SECOND DIVISION
ROSARIO BARBACINA,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
135365
August 31, 2004
-versus-
HONORABLE COURT
OF
APPEALS,SPOUSES
RICHARD
GAVINO ANDMA.
OLIVIA AMORIN
GAVINO,CIRILO
FARINAS AND
THE REGISTEROF
DEEDS OF QUEZON
CITY ANDNATIONAL
HOUSING
AUTHORITH (NHA),FORMERLY
PEOPLE'S
HOMESITE ANDHOUSING
CORPORATION
(PHHC),
Respondents. |
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before us is a Petition
for Review on
Certiorari
which seeks to set aside the decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals dated August 28, 1998 affirming the dismissal
of
Civil Case No. Q-92-13538,[2]
by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 92, Quezon City (RTC for brevity).
The antecedent facts
are as follows:
Herein petitioner Rosario
Barbacina filed a complaint for annulment of title of private
respondents
before the RTC, praying that the Conditional Contract to Sell and Deed
of Sale executed by the National Housing Authority (NHA) in favor of
respondent
Cirilo Farinas be nullified and that TCT No. 145007 in the name of
respondent
Cirilo Farinas and TCT No. 383593 in the name of respondents spouses
Richard
and Ma. Olivia Gavino, covering a parcel of residential land described
as Lot 3, Block 131 located at No. 11 Maginoo St., Barangay
Piñahan,
Quezon City, be cancelled.chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner alleged in
her complaint that: she had been in public, open and adverse
possession
of said parcel of land in the concept of owner for more than fifty
years;
the land was formerly owned by the NHA (formerly PHHC) whose policy was
to award such lots to occupants thereof; even before the NHA acquired
the
property, she was already occupying the premises; she filed her
application
with the NHA (then PHHC) for the award to her of the subject property,
but her application was ignored; she later discovered that the
subject
property had been awarded to Cirilo Farinas and the NHA had executed a
Deed of Sale in favor of said awardee, despite the fact that he is not
qualified for he never resided in the subject property; TCT No. 145007
dated September 17, 1969 was issued in the name of Cirilo Farinas; said
TCT No. 145007 bore the annotation that the vendee shall construct a
residential
house and complete the same within a period of one year from the date
written
therein, but Cirilo Farinas never complied with said condition; since
the
NHA awarded the subject lot to Cirilo Farinas who is a non-resident and
non-occupant, the Contract to Sell executed in favor of said awardee
and
the transfer certificate of title issued in his name are all null and
void;
Cirilo Farinas eventually transferred the subject lot to respondents
spouses
Richard and Ma. Olivia Gavino who were then issued TCT No. 383593;
since
the source of their title is null and void, TCT No. 383593 should
likewise
be cancelled for being null and void; the subject lot should then
revert
to the NHA for said agency to award the property to her.cralaw:red
Respondents spouses
Gavino filed a motion to dismiss petitioner’s complaint on the ground
of
res judicata, alleging that the validity of the title of Cirilo Farinas
had already been upheld in two prior cases, i.e., Civil Case No.
Q-28101
and Civil Case No. Q-43359. Respondents attached the Order dated
February 13, 1980, issued by the trial court in Civil Case No. Q-28101,
whereby it dismissed petitioner’s complaint for cancellation of title
and
nullification of deed of sale for utter lack of merit on the grounds
that
Cirilo Farinas’ right of ownership over the lot in question cannot be
overridden
by herein petitioner’s possession of the same and the action to annul
the
title issued to Cirilo Farinas should have been filed within one year
from
the date of issuance thereof on September 17, 1969. Respondents
likewise
attached the Decision dated December 14, 1990 in Civil Case No.
Q-43359,
whereby the trial court dismissed petitioner’s petition for injunction
against the NHA on the ground of res judicata, as the issues raised
therein
are the very same ones raised in Civil Case No. Q-28101.cralaw:red
Petitioner then filed
a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as
CA-G.R.
SP No. 25368, assailing the RTC decision dated December 14, 1990 in
Civil
Case No. Q-43359, which, in its decision dated February 17, 1992,
sustained
the trial court’s ruling that Civil Case No. Q-43359 was already barred
by prior judgment in Civil Case No. Q-28101.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent NHA’s Answer
reiterated that petitioner’s complaint should be dismissed on the
ground
of res judicata, while respondent Register of Deeds presented the
defense
that it was his ministerial duty to register titles and documents
presented
to him for registration if he finds the same to be in accordance with
law
and, in the case of the titles to the lot in question, he found all
documents
presented to him to be in order.cralaw:red
In her opposition to
the motion to dismiss, herein petitioner argued that her present
complaint
cannot be barred by res judicata because there are five issues raised
in
the present case which were not raised or decided in the prior cases,
to
wit: (1) whether or not Cirilo Farinas was a qualified PHHC
awardee; (2) whether or not the award of the lot to Cirilo
Farinas and the Deed of Sale in his favor were valid; (3)
whether
or not Cirilo Farinas became the absolute owner of the lot in question
considering that he failed to comply with the condition inscribed at
the
back of the title that he should complete the construction of a
residential
dwelling on said lot within one year from issuance of the title;
(4) whether or not Cirilo Farinas, having failed to comply with
the
aforementioned condition, could sell the subject lot; and
(5)
whether or not the deed of sale executed by Cirilo Farinas in favor of
respondents spouses Gavino is valid.cralaw:red
Thus, the RTC, in Civil
Case No. Q-92-13538 issued an Order on December 29, 1992, granting
private
respondents’ motion to dismiss. It ordered the dismissal of the
complaint,
ruling that indeed, the complaint in this case was already barred by
prior
judgment.cralaw:red
Petitioner moved for
reconsideration of said order of dismissal, reiterating the arguments
she
raised in her opposition to the motion to dismiss and questioning the
existence
of the order of dismissal in Civil Case No. Q-28101 as records of said
case could no longer be found with the branch of the Regional Trial
Court
which issued said order because the records of said court were
completely
destroyed on June 11, 1988.chanrobles virtual law library
On March 9, 1993, the
RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, stating that the
issues
raised by petitioner had been ruled upon in the previous cases and the
existence of the order dismissing Civil Case No. Q-28101 is already
established
as said order was referred to in the decision rendered in Civil Case
No.
Q-43359.cralaw:red
Petitioner then appealed
to the Court of Appeals and on August 28, 1998, it promulgated its
Decision
affirming the RTC’s dismissal of Civil Case No. Q-92-13538. The
appellate
court ruled that there was indeed identity of subject matter, causes of
action, and parties between the present case docketed below as Civil
Case
No. Q-92-13538 and the prior case docketed as Civil Case No.
Q-28101.
No motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner with the Court of
Appeals.cralaw:red
Petitioner then filed
the present petition for certiorari, alleging the following:
1. THE HONORABLE
COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN, IN ITS DECISION DATED AUGUST 28, 1998 AFFIRMED
(sic)
THE ORDER DATED DECEMBER 29, 1990 DISMISSING THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF
RES JUDICATA, AND THE ORDER DATED MARCH 9, 1993, DENYING PETITIONER
ROSARIO
BARBACINA’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
BRANCH 76 [should be 92], QUEZON CITY.
2. THE HONORABLE
COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT DECLARE RESPONDENTS CIRILO FARINAS AND
SPOUSES RICHARD GAVINO AND MA. OLIVIA AMORIN GAVINO AS PERSONS
DISQUALIFIED
FOR THE AWARD OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN TCT NO. 145007 IN THE NAME
OF
RESPONDENT CIRILO FARINAS AND TRANSFERRED AS TCT NO. 383593 IN THE NAME
OF SPOUSES RICHARD GAVINO AND MA. OLIVIA AMORIN GAVINO.
3. THE HONORABLE
COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO DECLARE AS NULL AND VOID THE AWARD
OF
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BY RESPONDENT NHA (FORMERLY PHHC) TO
NON-RESIDENT
RESPONDENT CIRILO FARINAS TOGETHER WITH THE CONDITIONAL CONTRACT TO
SELL
AND DEED OF SALE, IF ANY, ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN RESPONDENTS NHA
(FORMERLY
PHHC) AND CIRILO FARINAS.
4. THE HONORABLE
COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT DECLARE AS NULL AND VOID, THE DEED OF
SALE, ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN CIRILO FARINAS AND SPOUSES RICHARD
GAVINO
AND MA. OLIVIA AMORIN GAVINO.
5. THE HONORABLE
COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO ORDER RESPONDENT QUEZON CITY
REGISTER
OF DEEDS TO CANCEL TCT NO. 145007 IN THE NAME OF CIRILO FARINAS AND TCT
NO. 383595 [should be 383593] IN THE NAME OF SPOUSES RICHARD GAVINO AND
MA. OLIVIA AMORIN GAVINO.
6. THE HONORABLE
COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT ORDER RESPONDENT NHA (FORMERLY PHHC)
TO
AWARD THE LOT IN QUESTION TO PETITIONER ROSARIO BARBACINA.
We find the petition
to be utterly devoid of merit.cralaw:red
At the outset, we emphasize
that factual questions are not reviewable by the Supreme Court in a
petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
There is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or
falsity
of the alleged facts.[3]
From such a definition, it is quite obvious that the issues raised by
petitioner
- i.e., whether or not Cirilo Farinas should have been disqualified as
an awardee of a lot by the NHA; whether or not Cirilo Farinas has
complied
with the condition annotated at the back of the title issued to him;
and
whether or not the NHA should award the subject lot to herein
petitioner
– are questions of fact which cannot be raised in the present petition
for review on certiorari.chanrobles virtual law library
Nevertheless, to put
matters at rest, we will resolve the issue of whether or not the case
at
bar is indeed barred by res judicata.cralaw:red
It is necessary to determine
whether all the elements for the application of the doctrine of res
judicata
are present in this case. In Cayana vs. Court of Appeals,[4]
we enumerated such elements, to wit:
For res judicata to
apply, there must be (1) a former final judgment rendered on the
merits;
(2) the court must have had jurisdiction over the subject matter and
the
parties; and, (3) identity of parties, subject matter and cause of
action
between the first and second actions.chanrobles virtual law library
In the present case,
petitioner reiterated her claim that no Order dated February 13, 1980,
dismissing Civil Case No. Q-28101, could be found because the records
of
said case are not with the Branch of the RTC which supposedly issued
the
same. However, the reason why the records of Civil Case No.
Q-28101
could not be produced was sufficiently explained by the Branch Clerk of
Court of the RTC Branch which issued said order, when he testified in
another
criminal case for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law (P.D. No. 772)
where
herein petitioner was the accused, that the records in the custody of
said
court had been completely destroyed on June 11, 1988.[5]
Furthermore, in the
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 25368, wherein the
decision
of the trial court in Civil Case No. Q-43359 was upheld, the Court of
Appeals
referred to the existence of the trial court’s order dismissing Civil
Case
No. Q-28101. Pertinent portions of said Court of Appeals Decision
dated February 17, 1992, read thus:
A Notice of
Demolition issued by the Office of the City Engineer of Quezon
City
pursuant to administrative clearances and directed against the
house
of petitioner Rosario Barbacina situated at No. 11 Maginoo St., Central
District, Quezon City was the spur to the filing by petitioner on
August
3, 1979 of a civil suit for cancellation and/or annulment of title with
preliminary mandatory injunction and damages before the then Court of
First
Instance of Quezon City, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-
28101
and raffled to Branch LII. On February 13, 1980, the court
dismissed
the case on defendants’ motion to dismiss.chanrobles virtual law library
Subsequently, on
November
8, 1984, another notice was sent to petitioner by the city authorities
thru herein respondent Romeo C. Espino – also on the strength of an
order
from respondent National Housing Authority – directing her to remove
her
house from the premises within 15 days from notice. Again,
petitioner
sought judicial relief from the impending eviction, filing on November
21, 1984 a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City to be
protected in her possession and occupation of the disputed
premises.
Docketed as Civil Case No. Q-43359, the case was raffled to Branch 95,
now presided by the Honorable Aloysius C. Alday.
On December 14, 1990,
Judge Alday rendered a decision adverse to the petitioner, dismissing
the
case on the ground of res judicata.
The thrust of petitioner’s
arguments under this issue is that respondent Judge committed error in
applying the doctrine of res judicata to dismiss her petition in Civil
Case No. Q-43359.cralaw:red
The essential requisites
for the application of res judicata are: (1) there must be a final
judgment
or order; (2) the court that rendered the judgment must have
jurisdiction
over the subject-matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on
the
merits; and (4) there must be between the two cases identity of
parties,
identity of subject matter, and identity of cause of action.chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner obviously
concedes the first three (3) elements; the controversy is limited to a
difference of opinion as regards the fourth and last requisite.cralaw:red
In both cases, petitioner’s
resort to the judicial forum was premised on the alleged wrongful and
arbitrary
threatened demolition of her house, as well as her threatened ejectment
therefrom. The minor variances present in both cases are
immaterial
and cannot serve to obviate this one overriding fact.cralaw:red
The identity of causes
of action does not depend on similarity or difference in the form of
the
actions. A party cannot escape the operation of res judicata by
resorting
to a variation in the form of action or by adopting a different form of
presenting his case (The Doctrine of Res Judicata, 76 SCRA 435, citing
supporting cases).cralaw:red
Prescinding from all
the foregoing, the Court concludes that respondent Judge correctly
applied
the doctrine of res judicata against Civil Case No. Q-43359.[6]
The existence and finality
of the foregoing decision of the Court of Appeals is not being
contested
by petitioner. Thus, the declaration of the appellate court in
said
case, firmly established the fact that there was indeed an order of
dismissal
issued in the prior case docketed as Civil Case No. Q-28101. The
existence
of such an order being a certainty, there can be no question that the
requirements
that (a) there be a former final judgment rendered on the merits; and
(b)
that the court issuing such judgment had jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties, are clearly present in this case.cralaw:red
Therefore, the only
question for determination is whether or not the third requisite for
res
judicata is attendant, i.e., that there is an identity of parties,
subject
matter and cause of action between the first and second cases, exists
in
this case.chanrobles virtual law library
As to identity of parties
in the present case and that of Civil Case No. Q-28101, petitioner
posits
that there is no such identity because the defendants in the present
case
are the Gavino spouses, Cirilo Farinas, the Register of Deeds of Quezon
City, and the National Housing Authority, while in Civil Case No.
Q-28101,
the defendants were Cirilo Farinas, Rosario Farinas, Gaudencio Tobias
as
the General Manager of the National Housing Authority, Gerardo Magat as
Chairman of Task Force Squatter, Relocation, Resettlement and
Rehabilitation,
and Pantaleon Tabora as City Engineer of Quezon City.cralaw:red
The supposed differences
are, however, deceptive. Note that the inclusion of the Gavino
spouses
as defendants in the present case is merely due to the fact that they
are
successors-in-interest of Cirilo Farinas. In Civil Case No.
Q-28101, Rosario Farinas, the sister of Cirilo Farinas, was included
because
petitioner alleged therein that Rosario Farinas was actually the one
interested
in the subject lot, but since she had already been awarded one lot, she
used the name of Cirilo Farinas to apply for the award of the subject
lot.
Clearly, the Gavino spouses and Rosario Farinas represent one and the
same
interest - that of Cirilo Farinas’. In Taganas vs. Emuslan,[7]
it was held that:
There is identity of
parties where the parties in both actions are the same or there is
privity
between them or they are successors-in-interest by title subsequent to
the commencement of the action, litigating for the same thing and under
the same title and in the same capacity.cralaw:red
In both Civil Case No.
Q-28101 and the present case, although different public officers were
impleaded,
it should be noted that all such public officers were the different
authorities
mandated to enforce the rights of Cirilo Farinas whose valid ownership
of the property had been finally adjudged by a competent court.cralaw:red
Clearly, the parties
in both actions are substantially the same, representing the very same
interest. We have ruled in Dela Rama vs. Mendiola[8]
that “only a substantial identity is necessary to warrant the
application
of res judicata. The addition or elimination of some parties does
not alter the situation.” Hence, the element that there be
identity
of parties exists in this case.chanrobles virtual law library
With regard to the element
of identity of subject matter, the subject of an action is defined as
the
matter or thing with respect to which the controversy has arisen,
concerning
which a wrong has been done.[9]
There can be no doubt that the prior case and this one before us
involves
the very same lot located at No. 11 Maginoo St., Barangay
Piñahan,
Quezon City and the award thereof by the NHA to Cirilo Farinas, thus,
the
element of identity of subject matter is also present.cralaw:red
We then come to the
determination of whether or not the causes of action in the two cases
under
consideration are identical. Petitioner argues that her present
complaint
cannot be barred by res judicata because there are five issues raised
in
the present case that were not raised or decided in the prior
cases.
Note that in Dela Rama vs. Mendiola,[10]
we held that:chanrobles virtual law library
x
x xCauses of action are identical when there is an identity
in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions, or where
the same evidence will sustain both actions. If the same facts or
evidence can sustain either, the two actions are considered the same,
so
that the judgment in one is a bar to the other.
x
x
xthe difference in form and nature of the two actions is
immaterial.
The philosophy behind the rule on res judicata prohibits the parties
from
litigating the same issue more than once.
When material facts or
questions in issue in a former action were conclusively settled by a
judgment
rendered therein, such facts or questions constitute res judicata and
may
not be again litigated in a subsequent action between the same parties
or their privies regardless of the form of the latter. This is
the
essence of res judicata or bar by prior judgment. The parties are
bound not only as regards every matter offered and received to sustain
or defeat their claims or demand but as to any other admissible matter
which might have been offered for that purpose and of all other matters
that could have been adjudged in that case.
The issue involved in
Civil Case No. Q-28101 for cancellation and/or annulment of title is
the
validity of the NHA’s award of the subject lot to Cirilo Farinas.
In the present case, petitioner again assails the validity of the NHA’s
award to Cirilo Farinas, albeit petitioner now also raised the issue
that
since, in her belief, the title issued to Cirilo Farinas was null and
void,
then the transfer certificate of title issued to the Gavino spouses,
the
transferees of Cirilo Farinas, must also be null and void. It is
quite glaring that the issues in the two cases are exactly the same,
hinging
on the validity of the NHA’s award to Cirilo Farinas and the ultimate
issuance
of the title over the property in his name. Thus, even assuming
arguendo
that the five issues raised in this petition were not raised in the
prior
case, the present case would still be barred by res judicata because,
as
stated in the above quoted case, the parties are bound as to any other
admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose and of
all other matters that could have been adjudged in the prior case.chanrobles virtual law library
In sum, we find that
all the elements for the application of res judicata are present in
this
case. The trial court, upheld by the Court of Appeals, was,
therefore,
correct in dismissing petitioner’s complaint in Civil Case No.
Q-92-13538
for being barred by prior judgment.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the petition
is hereby DENIED for utter lack of merit. Costs against
petitioner.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Callejo, Sr., Tinga
and Chico-Nazario, JJ.,
concur.
Puno, J., (Chairman),
on official leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with Associate Justices
Jainal D. Rasul and Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis concurring.
[2]
Entitled “Rosario Barbacina vs. Spouses Richard Gavino, et al.”chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Londres vs. Court of Appeals, 394 SCRA 133, 144 (2002)
[4]
G.R. No. 125607. March 18, 2004chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Petition, Rollo pp. 20-21.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Records, pp. 39-46.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
G.R. No. 146980. September 2, 2003.
[8]
401 SCRA 704, 710-712 (2003).chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Taganas vs. Emuslan, Supra. See note 7.
[10]
Supra. See note 8. |