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
 

   
March-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1279 March 1, 2001 - ALICIA GONZALES-DECANO v. ORLANDO ANA F. SIAPNO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1282 March 1, 2001 - SOFRONIO DAYOT v. RODOLFO B. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 112092 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 123069 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SASPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126019 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO CALDONA

  • G.R. No. 131637 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELIO PERALTA

  • G.R. No. 133888 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO NARDO

  • G.R. No. 134330 March 1, 2001 - ENRIQUE M. BELO, ET AL. v. PHIL. NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135667-70 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESSIE VENTURA COLLADO

  • G.R. No. 138666 March 1, 2001 - ISABELO LORENZANA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 140511 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR AMION

  • G.R. No. 142313 March 1, 2001 - MANUEL CHU, SR., ET AL. v. BENELDA ESTATE DEV’T. CORP.

  • G.R. No. 142527 March 1, 2001 - ARSENIO ALVAREZ v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144678 March 1, 2001 - JAVIER E. ZACATE v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146710-15 & 146738 March 2, 2001 - JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113236 March 5, 2001 - FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113265 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 118680 March 5, 2001 - MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ PEDROSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123788 March 5, 2001 - DOMINADOR DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124686 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROQUE ELLADO

  • G.R. No. 127158 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO HERIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132353 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO IBO

  • G.R. No. 126557 March 6, 2001 - RAMON ALBERT v. CELSO D. GANGAN

  • G.R. No. 138646 March 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOMER CABANSAY

  • G.R. No. 139518 March 6, 2001 - EVANGELINE L. PUZON v. STA. LUCIA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT

  • G.R. Nos. 140249 & 140363 March 6, 2001 - DANILO S. YAP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140884 March 6, 2001 - GELACIO P. GEMENTIZA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143823 March 6, 2001 - JENNIFER ABRAHAM v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126168 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SAMUDIO

  • G.R. No. 129594 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNNIFER LAURENTE

  • G.R. No. 135945 March 7, 2001 - UNITED RESIDENTS OF DOMINICAN HILL v. COMM. ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS

  • G.R. No. 136173 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ICALLA

  • G.R. Nos. 137481-83 & 138455 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO SALADINO

  • G.R. Nos. 139962-66 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO MANGOMPIT

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1297 March 7, 2001 - JOSEFINA BANGCO v. RODOLFO S. GATDULA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329 March 8, 2001 - HERMINIA BORJA-MANZANO v. ROQUE R SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 122611 March 8, 2001 - NAPOLEON H. GONZALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125901 March 8, 2001 - EDGARDO A. TIJING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130378 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL MATARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134279 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY ROGER AUSTRIA

  • G.R. Nos. 135234-38 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO GUNTANG

  • G.R. No. 137649 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO VILLADARES

  • G.R. No. 138137 March 8, 2001 - PERLA S. ZULUETA v. ASIA BREWERY

  • G.R. No. 138774 March 8, 2001 - REGINA FRANCISCO, ET AL v. AIDA FRANCISCO-ALFONSO

  • G.R. No. 140479 March 8, 2001 - ROSENCOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. PATERNO INQUING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140713 March 8, 2001 - ROSA YAP PARAS, ET AL. v. ISMAEL O. BALDADO

  • G.R. No. 112115 March 9, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140619-24 March 9, 2001 - BENEDICTO E. KUIZON, ET AL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

  • G.R. No. 126099 March 12, 2001 - ROBERTO MITO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128372 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEGIO DELA PEÑA

  • G.R. Nos. 130634-35 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO OYANIB

  • G.R. No. 131889 March 12, 2001 - VIRGINIA O. GOCHAN, ET AL. v. RICHARD G. YOUNG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136738 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN VALEZ

  • G.R. No. 137306 March 12, 2001 - VIRGINIA AVISADO, ET AL. v. AMOR RUMBAUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140011-16 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO MORATA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1464 March 13, 2001 - SALVADOR O. BOOC v. MALAYO B. BANTUAS

  • G.R. No. 103073 March 13, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131530 March 13, 2001 - Y REALTY CORP. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136594 March 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL CANIEZO

  • G.R. No. 139405 March 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO F. PACIFICADOR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530 March 14, 2001 - EDGARDO ALDAY, ET AL. v. ESCOLASTICO U. CRUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 116001 & 123943 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUISITO GO

  • G.R. No. 130209 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY LAVAPIE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130515 & 147090 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANSELMO BARING

  • G.R. Nos. 134451-52 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO FRETA

  • G.R. No. 137036 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO DE MESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138045 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETTA PATUNGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139300 March 14, 2001 - AMIGO MANUFACTURING v. CLUETT PEABODY CO.

  • G.R. No. 102985 March 15, 2001 - RUBEN BRAGA CURAZA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133480 March 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORANTE AGUILUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 135201-02 March 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 141616 March 15, 2001 - CITY OF QUEZON v. LEXBER INCORPORATED

  • G.R. No. 116847 March 16, 2001 - MANUFACTURERS BUILDING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128083 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO M. HILARIO

  • G.R. No. 128922 March 16, 2001 - ELEUTERIA B. ALIABO, ET AL. v. ROGELIO L. CARAMPATAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129070 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELLIE CABAIS

  • G.R. No. 131544 March 16, 2001 - EPG CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL. v. GREGORIO R. VIGILAR

  • G.R. No. 135047 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO CACHOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137282 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ALIPAR

  • G.R. Nos. 137753-56 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. NILO ARDON

  • A.M. No. 01-1463 March 20, 2001 - EVELYN ACUÑA v. RODOLFO A. ALCANTARA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1306 March 20, 2001 - ROBERT M. VISBAL v. RODOLFO C. RAMOS

  • A.M. No. P-97-1241 March 20, 2001 - DINNA CASTILLO v. ZENAIDA C. BUENCILLO

  • G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 108991 March 20, 2001 - WILLIAM ALAIN MIAILHE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130663 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ANGELES STA. TERESA

  • G.R. Nos. 136862-63 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 139413-15 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENDRICO GALAS

  • G.R. No. 140356 March 20, 2001 - DOLORES FAJARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140919 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUTCH BUCAO LEE

  • G.R. No. 142476 March 20, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 144074 March 20, 2001 - MEDINA INVESTIGATION & SECURITY CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127772 March 22, 2001 - ROBERTO P. ALMARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133815-17 March 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO LIAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134972 March 22, 2001 - ERNESTO CATUNGAL, ET AL. v. DORIS HAO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1469 March 26, 2001 - ROEL O. PARAS v. MYRNA F. LOFRANCO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1624 March 26, 2001 - REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE RELATIVE TO SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. 28

  • A.M. No. 99-731-RTJ March 26, 2001 - HILARIO DE GUZMAN v. DEODORO J. SISON

  • G.R. Nos. 102407-08 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO LUCERO

  • G.R. No. 121608 March 26, 2001 - FLEISCHER COMPANY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121902 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WALTER MELENCION

  • G.R. No. 125865 March 26, 2001 - JEFFREY LIANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129916 March 26, 2001 - MAGELLAN CAPITAL MNGT. CORP., ET AL. v. ROLANDO M. ZOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131638-39 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO MEDENILLA

  • G.R. No. 131653 March 26, 2001 - ROBERTO GONZALES v. NLRC, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 133475 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. 134903 March 26, 2001 - UNICRAFT INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136790 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL GALVEZ

  • G.R. No. 137268 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIA CARMEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137590 March 26, 2001 - FLORENCE MALCAMPO-SIN v. PHILIPP T. SIN

  • G.R. No. 137739 March 26, 2001 - ROBERTO B. TAN v. PHIL. BANKING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137889 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 142950 March 26, 2001 - EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. ROSITA KU

  • G.R. Nos. 147066 & 147179 March 26, 2001 - AKBAYAN - Youth, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA March 27, 2001 - IN RE: DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1473 March 27, 2001 - GLORIA O. BENITEZ v. MEDEL P. ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 123149 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO CABUG

  • G.R. No. 131588 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLENN DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 137762-65 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO BARES

  • G.R. No. 137989 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SONNY MATIONG, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1357 March 28, 2001 - MONFORT HERMANOS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. ROLANDO V. RAMIREZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1574 March 28, 2001 - GORGONIO S. NOVA v. SANCHO DAMES II

  • G.R. No. 100701 March 28, 2001 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101442 March 28, 2001 - JOSE ANGELES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 110012 March 28, 2001 - ANASTACIO VICTORIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112314 March 28, 2001 - VICENTE R. MADARANG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117964 March 28, 2001 - PLACIDO O. URBANES, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122216 March 28, 2001 - ALJEM’S CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126751 March 28, 2001 - SAFIC ALCAN & CIE v. IMPERIAL VEGETABLE OIL CO.

  • G.R. No. 126959 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO SATURNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136965 March 28, 2001 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDINA ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 137660 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS L. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 137932 March 28, 2001 - CHIANG YIA MIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138474 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO BALANO

  • G.R. Nos. 139571-72 March 28, 2001 - ROGER N. ABARDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 140153 March 28, 2001 - ANTONIO DOCENA, ET AL. v. RICARDO P. LAPESURA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141307 March 28, 2001 - PURTO J. NAVARRO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142007 March 28, 2001 - MANUEL C. FELIX v. ENERTECH SYSTEMS INDUSTRIES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143173 March 28, 2001 - PEDRO ONG, ET AL. v. SOCORRO PAREL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144169 March 28, 2001 - KHE HONG CHENG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131836 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELITA SINCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137564 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR DOMENDED

  • G.R. No. 137648 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 140311 March 30, 2001 - DENNIS T. GABIONZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 137306   March 12, 2001 - VIRGINIA AVISADO, ET AL. v. AMOR RUMBAUA, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 137306. March 12, 2001.]

    VIRGINIA AVISADO AND JOCELYN AVISADO GARGARITA, Petitioners, v. AMOR RUMBAUA, VICTORIA C. RUMBAUA and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    PARDO, J.:


    The Case


    The case before this Court is a petition 1 assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals 2 reversing and setting aside the order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City 3 dismissing respondents’ complaint for being barred by prior judgment.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Facts


    Respondents Abelardo "Amor" Rumbaua and Victoria Consengco-Rumbaua (hereafter "Amor" and "Victoria") are husband and wife, Filipinos, residents of Jacksonville, Florida, U.S.A. 4

    On July 1, 1971, Victoria became the registered owner of a parcel of land measuring two hundred thirty five square meters and sixty square decimeters (235.60), located on Maayusin St., U.P. Village, Diliman, Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 166065 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, described as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "A parcel of land (lot 30-A of the subd. plan (LRC) Psd-142482, being a portion of Lot 30, Blk. 26-A, described on plan Psd-74130, LRC Rec. No. 7681), situated in the Dist. of Diliman, Q. City, Is. of Luzon, Bounded on the NE., pts. 2-3, by Lot 31, Blk. 26-A, Psd-74139; on the SE., points 3 to 4, by Lot 12, Block 26, Psd-56573; on the SW., points 4 to 1 by Lot 30-B of the subdivision plan, and on the NW., points 1 to 2 by Road Lot 1, Psd-74129, Maayusin Street (12.00 m. wide). Beginning at a point marked "1" on plan, being N. 13 deg. 53’E., 1196.78 m., Quezon City; thence S. 62 deg. 26 E. 12.67 m. to point 2; thence S. 46 deg. 23’E. 17.58 m to point 3; thence." 5

    On June 28, 1971, respondents Rafael and Aurora Consengco (hereafter "Rafael" and "Aurora") became the registered owners of the lot adjacent to Amor and Victoria’s lot. 6 The lot registered in Rafael and Aurora’s name measured about two hundred thirty five square meters and fifty square decimeters (235.50) as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 166066 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, described as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "A parcel of land (lot 30-B of the subdivision plan LRC Psd-142482, being a portion of Lot 30, Block 26-A, described on plan Psd-74139, LRC Rec. No. 7681), situated in the District of Diliman, Quezon City, Island of Luzon. Bounded on the NE., points 1 to 2, by Lot 30-A of the subdivision plan; on the SE., points 2 to 3, by Lot 12; points 3 to 4, by Lot 11, Block 26, Psd-56573; on the SW., points 5 to 6 by Lot 29, of Block 26-A, Psd-74139; and on the NW., points 6 to 7 and 7 to 1, by Road Lot 1, Psd-74139, Maayusin Street, (12.00) m wide). . . ." 7

    Amor, Victoria, Rafael and Aurora contend that on or about the second week of February 1973, they discovered that Abelardo and petitioner Virginia Avisado (hereafter "the Avisados") were occupying both parcels of land described above 8 and had built thereon a bungalow made of strong materials. Respondents demanded that the Avisados vacate the lots, to no avail. 9

    On December 3, 1977, Victoria executed a "special power of attorney" authorizing Rafael to:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . ask, demand, sue for, recover, extrajudicially and/or judicially, that certain real property located at Maayusin St., Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines, covered by and described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 166065 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, belonging to me solely and exclusively, my title, my title thereto being evidenced by said Transfer of Certificate Title No. 166065, in connection thereto, to represent me in the pre-trial and trial of that case which he will have to institute and file for that purpose, with full power and authority to enter into any compromise agreement with anybody under any terms and conditions which he may deem just, proper and equitable under the premises." 10

    On November 17, 1978, Amor and Victoria, represented by Rafael (and in his own capacity as co-plaintiff) and Aurora filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 16, Quezon City, a complaint for "recovery of possession of realty with damages" against the Avisados. 11

    In their complaint, respondents prayed that the Avisados be ordered to vacate the lots, to surrender possession to respondents and to pay damages. 12

    On April 15, 1980, Rafael (in his own capacity), Amor and Victoria (through Rafael), and Aurora entered into a "compromise agreement" with the Avisados, stating: First, the Avisados (vendees) shall pay Amor and Victoria (vendors) the amount of seventy thousand pesos (P70,000.00), after which Amor and Victoria shall execute an "absolute deed of sale" in favor of the Avisados. The total purchase price shall be paid in installments. The first payment of five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to be paid on April 14, 1980 and the second payment of the balance of sixty five thousand pesos (P65,000.00) to be paid on or before September 30, 1980. Second, within a month from the registration of the absolute deed of sale, the Avisados shall remove any portion of their residential house located within the boundaries of the lot belonging to Rafael and Aurora. Third, all expenses for the registration of the lot shall be borne by the Avisados. Fourth, should the Avisados violate the "compromise agreement" they shall forfeit five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) in favor of the vendors and shall vacate the lot within thirty (30) days from the time of default. In such event, the agreement to sell shall be ipso facto cancelled. Fifth, the "compromise agreement" shall have the effect of a mutual quit-claim of all claims for damages and reimbursement set up in the complaint and the answer that the parties may have against each other. 13 The "compromise agreement" was submitted to the trial court for approval. 14

    On April 15, 1980, the trial court 15 approved the "compromise agreement", to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, finding the above-quoted Compromise Agreement not contrary to law, good morals, public policy, the Court hereby fenders (sic) judgment approving en toto the said compromise agreement and hereby enjoins the parties therein to abide by and comply with the terms and conditions thereof, without pronouncement as to costs.

    "SO ORDERED." 16

    On October 3, 1980, Amor and Victoria (through Rafael), Rafael (in his own capacity) and Aurora filed with the trial court a "manifestation" stating that the "compromise agreement" was violated by the Avisado’s refusal to pay the amount of sixty five thousand pesos in cash on or before September 30, 1980. 17

    On October 17, 1980, the trial court noted the "manifestation." 18

    On August 18, 1981, Aurora, Rafael, in his own capacity and on behalf of his co-plaintiffs, Amor and Victoria filed with the trial court a "motion for execution of judgment," praying that given that the Avisados breached the "compromise agreement", a writ of execution be issued ordering them to vacate the lots. 19

    On February 12, 1982, the trial court denied the "motion for execution of judgment" reasoning that the "compromise agreement" involved reciprocal obligations of the parties (i.e., the vendees to pay the purchase price and for the vendors to execute the absolute deed of sale). 20

    On July 12, 1985, the Avisados filed with the trial court a "motion for execution" of the April 15, 1980 decision. 21

    On July 19, 1985, the trial court granted the "motion for execution." 22

    On August 14, 1985, the trial court, 23 through branch clerk of court Virginia M. Pagoron, issued a "writ of execution" addressed to the ex-officio sheriff of Manila. We quote:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "WHEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to order the plaintiffs to execute the Deed of Sale over TCT No. 166065 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City in favor of the defendant spouses Amado Avisado and Virginia Avisado, free from any liens and encumbrances and upon payment by the said defendants to the said plaintiffs the sum of P65,000.00, and make a return of your proceedings with this writ within sixty (60) days from date of receipt hereof." 24

    On October 29, 1993, Amor and Victoria (through their new attorney-in-fact, Noemi Candido Natividad) 25 filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City a complaint for "recovery of real property with damages" against the Avisados. 26 The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-93-18138. Essentially, the complaint alleged that the "compromise agreement" of April 15, 1980 resulting in the sale of Victoria and Amor’s lot to the Avisados was invalid as the "special power of attorney" executed by Victoria in Rafael’s favor never authorized him to sell the lot in question.

    Thus, the judgment of the trial court of April 15, 1980, approving the compromise agreement "has since become a stale judgment that can no longer be enforced, either by motion or action." 27 Amor and Victoria then prayed that the Avisados peacefully vacate the lots in question, surrender possession to them and pay damages. 28

    On April 23, 1994, Abelardo Avisado died. 29

    On February 12, 1996, the trial court 30 dismissed the complaint for being barred by prior judgment. 31

    On March 12, 1996, Amor and Victoria interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. 32

    On June 17, 1998, upon motion of Virginia Avisado, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution allowing the deceased, Abelardo Avisado to be substituted by his heir, Jocelyn Avisado Gargarita. 33

    On October 27, 1998, the Court of Appeals decided that the causes of action in Civil Case No. Q-26392 and Civil Case No. Q-93-18138 were different. The former case is an accion publiciana for the recovery of possession of realty and damages, while the latter case is based on the violation of the compromise agreement. Res judicata does not apply. 34 Hence, it ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, the Order appealed from dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint is hereby RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE and the above case is hereby remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings.

    "SO ORDERED." 35

    On January 12, 1999, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals. 36

    On January 25, 1999, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. 37

    Hence, this appeal. 38

    The Issue


    The issue is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it did not consider Civil Case No. Q-26392 as a bar to Civil Case No. Q-93-18138 on the ground of res judicata.

    The Court’s Ruling


    The petition is meritorious.

    Finality of Judgment

    When Amor and Victoria filed Civil Case No. Q-93-18138, and argued that Rafael did not have the authority to enter into the "compromise agreement," they collaterally attacked the judgment in Civil Case No. Q-26392 which approved the "compromise agreement." This cannot be done.

    The judgment in Civil Case No. Q-26392 has become final and executory. What Amor and Victoria should have done was to either timely appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, or to seasonably file a "petition for relief from judgment" under Rule 38. 39 A party who fails to acquire complete relief from a decision of a court has various remedies to correct it. A party may move for a correction or clarification of judgment, or even seek its modification through ordinary appeal. 40 This they did not do. There must, therefore, be an end to litigation. 41

    In Bustos v. Court of Appeals, 42 we held that once a decision becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the court to order its execution. Execution can be suspended when suspension is warranted by the higher interest of justice 43 and when certain facts and circumstances transpired after the finality of the judgment which would render the execution of judgment unjust. 44 Neither circumstance obtains in the present case.

    Res Judicata

    Furthermore, even if we limit ourselves to the issue of whether or not res judicata applies, still the Court of Appeals decision must be reversed.

    Res judicata exists when the following elements are present:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(a) the former judgment must be final;

    "(b) the court which rendered judgment had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter;

    "(c) it must be a judgment on the merits;

    "(d) and there must be between the first and, second actions identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action." 45

    There is no question with respect to the existence of the first three elements of res judicata.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    As to the last issue, specifically with respect to "identity of causes of action," we find that contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, the causes of action in Civil Case No. Q-26392 and Civil Case No. Q-93-18138 are one and the same.

    A cause of action has the following elements: (1) the legal right of plaintiff; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. 46

    In Civil Case No. Q-26392, the cause of action was the illegal occupation of the lots by the Avisados, to the prejudice of Amor, Victoria, Rafael and Aurora. In Civil Case No. Q-93-18138. Amor and Victoria likewise complained that the Avisados occupied their lot, "through strategy and stealth, and without (their) knowledge and consent." 47

    Assuming the Causes of Action were Different

    Even if we assume, as respondents insist, that in Civil Case No. Q-93-18138, the causes of action were:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) the invalidity of the compromise agreement; and

    (2) the Avisados’ breach of the "compromise agreement," 48

    still, we note that these issues were settled and passed upon in Civil Case No. Q-26392.

    First, the validity of the "compromise agreement" was passed upon by the lower court when it categorically stated on April 15, 1980 that the "Compromise Agreement (is) not contrary to law, good morals, public policy." 49 By such action, the trial court made a finding of law and fact. If such was in error, the proper recourse was appeal or a petition for relief, and not a separate action filed thirteen years later.

    Second, the fact that the "compromise agreement" was not breached by the Avisados was also ruled upon by the lower court when it declared on February 12, 1982, that the "compromise agreement" involved reciprocal obligations of the parties. 50 This factual finding of the trial court is buttressed by its order dated July 19, 1985, granting the Avisados’ motion for execution 51 and its writ of execution dated August 14, 1985, which commanded the ex-officio sheriff of Manila to order Amor and Victoria to execute the deed of sale in favor of the Avisados upon their payment of the sum of sixty five thousand pesos (P65,000.00). 52

    Individuals should not be vexed twice for the same cause, memo debet bis vexari et eadem causa. 53

    When Amor and Victoria filed Civil Case No. Q-93-18138 they were seeking the same relief — that the Avisados peacefully surrender the lot to them. They merely raised a different theory. They adopted a different stance, relying on the purported invalidity of the "compromise agreement" and alternatively, on its alleged breach.

    Material facts or questions which were in issue in a former action and were there admitted or judicially determined are conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein become res judicata and may not again be litigated in a subsequent action between the same parties or their privies. The rule is true regardless of the form the issue may take in the subsequent action. It does not matter if the subsequent action involves the same or a different form of proceeding, or whether the second action is upon the same or a different cause of action, subject matter, claim or demand, as the earlier action. It is also immaterial that the two actions are based on different grounds, or tried on different theories, or instituted for different purposes, and seek different reliefs. 54

    Laches

    Our ruling against Amor and Victoria is justified all the more by the fact that they are filed Civil Case No. Q-93-18138 assailing the "compromise agreement" on October 29, 1993. Thirteen years have lapsed.

    There is "laches" when there is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier. When there is laches, the presumption arises that the party entitled to assert a right has either abandoned it or has declined to assert it. Even a registered owner may be barred from recovering possession of land by virtue of laches. 55 Its elements are:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(1) conduct on the part of defendant, or one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation that led to the complaint and for which the complaint seeks a remedy;

    "(2) delay in asserting the complainant’s rights, having had knowledge or notice of the defendant’s conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit;

    "(3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and

    "(4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held barred." 56

    The Fallo

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

    The decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on October 27, 1988, in CA-G. R. CV No. 53361 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

    In lieu thereof, the order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City, dated February 12, 1996, in Civil Case No. Q-93-18138 is REVIVED and AFFIRMED in toto.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    No costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Under Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

    2. In CA-G. R. CV No. 53361, promulgated on October 27, 1998, Imperial, J., ponente, Hofilena and Amin, JJ., concurring.

    3. In Civil Case No. Q-93-18138, dated February 12, 1996, Judge Ignacio L. Salvador, presiding.

    4. Complaint, RTC Record, p. 1.

    5. Complaint, Annex "B", RTC Record, p. 11.

    6. Petition, Annex "C", Rollo, pp. 44-45.

    7. Ibid.

    8. Complaint, RTC Record, p. 3.

    9. Ibid., pp. 2-3; Petition, Annex "C", Rollo, p. 45.

    10. RTC Record, p. 97.

    11. Petition, Annex "C", Complaint, Rollo, p. 43. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-26392.

    12. Ibid., p. 48.

    13. Petition, Annex "E", Compromise Agreement, Rollo, pp. 58-61.

    14. Ibid., p. 61.

    15. Judge Sergio A. F. Apostol, presiding.

    16. Petition, Annex "F", RTC Decision, Civil Case No. Q-26392, Rollo, pp. 62-64.

    17. Petition, Annex "G", Motion for Execution of Judgment, Rollo, pp. 65-69, at pp. 67-68.

    18. Ibid., p. 68.

    19. Ibid., pp. 65-69 at pp. 67-68.

    20. Petition, Order, Rollo, pp. 103-104.

    21. Petition, Writ of Execution, Rollo, p. 106.

    22. Ibid.

    23. Judge Antonio P. Solano, presiding.

    24. Writ of Execution, Rollo, p. 106.

    25. Petition, Annex "I", Rollo, p. 81.

    26. Complaint, Civil Case No. Q 93-18138, Rollo, pp. 73-80; RTC Record, pp. 1-8.

    27. Rollo, pp. 76-77.

    28. Rollo, p. 78.

    29. CA Rollo, pp. 76, 78.

    30. Judge Ignacio L. Salvador, presiding.

    31. Petition, Annex "L", RTC Order, Civil Case No. Q-93-18138, Rollo, pp. 115-119.

    32. Notice of Appeal, RTC Record, pp. 109-110. On May 16, 1996, the trial court granted the appeal, RTC Record, p. 111.

    33. CA Rollo, docketed as CA-GR CV No. 53361, Rollo, p. 136.

    34. Petition, Annex "A", Court of Appeals Decision, Rollo, pp. 37-38.

    35. Rollo, p. 39.

    36. CA Rollo, p. 147.

    37. Petition, Annex "B", Court of Appeals Resolution, Rollo, pp. 41-42.

    38. Notice of Appeal filed on March 1, 1999. On August 18, 1999, we resolved to give due course to the petition (Rollo, pp. 180-181).

    39. Rule 38, Section 3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides that a verified petition for relief must be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken (Public Estates Authority v. Yujuico, G.R. No. 140486, February 6, 2001).

    40. Batingal v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 128636, February 1, 2001.

    41. Calusin v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 128405, June 21, 2000.

    42. Bustos v. Court of Appeals, G. R. Nos. 120784-85, January 24, 2001.

    43. Zarate, Jr. v. Olegario, 331 Phil. 278 (1996).

    44. Cabrias v. Adil, 135 SCRA 354 (1985).

    45. Arenas v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 126640, November 23, 2000.

    46. Ibid., Note 45.

    47. Petition, Annex "I", Complaint in Civil Case No. Q-93-18138, Rollo, p. 74.

    48. Comment, Rollo, pp. 163-165.

    49. Petition, Annex "F", Regional Trial Court Decision, Civil Case No. Q-26392, Rollo, pp. 62-64.

    50. Petition, Annex "I", Complaint, Civil Case No. Q 93-18138, Rollo, pp. 76, 103.

    51. Ibid.

    52. Judge Antonio P. Solano, presiding.

    53. Madarieta v. Regional Trial Court, G. R No. 126443, February 28, 2000.

    54. Veloso, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 941, 948-949 (1996).

    55. Villegas v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 129977, February 1, 2001.

    56. Lim Tay v. Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 634, 659 (1998).

    G.R. No. 137306   March 12, 2001 - VIRGINIA AVISADO, ET AL. v. AMOR RUMBAUA, 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