SECOND DIVISON
ROBERTO P.
TOLENTINO,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
135441
November 20, 2003
-versus-
DOLORES NATANAUAN,
RAFAELA NATANAUAN, ROMULO
NATANAUAN, JR.,SPOUSES ALEJO &
FILOMENA TOLENTINO,
PERFECTO P. FERNANDEZ,BUCK ESTATE, INC.,
AND ZOSIMO
NERA,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before us is a Petition
for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court which seeks the reversal of the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 42612 dismissing Roberto
Tolentino's
petition for certiorari.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The subject of herein
dispute is a parcel of land located in Sungay, Tagaytay City,
consisting
of 50,000 square meters.cralaw:red
Based on the records
of this case, the following are the antecedent facts involving the
subject
property:
In a Deed
of
Sale dated August 31, 1976, Jose Natanauan sold the property to
respondents
Dolores, Rafaela, Ernestina, and Romulo,[2]
all surnamed Natanauan[3]
(Natanauans for brevity). The Natanauans later sold the property to
spouses
Alejo and Filomena Tolentino by virtue of a Deed of Sale executed on
January
3, 1978.[4]
Four years later, or, on April 1, 1982, the Natanauans filed with the
Regional
Trial Court of Cavite (Branch 18) an action for annulment of deed of
sale
and reconveyance with damages against the spouses Tolentino, docketed
as
Civil Case No. TG-680.[5]
However, on joint motion of both parties, the trial court dismissed the
case in its Order dated February 3, 1984.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
More than six
years
later, or on September 27, 1990, the Natanauans filed with the same
Regional
Trial Court, a Manifestation with Motion to Modify Order asking that
the
dismissal of Civil Case No. TG-680 per its Order dated February 3, 1984
be modified to the effect that the case should be dismissed with
prejudice.[7]
The Regional Trial Court denied the motion.[8]
On motion for reconsideration of said respondents, the trial court
issued
an Order dated November 8, 1990 granting the motion and revising the
order
of dismissal to one with prejudice.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 11, 1991,
the
Natanauans filed another action for recovery of possession with
damages,
docketed as Civil Case No. TG-1188, against the spouses Tolentino
seeking
the rescission of the contract of sale executed on January 3, 1978 due
to the repeated failure of the spouses Tolentino to pay the remaining
balance
on the purchase price of the subject property.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After trial on the
merits,
the same trial court rendered judgment in favor of respondents in its
Decision
dated March 30, 1993,[10]
the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs and against the
defendants
as
follows:
1.
Declaring
the Deed of Sale (Exhibit "B") as having been validly rescinded by
plaintiffs
for the repeated failure of defendants to pay the remainder of the
obligations
under it;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Directing the
defendants-spouses
Alejo P. Tolentino and Filomena Tolentino to reconvey and surrender
possession
of the parcel of land, which is identified and fully described in TCT
No.
T-107593 and Exhibit "B", to the plaintiffs;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Directing the
Register
of Deeds for the Province of Cavite to cancel TCT No. T-107593 and to
issue,
in lieu thereof, a new title in favor of and in the names of
plaintiffs;
andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. Ordering the
defendants
to pay plaintiffs, the sums of P20,000.00 for and as litigation
expenses
incurred by them in this case, and P25,000.00, for and as attorney's
fees;
plus costs of suit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[11]
(Emphasis
supplied.)
On appeal, docketed as
CA-G.R. CV No. 43426, the Court of Appeals in its decision dated May
10,
1995,[12]
affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification expressly
deleting
that portion of the decision directing the Register of Deeds to cancel
TCT No. T-107593 and to issue a new title in favor of the respondents.[13]
Said decision became final and executory on June 14, 1995, and entry of
judgment was accordingly made.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, it appears
that on June 28, 1994, or eleven months before the Court of Appeals
promulgated
said decision, the Natanauans have filed another complaint with the
Regional
Trial Court of Cavite (Branch 18), this time for declaration of nullity
and damages against spouses Tolentino, Roberto P. Tolentino (Roberto
for
brevity), Notary Public Perfecto P. Fernandez, Buck Estate Inc., Rizal
Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) and the Registry of Deeds of
Tagaytay
City, docketed as Civil Case No. TG-1421. The complaint alleges that
some
time in 1993, Dolores, one of the Natanauans, discovered from the
records
of the Registry of Deeds, the existence of OCT No. 01822 issued by the
Land Registration Commission in the names of Jose Natanauan, Salud
Marquez,
Melquiades Parungao and Asuncion Fajardo, covering the Tagaytay
property;
the property was subsequently sold by Jose, Salud, Melquiades and
Asuncion
to spouses Tolentino, and TCT No. T-107593 was issued in their names,
by
virtue of a falsified/forged Deed of Sale dated August 3, 1979; Jose
Natanauan,
one of the sellers, died on June 12, 1977 in Batangas; another deed of
sale, this time dated March 9, 1979, was falsified/forged by the
defendants,
wherein the Natanauans purportedly sold the property to defendant
Roberto;
the property is now covered by TCT Nos. T-28479, T-28480, T-28481,
T-28482,
T-28483, T-28484 and T-28485, in the name of defendant Buck Estate Inc.
with defendant Roberto as one of its stockholders; and Roberto
mortgaged
the property in favor of his co-defendant RCBC for the sum of
P10,000,000.00.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Instead of filing an
Answer, defendant Roberto filed on July 28, 1994, a motion to dismiss
the
case based on the following grounds:
1. That the
complaint states no cause of action against herein defendant;
2. That there is a
pending case between the same parties and subject matter;
3. That the complaint
is barred by prescription; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. That the
Verification
with Certification of Non-Forum Shopping is defective (sic).[16]
Defendants spouses
Tolentino
and Buck Estate Inc. also filed their respective motions to dismiss.
Defendants
RCBC and the Register of Deeds filed their separate Answers. The
Regional
Trial Court denied the motions to dismiss in its Order dated September
23, 1994 and ordered defendants Roberto, spouses Tolentino and Buck
Estate
Inc. to file their respective Answers.[17]
Accordingly, said defendants filed their respective Answers.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Defendant Roberto subsequently
filed a Motion to Admit Amended Answer and Motion for Preliminary
Hearing
on the Special Defenses. He set forth the defenses that the complaint
states
no cause of action against him; the action is barred by prior judgment
and by the statute of limitations; and the plaintiffs Natanauans are
guilty
of forum shopping.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Acting on defendant
Roberto's motion, the trial court issued an Order dated May 15, 1995,
admitting
his Amended Answer and denying the motion for preliminary hearing. The
trial court found the grounds relied upon by petitioner not to be
indubitable
and the merits thereof could be appreciated only through a "full dress
trial."[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On October 25, 1995,
a certain Zosimo Nera, an architect, filed an Answer-In-Intervention
claiming
that he is the present owner of the property in dispute, having bought
it from defendant Buck Estate, Inc. on March 9, 1994.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March 5, 1996, defendant
Roberto filed a Motion to Re-Examine and Reconsider its Previous Orders
Especially the Order of May 15, 1995 with Manifestation to Dismiss the
Case.[21]
In essence, the motion sought the dismissal of the case on the grounds
that the trial court does not have jurisdiction to try the case as
there
are already two final judgments involving the same subject matter;
respondents
are guilty of forum shopping; and, the action is barred by estoppel and
the statutes of limitations.[22]
Denying the motion in
its Order dated April 29, 1996, the trial court ruled that "the grounds
invoked by the herein defendant in support of his present motion to
dismiss
has already been ruled upon not only by this Court but also the
Honorable
Court of Appeals," apparently referring to the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 43426.[23]
Defendant Roberto filed a motion for reconsideration but the trial
court
denied it.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, defendant Roberto
(hereinafter referred to as petitioner) brought the case to the Court
of
Appeals on petition for certiorari[25]
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which the appellate court dismissed
per its Decision dated August 10, 1998. In dismissing the petition, the
Court of Appeals treated the Motion to Re-Examine and Reconsider its
Previous
Orders Especially the Order of May 15, 1995 with Manifestation to
Dismiss
the Case filed by petitioner as a second motion for reconsideration and
considered it as a prohibited pleading. The appellate court further
ruled
that the special civil action for certiorari filed by petitioner is not
the proper remedy as the records do not show that the trial court
committed
grave abuse of discretion; petitioner should have reiterated the
grounds
in his Answer, proceed to trial and appeal any adverse decision; and
that
contrary to petitioner's posture, the trial court had ruled that
respondents
are not guilty of forum shopping, nor are they barred by estoppel, and
the principle of res judicata does not apply.[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, the present petition
for review. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred when it
denied his petition.cralaw:red
Without presenting any
new and substantial grounds, petitioner reiterated the issues and
arguments
previously raised and passed upon by both the trial court and the Court
of Appeals.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petition must be
denied as we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial
court and the Court of Appeals.cralaw:red
An examination of the
records of this case shows that petitioner had already previously filed
a motion to dismiss raising basically the same issues and arguments set
forth in his Motion to Re-Examine and Reconsider its Previous Orders.
Despite
the difference in nomenclature, the motion to re-examine also sought
the
dismissal of the case and partakes of a motion to dismiss. Having been
denied by the trial court, petitioner's recourse was to have it
reviewed
in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after
trial.
As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, the petition for certiorari
filed before it is not the proper remedy to question its denial, it
being
merely an interlocutory order, i.e., one that does not terminate nor
finally
dispose of the case, and leaves something else to be done by the court
before the case is finally decided on the merits.[27]
In the case of Bangko Silangan Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals,[28]
the Court reiterated the well-settled rule that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely
interlocutory
and therefore not appealable, nor can it be the subject of a petition
for
review on certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the ordinary
course
of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial. The ordinary
procedure
to be followed in that event is to file an answer, go to trial, and if
the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from the final
judgment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, the Court
of
Appeals erroneously applied the proscription against second motions for
reconsideration to interlocutory orders.[29]
As correctly pointed out by petitioner, the rule prohibiting a second
motion
for reconsideration applies to final judgments and orders, not
interlocutory
orders. It may be denied on the ground that it is a "rehash" or mere
reiteration
of grounds and arguments already passed upon and resolved by the court,
but it cannot be rejected on the ground that it is a second motion for
reconsideration proscribed by law.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nevertheless, we find
that
the Court of Appeals did not commit any grave abuse of discretion when
it ruled that the principle of res judicata does not apply, that
respondents
are not guilty of forum shopping and that respondents Natanauans in
Civil
Case No. TG-1421 are not barred by estoppel. The petition for
certiorari
can be availed of only if the denial of the motion is tainted with
grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On res judicata.chanrobles virtual law library
The elements of res
judicata are:
(a) the
former
judgment must be final;
(b) the court which
rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
(c) it must be a
judgment
on the merits; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d) there must be,
between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject
matter,
and causes of action.[31]
The final judgment in
Civil
Case No. TG-1188 does not constitute as a bar on Civil Case No. TG-1421
for the plain and simple reason that the causes of action, issues and
parties
involved in Civil Case No. TG-1188 are different from those involved in
Civil Case No. TG-1421.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There is no denying
that both Civil Cases Nos. TG-1188 and TG-1421 involve the same
Tagaytay
property. In Civil Case No. TG-1188, respondents Natanauans' action is
for the rescission of the Deed of Sale dated January 3, 1978 and the
reconveyance
of the Tagaytay property due to the alleged failure of the spouses
Tolentino
to pay the full purchase price of the subject property under the
contract
of sale dated January 3, 1978 executed by and between them and the
Natanauans;
whereas, in Civil Case No. TG-1421, respondents Natanauans' action is
for
the declaration of the nullity of the Deed of Sale dated August 3,
1979,
wherein Jose Natanauan, who allegedly died on June 12, 1977, Salud
Marqueses,
Melquiades Parungao, and Asuncion Fajardo, purportedly sold the same
property
to the spouses Tolentino. Respondents Natanauans included petitioner
Tolentino
and Notary Public Perfecto P. Fernandez as defendants in Civil Case No.
TG-1421 as they allegedly connived with the spouses Tolentino in
forging/falsifying
the signatures of the sellers. Buck Estate Inc., RCBC and the Registry
of Deeds of Tagaytay City were also included as defendants in Civil
Case
No. TG-1421. All these clearly show that the fourth element of res
judicata
is absent. There are no identities of parties, subject matter and
causes
of action between the two civil cases.
On forum shopping.chanrobles virtual law library
It is settled that its
essence is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for
the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for
the
purpose of obtaining favorable judgment. It exists where the elements
of
litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will
amount to res judicata in another.[32]
Inasmuch as the elements of litis pendentia or res judicata are not
present,
as previously discussed, the lower courts correctly hold that
respondents
Natanauans cannot be held guilty of engaging in forum shopping.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On estoppel.chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner claims that
respondents Natanauans are estopped from raising the nullity of the
deed
of sale because of their failure to raise it in Civil Case Nos. TG-680
and TG-1188. This argument would have been plausible if the causes of
action
and issues in these three cases are all the same. However, as we have
pointed
out earlier, Civil Cases Nos. TG-680 and TG-1188 involve the Deed of
Sale
dated January 3, 1978, while Civil Case No. TG-1421 involves the
alleged
fraudulent Deed of Sale dated August 3, 1979, the existence of which
was
allegedly discovered by respondents Natanauans only in 1993. It is only
after a full-blown trial that the trial court would be able to
determine
whether or not respondents Natanauans could have raised this matter in
Civil Cases Nos. TG-680 and TG-1188 which were filed in 1982 and 1991,
respectively. The trial court correctly held that the trial thereon
must
proceed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the petition
for review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Let the records of Civil
Case No. TG-1421 be remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Cavite
(Branch
18) for further proceedings.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs against petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing, Callejo,
Sr. and Tinga, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Jorge S. Imperial (now deceased); Associate
Justice Ramon A. Barcelona (now retired) and former Associate Justice
Demetrio
G. Demetria, concurring.
[2]
Romulo died on January 23, 1994 in the United States and was succeeded
by his son Romulo, Jr.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Exhibit "C".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Exhibit "B".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., pp. 297–302.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., p. 303.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., pp. 304–305.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id., p. 306.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id., p. 309.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id., pp. 356–362.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id., pp. 361–362.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria and concurred in by
Associate
Justices Arturo B. Buena (now retired Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court) and Cancio C. Garcia (now Presiding Justice).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Records, p. 460.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id., p. 461.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Id., pp. 6–13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Id., p. 112.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id., p. 203.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id., pp. 288–294.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id., p. 319.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Id., pp. 390–392, 416–425.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id., pp. 430–445.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Id., pp. 436–444.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Id., p. 468.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Id., pp. 488–491.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Docketed as CA-G.R. No. 42612.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Rollo, pp. 37–39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
110147,
April 17, 2001, 356 SCRA 563, 570.
[28]
G.R. No. 110480, June 29, 2001, 360 SCRA 322, 334.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Philgreen Construction Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
120408,
April 18, 1997, 271 SCRA 719, 726.
[30]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. vs. Cabrigas, G.R. No. 134895,
June 19, 2001, 358 SCRA 715, 728.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
32. Ong vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121494, June 8, 2000, 333 SCRA
189,
199. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |