TRANSIT v. LUISA RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 147270 August 15, 2001 - IN RE: PETE C. LAGRAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1565 August 16, 2001 - FEDERICO S. BERNARDO v. PATERNO G. TIAMSON

  • G.R. No. 119900 August 16, 2001 - SUNNY MOTORS SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121897 August 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIL TEMPLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126200 August 16, 2001 - DEV’T. BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126926 August 16, 2001 - RAMON P. ARON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127543 August 16, 2001 - INTERNATIONAL PIPES, ET AL. v. F. F. CRUZ & CO.

  • G.R. No. 132155 August 16, 2001 - ARAS-ASAN TIMBER CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134292 August 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCO MORALES

  • G.R. No. 136365 August 16, 2001 - ENRIQUE R. CAMACHO, ET AL. v. PHIL. NAT’L. BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136780 August 16, 2001 - JEANETTE D. MOLINO v. SECURITY DINERS INTERNATIONAL CORP.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1597 August 20, 2001 - WILSON ANDRES v. ORLANDO D. BELTRAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131 August 20, 2001 - MIGUEL ARGEL v. HERMINIA M. PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 110055 August 20, 2001 - ASUNCION SAN JUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111685 August 20, 2001 - DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131866 August 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS DOCTOLERO

  • G.R. No. 132174 August 20, 2001 - GUALBERTO CASTRO v. RICARDO GLORIA

  • G.R. No. 132684 August 20, 2001 - HERNANI N. FABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134718 August 20, 2001 - ROMANA INGJUGTIRO v. LEON V. CASALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142401 August 20, 2001 - ANDREW TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137299 August 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO NANAS

  • G.R. No. 138869 August 21, 2001 - DAVID SO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140519 August 21, 2001 - PHIL. RETIREMENT AUTHORITY v. THELMA RUPA

  • G.R. No. 130817 August 22, 2001 - PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138403 August 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY C. ABULENCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 141712-13 August 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO M. BOHOL

  • G.R. No. 143867 August 22, 2001 - PLDT v. CITY OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128628 August 23, 2001 - ILDEFONSO SAMALA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133749 August 23, 2001 - HERNANDO R. PEÑALOSA v. SEVERINO C. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 133789 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO P. CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136506 August 23, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137199-230 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE J. ALAY-AY

  • G.R. No. 137842 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO H. CATUBIG

  • G.R. No. 138588 August 23, 2001 - FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. DIAZ REALTY INC.

  • G.R. No. 138022 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO A. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 144142 August 23, 2001 - YOLANDA AGUIRRE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138298 & 138982 August 24, 2001 - RAOUL B. DEL MAR v. PAGCOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131609 August 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO PUERTA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1571 August 28, 2001 - JESUS GUILLAS v. RENATO D. MUÑEZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1645 August 28, 2001 - VICTORINO S. SIANGHIO, JR. v. BIENVENIDO L. REYES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1626 August 28, 2001 - JOSELITO D. FRANI v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN

  • G.R. Nos. 100633 & 101550 August 28, 2001 - SOCORRO ABELLA SORIANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114118 August 28, 2001 - SIMEON BORLADO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125728 August 28, 2001 - MARIA ALVAREZ VDA. DE DELGADO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129960 August 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 131175 August 28, 2001 - JOVITO VALENZUELA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133056 August 28, 2001 - FACUNDO T. BAUTISTA v. PUYAT VINYL PRODUCTS

  • G.R. No. 140812 August 28, 2001 - CANDIDO ALFARO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143256 August 28, 2001 - RODOLFO FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. ROMEO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144653 August 28, 2001 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1415-MeTC August 30, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. TERESITA Q. ORBIGO-MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 111709 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER P. TULIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119811 August 30, 2001 - SOCORRO S. TORRES, ET AL. v. DEODORO J. SISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123980 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL CALIMLIM

  • G.R. No. 127905 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO REMUDO

  • G.R. No. 129093 August 30, 2001 - JOSE D. LINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133113 August 30, 2001 - EDGAR H. ARREZA v. MONTANO M. DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 136280 August 30, 2001 - ORCHARD REALTY and DEV’T CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139083 August 30, 2001 - FLORENCIA PARIS v. DIONISIO A. ALFECHE

  • G.R. No. 140229 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY BALMOJA

  • G.R. No. 140995 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO M. REGALA

  • G.R. No. 141128 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORPIANO DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 141283 August 30, 2001 - SEGOVIA DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. J.L. DUMATOL REALTY

  • G.R. No. 144442 August 30, 2001 - JESUS SALVATIERRA v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • A. M. No. 00-7-299-RTC August 31, 2001 - REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CIVIL CASE NO. R-1692 RTC BR. 45

  • A.M. No. 00-8-03-SB August 31, 2001 - RE: UNNUMBERED RESOLUTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN RE ACQUISITION OF THREE [3] MOTOR VEHICLES FOR OFFICIAL USE OF JUSTICES

  • A.M. No. P-99-1316 August 31, 2001 - KENNETH S. NEELAND v. ILDEFONSO M. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. Nos. 132548-49 August 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEJO MIASCO

  • G.R. No. 141211 August 31, 2001 - CITY WARDEN OF THE MANILA CITY JAIL v. RAYMOND S. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 136834   August 15, 2001 - FELIX SENDON, ET AL. v. FRATERNIDAD O. RUIZ, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 136834. August 15, 2001.]

    FELIX SENDON, CENON SENDON, TEODOLO SENDON, INDALICIO SENDON, ISBERTO SENDON, ANTONIETO SENDON and JUANITA S. SALAZAR, Petitioners, v. FRATERNIDAD O. RUIZ, PEREGRINA ONAS, LILIA O. FERNANDEZ, MILLARD ONAS, ELDA O. NABUTAS, NIMFA ONAS, and the PROVINCIAL SHERIFF of AKLAN, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    QUISUMBING, J.:


    For review on certiorari is the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 49586, which affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch I, dismissing petitioners’ complaint for quieting of title with preliminary injunction, damages and declaration of ownership.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The facts of the case, as culled from the records, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On May 3, 1969, Isaac Sendon filed Civil Case No. 1800 before the Regional Trial Court (Branch IV) of Kalibo, Aklan against Narciso Onas for recovery of ownership and possession of land, particularly described therein as follows:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    A parcel of mixed irrigated rice, cocal, abacal and banana lands, containing an area of about 37, 207 square meters, more or less, and bounded on the North by Paulino Zabal, on the East by Janlud Creek and Heir of T. Zorra, on the South by Juan Zindon and on the West by Moises Morania and Felix Morallos. Declared in the name of Segundina Nape and assessed together with its improvements at P1,670.00. 1

    On August 23, 1984, Civil Case No. 1800 was decided in favor of Narciso Onas 2 inasmuch as he was already adjudged owner of said lot in an earlier decision rendered by the former Court of First Instance of Capiz in Civil Case No. K-111, Branch II, decided on August 22, 1949. It was also an action for recovery of ownership and possession of land, previously brought by Narciso Onas against Isaac’s parents, Catalino Sendon and Segundina Nape, his aunt Modesta Nape, and brothers Isberto and Rizaldo Sendon. The lot subject of Civil Case No. K-111 was described as:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    A parcel of real estate consisting of palayero, cocal, abacal, bamboo, cogonal and ambolong land, containing an aggregate area of approximately 41,715 square meters, bounded on the North, by Janlud Brook and Hugo Planas; on the East by Janlud Brook; on the South, by Gregoria Zambrona and Felix Morallos; and on the West, by Rosalia Revicencio. Under Tax Declaration No. 4566 in the name of the plaintiff and valued at P640.00. 3

    The trial court in Civil Case No. 1800 had ruled that the land being claimed by Isaac Sendon was identical to the land adjudicated in favor of Narciso Onas in Civil Case No. K-111. Isaac Sendon could not claim that he inherited the same land from his mother Segundina, since the trial court in Civil Case No. K-111 decided that she did not own it and thus could not transfer the land by succession to Isaac Sendon.

    When the Provincial Sheriff of Aklan sought to enforce the court’s final decision in Civil Case No. 1800, petitioner Felix, Cenon, Teodolo, Indalicio, Isberto and Antonieto, all surnamed Sendon, as well as Juanita S. Salazar, refused to vacate the land subject of Civil Case No. 1800. Note that all the petitioners are siblings of Isaac Sendon, except for Antonieto and Juanita Salazar who are his nephew and niece and grandchildren of Catalino Sendon and Segundina Nape.

    To thwart execution of the decision, petitioners filed their complaint for quieting of title against the Provincial Sheriff of Aklan and private respondents Fraternidad O. Ruiz, Peregrina Onas, Lilia O. Fernandez, Millard Onas, Elda O. Nabutas and Nimfa Onas. Note that private respondents are the children of Narciso Onas, now deceased, and his successors-in-interest on the land that was subject of Civil Case Nos. 1800 and K-111.

    In their complaint dated July 14, 1986, 4 docketed as Civil Case No. 3670, petitioners averred that the lot on which their houses stood (and from which the sheriff sought to eject them) is not the same parcel of land that was litigated in Civil Case No. 1800. They alleged that they inherited the lot they were occupying from their mother Segundina Nape, who in turn, came to own the same upon the death of their grandfather, Pablo Nape. Petitioners described this land in their complaint as:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    A parcel of unirrigated riceland, cocal, banana, abaca and bamboo land located in Janlud, Libacao, Aklan, containing an area of 4,5894 hectares, more or less, and bounded on the North by Paulino Zabal, on the East by Tibursia Zorra and Juan Sendon, on the South by Moises Morana and Felix Morallos (now Jesus Irabon), and on the West by Janlud Creek menor and Antonia Zabal (now Narciso Onas), declared in the name of Segundina Nape under Tax Declaration No. 5024, Series of 1984 and assessed in the sum of P10,310.00. This land is equivalent to and the same lot as Lot No. 1113 of the Libacao Public Land Subdivision, PLS 690-D. 5

    Petitioners stated that the land involved in Civil Case Nos. 1800 and K-111 is the area sold by their grandmother Antonia Zabal to Narciso Onas on March 31, 1931, as evidenced by a document denominated as "Escritura de Compraventa con Eviccion y Saneamiento." 6 The lot sold by Antonia to Narciso allegedly consisted of only 26,482 square meters and is now known as Lot Nos. 1114, 1115 and 1120 of the Libacao Public Land Subdivision. In contrast, the land described in their complaint is Lot No. 1113 with an area of 4.5894 hectares. They concluded that this latter lot is therefore distinct from the land subject of Civil Case Nos. 1800 and K-111.

    While petitioners admitted that they knew about Civil Case No. 1800, which was initiated by their brother Isaac Sendon in 1969, they said they did not intervene therein because they believed that the disputed area therein was different from the land described in their present complaint. They discovered that Lot 1113 was being included in Civil Case Nos. 1800 and K-111 only when the sheriff threatened to evict them from the property. At any rate, they asserted that the judgment in Civil Case No. 1800 did not bind them or their shares in the property, because they were not impleaded as parties therein. According to petitioners, since Isaac Sendon was the only party in Civil Case No. 1800, it follows that only his 1/7 share in the property should be affected by final judgment in the case.

    Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata. They averred that the lot being claimed by petitioners in the present case is the same lot owned by their father, Narciso Onas, as declared in Civil Case Nos. 1800 and K-111. 7 Respondents presented Exhibit "23", 8 a sketch plan of the land commissioned by the trial court in Civil Case No. 1800, and maintained that petitioners knew the lot’s identity because they attended hearings in the same case.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    To assist the trial court in ascertaining the identity of the land being claimed by petitioners in relation to the lots involved in Civil Case Nos. 1800 and K-111, Engineer Rafael Escabarte was appointed commissioner by the trial court with the mandate to determine the boundaries of the parcel of land as stated in petitioners’ complaint. On September 29, 1989, Engineer Escabarte submitted his sketch and report marked as Exhibits "O" and "P", 9 respectively, which were objected to by petitioners.

    On May 30, 1994, the trial court held that res judicata had already set in and ruled against petitioners, rendering judgment as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. The complaint is dismissed;

    2. The defendants are declared the absolute owners of the land described in paragraph 4 of the complaint;

    3. Plaintiffs are ordered to immediately restore possession thereof to defendants; and

    4. Plaintiffs are ordered to pay the costs.

    SO ORDERED. 10

    On Sept. 24, 1998, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in toto. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was also denied by the appellate court on November 27, 1998.

    Hence, this appeal, with petitioners assigning three errors by alleging that the trial court:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    I


    . . . DECIDED THE CASE BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS THAT THE LOT IN QUESTION IS THE SAME LOT LITIGATED IN CIVIL CASE NO. 1800 AND CIVIL CASE NO. K-111 AND HAS DECIDED IT IN A WAY PROBABLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT A QUO HAS AFFIRMED SAID DECISION.

    II


    . . . ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ELEMENTS OF RES ADJUDICATA ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE AND THE COURT A QUO HAS AFFIRMED SAID HOLDING.

    III


    . . . ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE DECISION IN CIVIL CASE NO. 1800 IS NOT BINDING ON THE PETITIONERS WHEN THEY WERE NOT PARTIES THERETO. 11

    Considering the aforecited assignment of errors, we find that the main issue raised in this petition is whether or not petitioners’ complaint was properly dismissed for being barred by res judicata.

    For a claim of res judicata to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the two cases, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. 12

    Petitioners do not dispute the presence of the first three elements above cited but they pose two questions: (a) did the lower court misapprehend the evidence when it concluded that there was identity of subject matter, i.e., the lot subject of this case is identical to the one involved in Civil Case Nos. 1800 and K-111 and (b) was there substantial identity of parties between Civil Case Nos. 1800 and K-111, on the one hand, and the instant case, Civil Case No. 3670, on the other?

    With respect to the first question, which appears to raise a factual issue but which we felt compelled to face squarely, we are convinced that the lower court did not err in concluding that the land presently being claimed by petitioners is the same land adjudicated in favor of respondents’ predecessor, Narciso Onas, in Civil Case Nos. 1800 and K-111. We note that this conclusion was reached after comparing sketch plans drawn by court-appointed commissioners in Civil Case No. 1800 and the present case, Civil Case No. 3670.

    Indeed, an examination of the two sketches, marked as Exhibits "O" and "23," would readily reveal that the parcel declared to be owned by Narciso Onas in Civil Case No. 1800 is no different from the lot now being litigated between petitioners and respondents. Thus, we are not persuaded that the courts below misapprehended the facts when they found the lot claimed by petitioners and the parcel owned by Onas are identical, because sufficient evidence exists on record to support this particular factual finding. Factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals are given great weight especially when in complete accord with the findings of the trial court. As such, they are binding and conclusive upon this Court, in the absence of any palpable mistake. 13

    Petitioners rely on the description of the land in the "Escritura de Compraventa" to prove that the disputed lot in Civil Case No. 1800 is different from the parcel they are now claiming. But this document cannot prevail over Exhibit "23." To our mind, the "Escritura de Compraventa" merely constitutes evidence of a sale transaction between Narciso Onas and petitioners’ grandmother, Antonia Zabal, but the description of the land therein does not, in any way, prove the identity of the lot included in the earlier cases. Rather than rely on that document, it should be emphasized that "Exhibit "23," drawn by a court-appointed commissioner in Civil Case No. 1800, remains an uncontroverted piece of evidence that is definitive insofar as it shows the specific boundaries and delineations of the disputed parcel of land. We find petitioners’ reliance on the "Escritura de Compraventa" less than persuasive.

    We also concur with the lower courts’ view that there is identity of parties in Civil Case No. 1800/Civil Case No. K-111 and in the present case, Civil Case No. 3670. For purposes of res judicata, we have held that only substantial identity of parties is required and not absolute identity. 14 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 even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case. 15 In other words, privity or a shared identity of interest is sufficient to invoke application of the principle of res judicata. 16

    In the present case, petitioners are suing for the title of the same lot and in the same capacity as did their brother Isaac Sendon in Civil Case No. 1800. Although strictly speaking, the petitioners here were not made parties to the prior case, Civil Case No. 1800, their alleged ownership of Lot No. 1113 is also predicated upon their perceived right as heirs of Segundina Nape married to Catalino Sendon. Their claim to ownership of Lot No. 1113 had been laid to rest in Civil Case No. K-111. Since the rights asserted by petitioners in this case are founded upon the same interests which Isaac Sendon and their predecessor had failed to vindicate in the previous cases, Civil Case No. 1800 and Civil Case No. K-111, the present petitioners are legally bound by the prior judgments. They should not be allowed in Civil Case No. 3670 to re-litigate the very same issues already passed upon and decided in the aforecited cases.cralawred

    To recapitulate, all the requisites of res judicata are present in this case; the trial court and the appellate court did not commit any error when they ordered the dismissal of petitioners’ complaint.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 49586 which affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch I, in Civil Case No. 3670 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

    SO ORDERED.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Original Records, p. 22.

    2. Id., at 62-66.

    3. Id., at 61.

    4. Id. at 69-73.

    5. Rollo, p. 45.

    6. Supra, note 1 at 7.

    7. Supra, note 5 at 52-54.

    8. Supra, note 1 at 67.

    9. Id. at 25 & 26.

    10. CA Records, p. 34.

    11. Supra, note 5 at 26-27.

    12. Linzag v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122181, 291 SCRA 304, 319 (1998).

    13. See Villalon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116996, 319 SCRA 530, 536 (1999), citing Fortune Motors (Phils.) v. CA, G.R. No. 112191, 267 SCRA 653 (1997); Atillo III v. CA, G.R. No. 119053, 266 SCRA 596 (1997); Meneses v. CA, G.R. No. 82220, 246 SCRA 162 (1995); Manuel v. CA, G.R. No. 96781 227 SCRA 29 (1993); Fuentes v. CA, G.R. No. 109849, 268 SCRA 703 (1997); Guinsatao v. CA, G.R. No. 95083, 218 SCRA 708 (1993); CMS Logging, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 41420, 211 SCRA 374 (1992); Fernan v. CA, G.R. No. 43356, 181 SCRA 546 (1990).

    14. Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103412, 324 SCRA 560, 567 (2000), citing Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125183, 279 SCRA 711 (1997), which cited Suarez v. Municipality of Naujan, G.R. No. L-22282, 18 SCRA 682 (1966).

    15. Sempio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124326, 284 SCRA 580, 586-587 (1998), citing Anticamara v. Ong, G.R. No. L-29689, 82 SCRA 337 (1978).

    16. Cruz v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., G.R. No. 135101, 332 SCRA 747, 749 (2000).

    G.R. No. 136834   August 15, 2001 - FELIX SENDON, ET AL. v. FRATERNIDAD O. RUIZ, 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