Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > February 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. 75377 February 17, 1988 - CHUA KENG GIAP v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 75377. February 17, 1988.]

CHUA KENG GIAP, Petitioner, v. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and CHUA LIAN KING, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL ACTIONS; RES JUDICATA; APPLIED IN CASE AT BAR. — The issue of his claimed filiation has long been settled, and with finality, by no less than this Court. That issue cannot be resurrected now because it has been laid to rest in Sy Kao v. Court of Appeals, 8 decided on September 28, 1984. In that case, Sy Kao flatly and unequivocally declared that she was not the petitioner’s mother. The Court observed through Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr.: "Petitioner Sy Kao denies that respondent Chua Keng Giap is her son by the deceased Chua Bing Guan. Thus, petitioner’s opposition filed on December 19, 1968, is based principally on the ground that the respondent was not the son of Sy Kao and the deceased but of a certain Chua Eng Kun and his wife Tan Kuy . . . "To allow the parties to go on with the trial on the merits would not only subject the petitioners to the expense to the expense and ordeal of litigation which might take them another ten years, only to prove a point already decided in Special Proceeding No. Q-12592, but more importantly, such would violate the doctrine of res judicata which is expressly provided for in Section 49, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court."


D E C I S I O N


CRUZ, J.:


We are faced once again with still another bid by petitioner for the status of a legitimate heir. He has failed before, and he will fail again.

In this case, the petitioner insists that he is the son of the deceased Sy Kao and that it was error for the respondent court to reject his claim. He also says his motion for reconsideration should not have been denied for tardiness because it was in fact filed on time under the Habaluyas ruling. 1

This case arose when Chua Keng Giap filed on May 19, 1983, a petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Sy Kao in the regional trial court of Quezon City. The private respondent moved to dismiss for lack of a cause of action and of the petitioner’s capacity to file the petition. The latter, it was claimed, had been declared as not the son of the spouses Chua Bing Guan and Sy Kao in S.P. No. Q-12592, for the settlement of the estate of the late Chua Bing Guan. The decision in that case had long become final and executory. 2

The motion was denied by Judge Jose P. Castro, who held that the case invoked decided the paternity and not the maternity of the petitioner. 3 Holding that this was mere quibbling, the respondent court reversed the trial judge in a petition for certiorari filed by the private Respondent. 4 The motion for reconsideration was denied for late filing. 5 The petitioner then came to this Court to challenge these rulings.

The petitioner argues at length that the question to be settled in a motion to dismiss based on lack of a cause of action is the sufficiency of the allegation itself and not whether these allegations are true or not, for their truth is hypothetically admitted. 6 That is correct. He also submits that an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and therefore reversible not in a petition for certiorari but on appeal. 7 That is also correct. Even so, the petition must be and is hereby denied.

The petitioner is beating a dead horse. The issue of his claimed filiation has long been settled, and with finality, by no less than this Court. That issue cannot be resurrected now because it has been laid to rest in Sy Kao v. Court of Appeals, 8 decided on September 28, 1984. In that case, Sy Kao flatly and unequivocally declared that she was not the petitioner’s mother.

The Court observed through Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr.:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Petitioner Sy Kao denies that respondent Chua Keng Giap is her son by the deceased Chua Bing Guan. Thus, petitioner’s opposition filed on December 19, 1968, is based principally on the ground that the respondent was not the son of Sy Kao and the deceased but of a certain Chua Eng Kun and his wife Tan Kuy.

"After hearing on the merits which lasted for ten years, the court dismissed the respondent’s petition or March 2, 1979 on a finding that be it not a son of petitioner Sy Kao and the deceased, and therefore, had no lawful interest in the estate of the latter and no right to institute the intestacy proceedings.

"The respondent tried to appeal the court’s resolution but his appeal was denied by the lower court for having been filed out of time. He then filed a mandamus case with the Court of Appeals but the same was dismissed. Respondent, therefore, sought relief by filing a petition for certiorari, G.R. No. 54992, before this Court but his petition was likewise dismissed on January 30, 1982, for lack of merit. His subsequent motions for reconsideration met a similar fate.

x       x       x


"To allow the parties to go on with the trial on the merits would not only subject the petitioners to the expense and ordeal of litigation which might take them another ten years, only to prove a point already decided in Special Proceeding No. Q-12592, but more importantly, such would violate the doctrine of res judicata which is expressly provided for in Section 49, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

There is no point in prolonging these proceedings with an examination of the procedural objections to the grant of the motion to dismiss. In the end, assuming denial of the motion, the resolution of the merits would have to be the same anyway as in the aforesaid case. The petitioner’s claim of filiation would still have to be rejected.

Discussion of the seasonableness of the motion for reconsideration is also unnecessary as the motion would have been validly denied just the same even if filed on time.

Who better than Sy Kao herself would know of Chua Keng Giap was really her son? More than any one else, it was Sy Kao who could say — as indeed she has said these many years — that Chua Keng Giap was not begotten of her womb.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.

Teehankee (C.J.), Narvasa, Gancayco and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Petition.

2. Rollo, pp. 184, 108, 54.

3. Ibid., p. 50.

4. Id., pp. 52-60, Decision penned by Kapunan, J., and concurred in by Sison, Lazaro and Cruz., JJ.,

5. Id., p. 62.

6. Id., pp. 127-130, 156-161.

7. Id., pp. 36-38.

8. 132 SCRA 302.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





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






February-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-46585 February 8,1988

    ANGELA V. GINSON v. MUNICIPALITY OF MURCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28896 February 17, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALGUE, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75377 February 17, 1988 - CHUA KENG GIAP v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77716 February 17, 1988 - HEIRS OF THE LATE DOCTOR CORAZON DIAZ-LEUS v. HERNANI MELVIDA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3135 February 17, 1988 - MIGUEL CUENCO v. MARCELO B. FERNAN

  • G.R. No. L-37736 February 23, 1988 - ANTONIO L. EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 39084 February 23, 1988 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. EMILIO V. SALAS

  • G.R. No. L-59621 February 23, 1988 - MAXIMILIANO ALVAREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60578 February 23, 1988 - PATERNO D. ESCUDERO, ET AL. v. CEFERINO E. DULAY

  • G.R. No. L-65114 February 23, 1988 - RENE KNECHT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69844 February 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO M. POLICARPIO

  • G.R. No. 72870 February 23, 1988 - TEODORO R. PULIDO v. MANUEL M. LAZARO

  • G.R. No. 74517 February 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY DY

  • A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON

  • G.R. No. L-59514 February 25, 1988 - PACIANO REMALANTE v. CORNELIA TIBE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30360 February 26, 1988 - NICOLAS SALAMANCA, ET AL. v. FAUSTINO RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30852 February 26, 1988 - CITY OF ILIGAN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32055 February 26, 1988 - REYNALDO BERMUDEZ, SR., ET AL. v. A. MELENCIO-HERRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32600 February 26, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO BELMONTE

  • G.R. No. L-34978 February 26, 1988 - ANGELES C. VDA. DE LAT, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35647 February 26, 1988 - INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL FACTORS, INC. v. AURORA S. MARASIGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38892 February 26, 1988 - BENITO LEGARDA, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO SAVELLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43766 February 26, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44301 February 26, 1988 - MERARDO A. VELASQUEZ v. ROMEO D. MAGAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49808 February 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54223 February 26, 1988 - BABY BUS INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55062 February 26, 1988 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75067 February 26, 1988 - PUMA SPORTSCHUHFABRIKEN RUDOLF DASSLER, K.G. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76597 February 26, 1988 - TOMAS LAO v. LETICIA TO-CHIP, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 76648 February 26, 1988 - HEIRS OF THE LATE MATILDE MONTINOLA-SANSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76954-55 February 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIANO RENEJANE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31426 February 29, 1988 - LUZ CARO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34344 February 29, 1988 - RICARDO AGUIRRE, ET AL. v. JOSE DUMLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35512 February 29, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO

  • G.R. No. L-36021 February 29, 1988 - PASTOR DE CASTRO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36527 February 29, 1988 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39013 February 29, 1988 - FRANCISCO BUNAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41979 February 29, 1988 - MATILDE SANCHEZ LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-42624 February 29, 1988 - ANA C. BARCENAS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44822 February 29, 1988 - ESPIRITA B. BUENDIA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46953 February 29, 1988 - JOSE N. MAYUGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48112 February 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO B. MONTON

  • G.R. No. L-48546 February 29, 1988 - SUMMIT GUARANTY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. GREGORIA C. ARNALDO

  • G.R. No. L-48969 February 29, 1988 - BELEN L. VDA. DE GUIA, ET AL. v. ROSARIO R. VELOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51983 February 29, 1988 - ADORACION VALERA BRINGAS v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55397 February 29, 1988 - TAI TONG CHUACHE & CO. v. INSURANCE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59266 February 29, 1988 - SILVESTRE DIGNOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60007 February 29, 1988 - NOE C. BAJA v. ANTONIA CORPUZ MACANDOG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60443 February 29, 1988 - CONSTANTINO ALVAREZ, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68636 February 29, 1988 - NORTHERN CEMENT CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71177 February 29, 1988 - ERECTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73116 February 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO AVANZADO, SR.

  • G.R. No. 73867 February 29, 1988 - TELEFAST COMMUNICATIONS/PHILIPPINE WIRELESS, INC. v. IGNACIO CASTRO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76464 February 29, 1988 - TESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANA MALOTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76690 February 29, 1988 - CLAUDIA RIVERA SANCHEZ v. MARIANO C. TUPAS

  • G.R. No. 78299 February 29, 1988 - G & G TRADING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS