PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 – 2014) G.R. No. 149313
ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO January 22, 2008
PANGANIBANv.OAMIL
Plainti Plaintiffs: ffs: (Childr (Children en of Parten Partenio io Rombaua Rombaua and his deceased deceased first first wife wife Juliana) JulitaRombauaPanganiban PaquitoRombaua RupertoRombaua TeresitaRombauaTelaje LeonorRombauaOpiana • • • • •
Defendant: JulitaOamil(buyerofPartenioRombaua’sproperty) •
CASE:JulitaOamilisthebuyerofPart CASE:JulitaOamilisthebuyerofPartenioRomba enioRombaua’sconju ua’sconjugalsharein galsharein apropertyandfiledforspecificperformance(CivilCaseNo.140-0-93)to effectthetransferofthedeed.ThetrialcourtruledinfavorofOamil withou without t indicat indicating ing which which portio portion n of the proper property ty is awarde awarded d to her specificallybutonlythatsheisentitledtotheportionwhichconstitutes Parten Partenio’ io’s s conjug conjugal al share. share. Hereinpetiti Hereinpetitione oners rs then then filed filed a petitio petition n for reliefclaimingthatthesubjectofCivilCaseNo.140-0-93isstillunder litigationforpartit litigationforpartition(Speci ion(SpecialCivilActionNo.340 alCivilActionNo.340-0-86) -0-86).Thetrialcourt .Thetrialcourt – with Oamil’s consent – then deferred the decision of the reconsiderati reconsiderationforCivilCaseNo.140-0 onforCivilCaseNo.140-0-93untilSpe -93untilSpecialCivilAction cialCivilActionNo. No. 340-0-86isfinal.ThelatterwasresolveddeclaringthatPartenio’sshare istheCandaSt.portion.However,thetrialcourtstillruledthatthesold st portiontoOamilisthe21 St.portion,andthiswasaffirmedbytheCA. TheSupremeCourtruledthatthetrialcourtofCivilCaseNo.140-0-93 shouldnothavemodifiedtherulingofSpecialCivilActionNo.340-0-86, andsaid thatthe property property subject of theAgreementof Salebetween OamilandPartenioistheCandaSt.portion.TheCourtalsoruledthat Oamilcannolongerquestionthisjudgmentbecause(1)beingabuyer, she has nogreater nogreater right right over the proper propertythan tythan Parten Partenio io had as the
Article 497 whic sell seller er, , and and (2) (2) she she did did no avai avail l of Article which h gave gave her her the the opport opportuni unity ty to interve intervene ne in the special special civil civil action action for the partiti partition. on. Therefore,sheisboundbythejudgmentandcannolongerquestionit. BACKGROUND: Two Two port portion ions s of a comme commerc rcial ial prop proper erty ty in East East Baja Bajac-B c-Baj ajac ac, , OlongapoCityisincontention: st st 204.5squaremetersfacing21 St.(21 portion) o o 204.5squaremetersfacingCandaSt.(Candaportion) OneportionbelongstoPartenioRombauaaspartofhis o conjugalshare,and1/6eachoftheremaininghalfiscoownedbyPartenioandpetitionersasheirsofJuliana. April April 26, 1993 1993 à Julit Julita a Oamil Oamil filed filed a compl complai aint nt for for specif specific ic performancewithdamagesagainstPartenioaskingthathebe st ordere ordered d toexecute toexecute a finaldeedof finaldeedof sale over over the 21 portion, portion, whic which h is alle allege gedl dly y cove coverred by thei their r “Agr “Agree eeme ment nt to Sell Sell” ” executedonMay17,1990. o Parteniofailedtoanswerandwasdeclaredindefault. December26,1993àWithoutindicatingwhichportionofthe propertyshouldbedeededtorespondentasbuyerofPartenio’s conjugalshare,thetrialcourtforCivilCaseNo.140-0-93ruled 1 infavorofOamil. February21,1994àParteniowasservedawriteofexecution issue issued d on Febr Februa uary ry 15 after after the the decis decisio ion n becam became e final final and and executoronFebruary4.
Dec.26,1993decisionoftheTrialCourtonCivilCaseNo.140-0-93: WHEREFORE,viewedfromalltheforegoing,judgmentisherebyrenderedasfollows: (1)Thedefendantisherebyorderedtoexecuteadeedofabsolutesaleoverthe1⁄2portion (front)oftherealtysubjectmatterofthiscaseinfavoroftheplaintiffandtosurrenderthe possessionthere possessionthereoftotheplaintif oftotheplaintiff.Failure f.Failureofthedefendanttodoso,thentheCity ofthedefendanttodoso,thentheCityAssesso Assessorof rof Olongapoisherebydirectedtoeffectthetransferofallrights/i Olongapoisherebydirectedtoeffectthetransferofallrights/interestontheone-half(1/2) nterestontheone-half(1/2) frontportionofthesaidrealtyinthenameoftheplaintiff,uponthefinalityofthisdecision;; (2) Plaint Plaintiff iff, , howeve however, r, is ordere ordered d to pay the amount amount of EIGHT EIGHT THOUSA THOUSAND ND PESOS PESOS (P8,000.00) (P8,000.00) representingthe representingthe balanceof theinterests theinterests dueon theamount theamount ofP200,000.0 ofP200,000.00, 0, delinquentforone(1)yearcomputedat12%perannum;; (3)Defendantis,likewi (3)Defendantis,likewise,hereby se,herebyorderedtopaytheplain orderedtopaytheplaintiff tiffattorney’sfeesintheamount attorney’sfeesintheamount ofTENTHOUSANDPESOS(P10,000.00). LetacopyofthisDecisionbefurnishedtheCityAssessorofOlongapoCity. 1
RACHELLEANNEGUTIERREZ
PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 – 2014) The writ was also served to the City Assessor of Olongapo City who transferred the Tax Declaration coveringthe21stSt.portioninOamil’sname. June1994 àHereinpetitionersfiledforrelieffromthedecision onthegroundthat: o Partenio’s conjugal sharein the property, and that of petitioners as well, are being litigated in a judicial partition proceeding (the partition case) which is pendingwiththeCourtofAppeals,hencethetrialcourt may not yetrender a decision disposing of a definite areaofthesubjectpropertyinrespondent’sfavor. Petitionerswereunjustlydeprivedoftheopportunityto o protect and defend their interest in court because, notwithstanding thatthey areindispensable parties to thecase(beingco-ownersofthesubjectproperty),they werenotimpleadedinCivilCaseNo.140-0-93. January13,1995àPetitionforreliefisdeniedbutpetitioners filedfor reconsideration. Instead of resolving the motion, the trial court, with the concurrence of the petitioners and the respondent,deferredtheproceedings,toawaittheresultofa pending appeal with the Court of Appeals of the decision in SpecialCivilActionNo.340-0-86,thepartitioncase,wherethe trialcourt(whohandledthispartitioncase)awardedtheCanda St.portiontoPartenioashisconjugalshare. o Ruling:theCAaffirmedthetrialcourt,andawardedthe CandaSt.portionasPartenio’sconjugalshare. (Sobrangepallangngpersonna‘tobutjustincase) Sometime in1995 àSoteroGanfiledaComplaintinInterventionclaiming (1) to have purchased Partenio’s conjugal share who in turn executed a deed of waiver and quitclaim to his possessory rights,and(2)thatthetaxdeclarationhadbeentransferredin hisname.HeseekstodismissCivilCaseNo.140-0-93andasked forthereinstatementofhis nameonthetaxdeclarationwhich bythenhadbeenplacedinOamil’sname.Petitioneropposed Gan’sclaimsayingthatinterventionwasnolongerproper. o
ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO
October23,1997 àThetrialcourthandlingCivilCaseNo.1400-93denied Gan’smotion for reconsideration, aswellas that for the petitioner’s motion for relief. The trial court ALSO MODIFIED it’s December 26, 1993 decision by awarding specificallythe21stSt.portionofthepropertytoPartenioashis conjugal share, despite the pronouncement in Special Civil ActionNo.340-0-86whichawardstheCandaSt.portiontohim. March22,2001 àTheCAaffirmedtheOctober23,1997ruling on ground that petitioners have always acknowledged st Partenio’s “acts of ownership” over the 21 St portion, thus signifyingtheirconsentandbarringthemfromquestioning.
ISSUESTOBERESOLVED: 1. WhetherornotpetitionerscaninterveneinCivilCaseNo.1400-93 (complaint for specific performance of Oamil against PartenioRombaua)inordertoprotecttheirrightsasco-owners ofthesubjectproperty. RESOLUTIONSANDARGUMENTS ISSUE1 WhetherornotpetitionerscaninterveneinCivilCaseNo. 140-0-93(complaintforspecificperformanceofOamilagainstPartenio Rombaua)in orderto protect theirrightsas co-owners ofthe subject property.àYES.Byvirtueofthedecisiononthepartitioncase,theland whichParteniosoldtoOamilisonewhichheco-ownswithhischildren. Thus,petitionersareinterestedpartiesinCivilCaseNo.140-0-93.
Major Point 1: Ina contract ofsale of co-owned property, what the vendee obtains by virtue of such a sale are the same rights as the vendorhadasco-owner,andthevedeemerelystepsintotheshoesof thevendorasco-owner. Thedecisionin Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86, which is an actionforjudicialpartitionofthesubjectproperty,determines whatPartenio,andultimately,respondent,ashissuccessor-ininterest,isentitledtoinCivilCaseNo.140-0-93. •
RACHELLEANNEGUTIERREZ
PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 – 2014) •
ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO
Oamil, as Partenio’s successor-in-interest, cannot acquire any superiorrightinthepropertythanwhatPartenioisentitledto receive.
MajorPoint2:RespondentOamildidnotavailoftherighttointervene 2 grantedtoherby Article497 andthereforemaynolongerquestionthe decisionofpartitioning. As early as May 17, 1990, when respondent and Partenio executed the "Agreement to Sell", the former knew that the property she was purchasing was conjugal property ownedin commonbyPartenioandtheheirsofhisdeceasedwife. While Civil Case No. 140-0-93 was pending, respondent was informedof thependencyof Special CivilAction No.340-0-86 yet she did not take any steps to intervene in said partition proceedings. Instead she unconditionally agreed to the trial court’sdecisiontosuspendproceedingsuntilthepartitioncase hasbeenresolved. WhenthedecisioninSpecialCivilActionNo.340-0-86became finalandexecutorywithouttherespondenthavingquestioned the same inany manner whatsoever,by appealorotherwise, the division of property decreed therein may no longer be impugnedbyher.
•
•
•
•
•
MajorPoint3:ThetrialcourtinCivilCaseNo.140-0-93cannotaward st the 21 portion to Partenio (and consider it as the property sold to Oamil) since Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86 awarded the Canda portion tohim, and the latter shouldbe conclusive of whichspecific portion of the property became the subject matter of sale between Partenioandtherespondent–theCandaSt.portion. TrialCourtstryinganordinaryaction(likeCivilCaseNo.140-093)cannotperformactspertainingtoaspecialproceeding(like •
Article 497,C ivil Code:Thecreditorsorassigneesoftheco-ownersmaytakepartinthe division of the thing owned in common and object to its being effected without their concurrence.Buttheycannot impugn anypartition alreadyexecuted,unlesstherehas been fraud, orin caseit wasmade notwithstandinga formal oppositionpresentedto preventit, withoutprejudicetotherightofthedebtororassignortomaintainitsvalidity. 2
SpecialCivilActionNo.340-0-86)becauseitissubjecttospecific prescribedrules. Thus,theCAwasinerrortohaveconsideredtheallegedactsof ownership exerciseduponthe 21st St. portion byPartenioas weighing heavily againstthe decreedpartition inSpecial Civil ActionNo.340-0-86.Thedeterminationofthisissueisbeyond theambitofthetrialcourtinCivilCaseNo.140-0-93. Thetrialcourt and the Courtof Appeals, by disregarding the finalandexecutoryjudgmentinSpecialCivilActionNo.340-086, certainly ignored the principle of conclusiveness of judgments,which prohibitsthe tryingof identical issues afterit 3 hasbeenresolvedbyfinaljudgmentofacompetentcourt.
FINALVERDICT: Asa resultofthetrialcourt’srefusaltoabide bythe decisioninSpecialCivilActionNo.340-0-86,therightsofthepetitioners havebeenunnecessarilytransgressed,therebygivingthemtherightto seekreliefincourtinordertoannultheOctober23,1997Orderofthe trialcourtwhichsubstantiallyandwronglymodifieditsoriginaldecision inCivilCaseNo.140-0-93.
With respect to Gan’s intervention, the same is no longer proper becausethedecisioninCivilCaseNo.140-0-93isfinalandexecutory. Intervention,beingmerelycollateralorancillarytotheprincipalaction,
PRINCIPLEOFCONCLUSIVENESSOFJUDGMENTS: [A]factorquestionwhichwasinissueina formersuitandwastherejudiciallypassedupon anddeterminedbya courtofcompetentjurisdiction,isconclusivelysettledbythejudgment thereinasfarasthepartiestothatactionandpersonsinprivitywiththemareconcernedand cannotbeagainlitigatedinanyfutureactionbetweensuchpartiesortheirprivies,inthesame courtorany othercourtof concurrentjurisdictionon eitherthesameor differentcauseof action,whilethejudgmentremainsunreversedbyproperauthority.Ithasbeenheldthatin orderthat ajudgmentin oneactioncan beconclusiveas toa particularmatterin another actionbetweenthesamepartiesortheirprivies,itisessentialthattheissuebeidentical.Ifa particularpointorquestionisinissueinthesecondaction,andthejudgmentwilldependon thedeterminationofthatparticularpointor question,aformerjudgmentbetweenthe same partiesortheirprivieswillbefinalandconclusiveinthesecondifthatsamepointorquestion was inissue andadjudicatedin thefirst suit (Nabusvs.Courtof Appeals, 193SCRA732 [1991]).Identityofcauseofactionisnotrequiredbutmerelyidentityofissues. 3
RACHELLEANNEGUTIERREZ
PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 – 2014)
ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO
may no longer be allowed in a case already terminated by final judgment. NOSEPARATEOPINIONS
RACHELLEANNEGUTIERREZ
