ChanRobles Virtual law Library
G.R. No. 149992.� March 2, 2005]
HI-TONE MARKETING vs. BAIKAL REALTY
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 2 2005.
G.R. No. 149992 (Hi-Tone Marketing Corporation vs. Baikal Realty Corporation and Alejandro R. Villanueva, in his capacity as Register of Deeds of Cavite.)
Before us is a motion for reconsideration of the Decision of this Court promulgated on 20 August 2004, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 02 May 2001 and its 14 September 2001 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 38117 entitled Hi-Tone Marketing Corporation v. Honorable Jose J. Parentela, Alejandro Villanueva and Baikal Realty Corporation are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated 29 March 1995 and the Decision dated 08 August 1995 of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite at Trece Martires City, Branch 23, in Civil Case No. TM-582 are SET ASIDE. Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-542567 (Cavite) covering Lot 5765-A in the name of Baikal Realty Corporation is declared VOID. Costs against the respondent corporation. [1] cralaw
Respondent Baikal Realty Corporation (Baikal) filed its Motion for Reconsideration, [2] cralaw claiming that the petition has become moot and academic since Hi-Tone Marketing Corporation (Hi-Tone) has actually pursued its claim over the ownership and title to the property subject of this case, and that Hi-Tone's title to the subject property has already been declared null and void with finality. [3] cralaw
Baikal claims that Hi-Tone had filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 21 at Imus, Cavite involving the very same issue of ownership or validity of title and the very same parcel of land subject of this case. Three other claimants, including Baikal, filed their complaints before the same court. [4] cralaw In the said case, Hi-Tone's title to Lot No. 5765-New was declared null and void by the RTC. [5] cralaw Hi-Tone's appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. Its motion for extension of time to file a petition for review was denied by this Court and its motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Thus, the corresponding Entry of Judgment was issued on 16 October 2002. [6] cralaw
On the other hand, Baikal's claim over the same property has yet to be finally adjudicated as it has a pending motion for reconsideration in G.R. No. 151081 entitled Top Rate Construction and General Services, Inc. v. Paxton Development Corporation, et al. [7] cralaw
Baikal likewise claims that the Court's "factual findings and conclusions" run counter to the findings of fact of the RTC Branch 21 (Imus) which actually heard the case. Baikal posits that the decision dated 8 August 1995 of the RTC Branch 23, which is one of the subjects of the instant petition, was a default judgment-the parties not having gone into trial. Thus, Baikal claims that as between this Court's finding that Hi-Tone's title is valid based on a default judgment, and the RTC Imus, Branch 21's finding that Hi-Tone's title is null and void which was reached after a protracted trial, the latter should prevail. [8] cralaw
Baikal alleges that the Court's Decision resulted in a denial of due process as it resolved factual issues even before evidence had been duly presented in court. Moreover, even assuming that the trial court committed errors or abused its discretion resulting in the denial of due process, it would be unjust and inequitable to penalize Baikal for it by declaring its title null arid void even before it presented its evidence in the trial court. [9] cralaw
On the other hand, Hi-Tone claims that the decision in the Imus case does not constitute res judicata since there is no identity of parties between said case and the instant petition. Whereas in the Imus case, the only parties were Hi-Tone, Estate/Heirs of Serapio Cuenca, Paxton Development Corporation and the Register of Deeds, in the instant petition the parties involved are Hi-Tone, Baikal, Judge Parentela and the Register of Deeds. Thus, other than Hi-Tone and the Register of Deeds, there is no identity of parties. Besides, Hi-Tone was not even a party in Civil Case No.TM-582 (before RTC, Branch 23), as its motion to intervene in the said case was denied. [10] cralaw
Hi-Tone adds that there is no identity of causes of action since the Imus case was for cancellation of title and damages, while the instant petition arose from the annulment of the questioned order in Civil Case TM-582. While the Imus case involves a property dispute between Hi-Tone and the Heirs of Serapio Cuenca and Paxton Development Corporation, the instant petition questions the validity of the questioned order. [11] cralaw
The motion for reconsideration must be denied.
The petition was not rendered moot and academic by the decision in Civil Case No. 1134-95 declaring Hi-Tone's title to Lot No. 5765-New null and void. Bar by prior judgment exists when, between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the second case where such judgment is involved, there are identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. [12] cralaw
As can be clearly seen from the records, there is no identity of parties in this case and Civil Case No. 1134-95, at least as far as Baikal is concerned. The instant petition was filed against Baikal, the judge who rendered the questioned order, and the Register of Deeds of Cavite. On the other hand, the civil case was against the Estate/Heirs of Serapio Cuenca, Paxton Development Corporation and the Director of Lands Management Bureau and/or the Register of Deeds. Clearly, Baikal was not even a party in the other case.
More importantly, there is no identity of causes of action. This case involves a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. No. 38117 which in turn is a petition for annulment of judgment. On the other hand, Civil Case No. 1134-95 is for cancellation of title with damages. Baikal's attempt to weigh the Court's Decision against the factual findings and decision of the RTC Branch 21 (Imus), specifically the factual findings therein, is futile and misplaced, to say the least. The petition before the Court is not about Hi-Tone's nor of Baikal's title to the subject property, but essentially on whether there was a denial of due process which merits the annulment of the judgment of the trial court.
In the instant petition, Hi-Tone claims that the respondent judge issued the 29 March 1995 order in Civil Case No. TM-582 directing the Register of Deeds to record the deeds of absolute sale and to issue new transfer certificates of title in favor of Baikal, without affording Hi-Tone the opportunity to present its evidence in opposition to the registration of Lot 5765-A in the name of Baikal. The main issue is whether there was denial of due process, and not whether Hi-Tone or Baikal has valid title to the property. The facts on which the Court disposed of the petition are all on record; hence, Baikal cannot cry denial of due process.
Contrary to Baikal's reading of the Decision in this case, it does not foreclose its filing of the proper case to secure a new title to the property in question on the assumption that it is indeed the owner thereof and provided further that Hi-Tone is impleaded as the adverse party in such case. In other words, Baikal should avoid having a reprisal of the irregular proceeding in the court below which led to this Court's nullification of the questioned order.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration dated 17 September 2004 of respondent Baikal Realty Corporation is hereby DENIED with FINALITY.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Decision, Rollo, pp. 567-602.
[2] cralaw Ibid.
[3] cralaw
[4] cralaw Ibid.
[5] cralaw RTC Joint Decision in Civil Cases Nos. 1124-95, 1125-95, 1134-95, 1224-95 & 1286-95, Id. at 616-626.
[6] cralaw Id. at 628.
[7] cralaw Id. at 629.
[8] cralaw Id. at 609-611.
[9] cralaw Id. at 611.
[10] cralaw Id. at 700-702.
[11] cralaw /d. at 702.
[12] cralaw Padillo v. Court of Appeals, 422 Phil. 334, 349 (2001).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
