ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

170450. January 31, 2006]

IN RE PETITION SEEKING CLARIFICATION ON THE VALIDITY AND EFFECT OF TWO (2) FINAL DECISIONS OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT BY ITS THIRD (3RD) DIVISION IN G.R. NO. 150176 (CA-GR CV NO. 90350; RTC OROQUIETA CITY, BR. 12, CIVIL CASE NO. 4527-13-164) AND IN SUPREME COURT (3RD DIVISION) G.R. NO. L-159278 (CA-GR CV NO. 63024; RTC-MARAWI CITY, BR. 09, CIVIL CASE NO. 1127-94) INVOLVING THE SAME SET OF PROPERTIES

En Banc

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the. Court dated JAN. 31, 2006

G.R. No. 170450 (In re petition seeking clarification on the validity and effect of two (2) final decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court by its Third (3rd) Division in G.R. No. 150176 (CA-GR CV No. 90350; RTC Oroquieta City, Br.12, Civil Case No. 4527-13-164) and in Supreme Court (3rd Division) G.R. No. L-159278 (CA-GR CV No. 63024; RTC - em>Marawi City , Br. 09, civil case no. 1127-94) involving the same set of properties)

The present Petition [1] cralaw seeks to clarify the effect of the Resolutions of this Court in GR No. 150176 (Dr. Josefa T. Dignum v. Rosa Maria Lamparas) dated January 23, 2002 and in GR No. 159278 (Rosa Maria Lamparas v. Dr. Josefa T. Dignum) dated November 8, 2004. Petitioner Josefa Dignum alleges that the subject Resolutions, involving the same properties, are conflicting thus, failed to resolve with finality the issues between the parties.

The two cases arose from the issue of ownership over the properties registered under the name of Torcuata Lamparas. Upon the death of Torcuata, her adopted daughter, Rosa Maria, adjudicated unto herself the subject properties. However, Rosa Maria could not enjoy its income because petitioner was collecting it on the claim that the latter is the real owner of the subject properties. Petitioner claims that Torcuata was merely a trustee over the properties. She avers that Torcuata, during her lifetime, ceded in her favor the rights and interests over the properties through a quit claim.

Despite these claims, Rosa Maria still demanded from petitioner the accounting and delivery of the fruits of the properties. Petitioner refused to act on the demands of Rosa Maria. As a consequence, Rosa Maria filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money, Accounting and Damages at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao del Sur. On the other hand, petitioner filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title at the RTC of Oroquieta City.

On March 31, 1997, acting on the Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money, the RTC (Branch 9) of Lanao del Sur rendered a Decision in favor of Rosa Maria. The trial court ordered thus:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff ROSA MARIA LAMPARAS against defendant JOSEFA DIGNUM ordering said defendant:

(1) To pay unto plaintiff Rosa Maria Lamparas the sum of One Million Sixty-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty (PI,669, 720.00) Pesos representing the fruits of the properties from May 1993 to November 1996;

(2) To pay 12% interest per annum thereof from 1993 until paid;

(3) To pay unto the plaintiff the sum of Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos in damages;

(4) To pay litigation expense of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos; and

(5) To pay the costs." [2] cralaw

Petitioner appealed this Decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).

On December 28, 1998, pending resolution of petitioner's appeal, the RTC (Branch 13) of Oroquieta City rendered a Decision [3] cralaw on the case for quieting of title in favor of petitioner. The dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant,

(a) finding the existence of an implied trust between the plaintiff as beneficiary and the deceased Torcuata Lamparas as trustee, and

(b) declaring the plaintiff the lawful and rightful owner of the properties described in par. 2 of the complaint and registered/declared in the name of Torcuata Lamparas, and quieting the plaintiff's title thereto." [4] cralaw

Rosa Maria, in turn, also sought the reversal of the aforesaid Decision at the CA.

On May 28, 2001, the CA in CA-GR CV No. 60350 affirmed the RTC Decision on the case for collection of sum of money. Thereafter, petitioner asked this Court to reverse the said CA Decision. However, on January 23, 2002, this Court in GR No. 150176 issued a Resolution denying the Petition for failure of petitioner to submit a valid affidavit of service and the duplicate original or certified true copy of the May 28, 2001 Decision of the CA. This Resolution was entered in the Book of Entry of Judgments on January 31, 2003.

On February 21, 2003, the CA in CA GR CV No. 63024 affirmed the RTC Decision on the case for quieting of title. Rosa Maria petitioned this Court to review the said CA Decision. On November 8, 2004, this Court in GR No. 159278 denied in a Minute Resolution, the Petition on the ground that the issues raised were factual and petitioner failed to show that a reversible error had been committed by the appellate court. This Resolution was entered in the Book of Entry of Judgments on July 5, 2005.

It must be noted that Rosa Maria immediately sought the execution of the trial court judgment on the case for collection of sum of money. Petitioner moved to stay its execution pending the resolution of the case for quieting of title. The trial court however, denied her Motion. To date, notwithstanding the Resolution of this Court on the case for quieting of title, Rosa Maria claims she has not been able to enjoy the Judgment on the case for collection of sum of money.

Feeling aggrieved, petitioner now comes to this Court asking it to harmonize its alleged conflicting Resolutions in GR No. 150176 dated January 23, 2002 and in GR No. 159278 dated November 8, 2004. Thus, she prays that (1) a Writ of Preliminary Injunction be Issued to prevent the RTC Branch 9 of Lanao del Sur from further implementing the Execution Order it rendered in Civil Case No. 1127-94; (2) a final declaration be rendered by this Court resolving the issue of who has superior ownership rights over the subject properties; (3) the Decision dated March 31, 1997 of the RTC (Branch 9) of Lanao del Sur in Civil Case No. 1127-94 be annulled and set aside. [5] cralaw

The Petition must fail.

At the outset, we hold that there is no conflict between the assailed Resolutions of this Court. If at all, the alleged conflicting effect of the Resolutions is a result of petitioner's failure to properly attend to her cause.

First, it must be stressed that although the two cases involve the same properties, their causes of action are not the same. GR No. 150176 was for collection of sum of money and damages while GR No. 159278 was for quieting of title. While the cases are rooted on the issue of ownership, the parties however, have taken different directions in advancing their causes. Hence, the separate judgments on these cases.

Second, we note that despite the favorable judgment in the case for quieting of title at the trial court level, petitioner made no attempt to have the cases consolidated at the appellate court. The effects of the separate judgments in both cases could have been resolved at that stage of the court proceedings. Unfortunately, petitioner allowed the cases to be considered independently.

Third, the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provision of the law. [6] cralaw When petitioner appealed the case for collection of sum of money in GR No. 150176, this Court denied the Petition outright for her failure to comply with the rules on civil procedure. Consequently, the Decision appealed from became final and executory as if no appeal was filed at all. We stress that unlike in the November 8, 2004 Resolution in GR No. 159278, we never made a ruling on the merits in GR No. 150176.

Fourth, notwithstanding the affirmation of the ownership rights of petitioner in GR No. 159278, this Court could no longer alter the Judgment of the RTC (Branch 9) of Lanao del Sur. Having become final, the assailed Judgment is already immutable. [7] cralaw The judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. [8] cralaw

In sum, this Court, in denying the Petition in GR No. 159278 for lack of reversible errors, effectively affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision stating that the petitioner is the rightful owner of the subject properties and is entitled to all the attributes of ownership. However, because of the failure of petitioner to properly appeal the Judgment on the case for collection of sum of money, the right of Rosa Maria to execute the said Judgment, which has become final, still stands.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Dated November 29, 2005 .

[2] cralaw Decision of RTC Branch 9 of Lanao del Sur, p. 43; rollo, p. 105.

[3] cralaw Annex E of Petition; rollo, pp. 116-127.

[4] cralaw Decision of RTC Branch 13 of Oroquieta City, pp. 11-12; rollo, pp. 126-127.

[5] cralaw Petition, pp. 40-41; rollo, pp. 52-53.

[6] cralaw Rodillas v. Comelec , 245 SCRA 702, July 10, 1995.

[7] cralaw Cuevas v. Bais Steel Corporation, 439 Phil. 793, October 17, 2002 ; Villanueva v. Yap , 431 SCRA 622, June 10, 2004 .

[8] cralaw Mayon Estate Corporation v. Altura, 440 SCRA 377, October 18, 2004.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com