Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
G.R. No. 149313 January 22, 2008 PANGANIBAN v. OAMIL Plaintiffs: (Children of Partenio Rombaua and his deceased first wife Juliana) Julita Rombaua Panganiban Paquito Rombaua Ruperto Rombaua Teresita Rombaua Telaje Leonor Rombaua Opiana Defendant: Julita Oamil (buyer of Partenio Rombauas property) CASE: Julita Oamil is the buyer of Partenio Rombauas conjugal share in a property and filed for specific performance (Civil Case No. 140-0-93) to effect the transfer of the deed. The trial court ruled in favor of Oamil without indicating which portion of the property is awarded to her specifically but only that she is entitled to the portion which constitutes Partenios conjugal share. Herein petitioners then filed a petition for relief claiming that the subject of Civil Case No. 140-0-93 is still under litigation for partition (Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86). The trial court with Oamils consent then deferred the decision of the reconsideration for Civil Case No. 140-0-93 until Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86 is final. The latter was resolved declaring that Partenios share is the Canda St. portion. However, the trial court still ruled that the sold portion to Oamil is the 21st St. portion, and this was affirmed by the CA. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court of Civil Case No. 140-0-93 should not have modified the ruling of Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86, and said that the property subject of the Agreement of Sale between Oamil and Partenio is the Canda St. portion. The Court also ruled that Oamil can no longer question this judgment because (1) being a buyer, she has no greater right over the property than Partenio had as the
seller, and (2) she did no avail of Article 497 which gave her the opportunity to intervene in the special civil action for the partition. Therefore, she is bound by the judgment and can no longer question it. BACKGROUND: Two portions of a commercial property in East Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City is in contention: o 204.5 square meters facing 21st St. (21st portion) o 204.5 square meters facing Canda St. (Canda portion) o One portion belongs to Partenio Rombaua as part of his conjugal share, and 1/6 each of the remaining half is co- owned by Partenio and petitioners as heirs of Juliana. April 26, 1993 Julita Oamil filed a complaint for specific performance with damages against Partenio asking that he be ordered to execute a final deed of sale over the 21st portion, which is allegedly covered by their Agreement to Sell executed on May 17, 1990. o Partenio failed to answer and was declared in default. December 26, 1993 Without indicating which portion of the property should be deeded to respondent as buyer of Partenios conjugal share, the trial court for Civil Case No. 140-0-93 ruled in favor of Oamil.1 February 21, 1994 Partenio was served a write of execution issued on February 15 after the decision became final and executor on February 4.
Dec.
26,
1993
decision
of
the
Trial
Court
on
Civil
Case
No.
140-0-93:
WHEREFORE,
viewed
from
all
the
foregoing,
judgment
is
hereby
rendered
as
follows:
(1)
The
defendant
is
hereby
ordered
to
execute
a
deed
of
absolute
sale
over
the
12
portion
(front)
of
the
realty
subject
matter
of
this
case
in
favor
of
the
plaintiff
and
to
surrender
the
possession
thereof
to
the
plaintiff.
Failure
of
the
defendant
to
do
so,
then
the
City
Assessor
of
Olongapo
is
hereby
directed
to
effect
the
transfer
of
all
rights/interest
on
the
one-half
(1/2)
front
portion
of
the
said
realty
in
the
name
of
the
plaintiff,
upon
the
finality
of
this
decision;;
(2)
Plaintiff,
however,
is
ordered
to
pay
the
amount
of
EIGHT
THOUSAND
PESOS
(P8,000.00)
representing
the
balance
of
the
interests
due
on
the
amount
of
P200,000.00,
delinquent
for
one
(1)
year
computed
at
12%
per
annum;;
(3)
Defendant
is,
likewise,
hereby
ordered
to
pay
the
plaintiff
attorneys
fees
in
the
amount
of
TEN
THOUSAND
PESOS
(P10,000.00).
Let
a
copy
of
this
Decision
be
furnished
the
City
Assessor
of
Olongapo
City.
1
The writ was also served to the City Assessor of Olongapo City who transferred the Tax Declaration covering the 21st St. portion in Oamils name. June 1994 Herein petitioners filed for relief from the decision on the ground that: o Partenios conjugal share in the property, and that of petitioners as well, are being litigated in a judicial partition proceeding (the partition case) which is pending with the Court of Appeals, hence the trial court may not yet render a decision disposing of a definite area of the subject property in respondents favor. o Petitioners were unjustly deprived of the opportunity to protect and defend their interest in court because, notwithstanding that they are indispensable parties to the case (being co-owners of the subject property), they were not impleaded in Civil Case No. 140-0-93. January 13, 1995 Petition for relief is denied but petitioners filed for reconsideration. Instead of resolving the motion, the trial court, with the concurrence of the petitioners and the respondent, deferred the proceedings, to await the result of a pending appeal with the Court of Appeals of the decision in Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86, the partition case, where the trial court (who handled this partition case) awarded the Canda St. portion to Partenio as his conjugal share. o Ruling: the CA affirmed the trial court, and awarded the Canda St. portion as Partenios conjugal share. (Sobrang epal lang ng person na to but just in case) Sometime in 1995 Sotero Gan filed a Complaint in Intervention claiming (1) to have purchased Partenios conjugal share who in turn executed a deed of waiver and quitclaim to his possessory rights, and (2) that the tax declaration had been transferred in his name. He seeks to dismiss Civil Case No. 140-0-93 and asked for the reinstatement of his name on the tax declaration which by then had been placed in Oamils name. Petitioner opposed Gans claim saying that intervention was no longer proper.
October 23, 1997 The trial court handling Civil Case No. 140- 0-93 denied Gans motion for reconsideration, as well as that for the petitioners motion for relief. The trial court ALSO MODIFIED its December 26, 1993 decision by awarding specifically the 21st St. portion of the property to Partenio as his conjugal share, despite the pronouncement in Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86 which awards the Canda St. portion to him. March 22, 2001 The CA affirmed the October 23, 1997 ruling on ground that petitioners have always acknowledged Partenios acts of ownership over the 21st St portion, thus signifying their consent and barring them from questioning.
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED: 1. Whether or not petitioners can intervene in Civil Case No. 140- 0-93 (complaint for specific performance of Oamil against Partenio Rombaua) in order to protect their rights as co-owners of the subject property. RESOLUTIONS AND ARGUMENTS ISSUE 1 Whether or not petitioners can intervene in Civil Case No. 140-0-93 (complaint for specific performance of Oamil against Partenio Rombaua) in order to protect their rights as co-owners of the subject property. YES. By virtue of the decision on the partition case, the land which Partenio sold to Oamil is one which he co-owns with his children. Thus, petitioners are interested parties in Civil Case No. 140-0-93. Major Point 1: In a contract of sale of co-owned property, what the vendee obtains by virtue of such a sale are the same rights as the vendor had as co-owner, and the vedee merely steps into the shoes of the vendor as co-owner. The decision in Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86, which is an action for judicial partition of the subject property, determines what Partenio, and ultimately, respondent, as his successor-in- interest, is entitled to in Civil Case No. 140-0-93.
Oamil, as Partenios successor-in-interest, cannot acquire any superior right in the property than what Partenio is entitled to receive.
Major Point 2: Respondent Oamil did not avail of the right to intervene granted to her by Article 4972 and therefore may no longer question the decision of partitioning. 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 owned in common by Partenio and the heirs of his deceased wife. While Civil Case No. 140-0-93 was pending, respondent was informed of the pendency of Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86 yet she did not take any steps to intervene in said partition proceedings. Instead she unconditionally agreed to the trial courts decision to suspend proceedings until the partition case has been resolved. When the decision in Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86 became final and executory without the respondent having questioned the same in any manner whatsoever, by appeal or otherwise, the division of property decreed therein may no longer be impugned by her. Major Point 3: The trial court in Civil Case No. 140-0-93 cannot award the 21st portion to Partenio (and consider it as the property sold to Oamil) since Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86 awarded the Canda portion to him, and the latter should be conclusive of which specific portion of the property became the subject matter of sale between Partenio and the respondent the Canda St. portion. Trial Courts trying an ordinary action (like Civil Case No. 140-0- 93) cannot perform acts pertaining to a special proceeding (like
Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86) because it is subject to specific prescribed rules. Thus, the CA was in error to have considered the alleged acts of ownership exercised upon the 21st St. portion by Partenio as weighing heavily against the decreed partition in Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86. The determination of this issue is beyond the ambit of the trial court in Civil Case No. 140-0-93. The trial court and the Court of Appeals, by disregarding the final and executory judgment in Special Civil Action No. 340-0- 86, certainly ignored the principle of conclusiveness of judgments, which prohibits the trying of identical issues after it has been resolved by final judgment of a competent court.3
FINAL VERDICT: As a result of the trial courts refusal to abide by the decision in Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86, the rights of the petitioners have been unnecessarily transgressed, thereby giving them the right to seek relief in court in order to annul the October 23, 1997 Order of the trial court which substantially and wrongly modified its original decision in Civil Case No. 140-0-93. With respect to Gans intervention, the same is no longer proper because the decision in Civil Case No. 140-0-93 is final and executory. Intervention, being merely collateral or ancillary to the principal action,
PRINCIPLE
OF
CONCLUSIVENESS
OF
JUDGMENTS:
[A]
fact
or
question
which
was
in
issue
in
a
former
suit
and
was
there
judicially
passed
upon
and
determined
by
a
court
of
competent
jurisdiction,
is
conclusively
settled
by
the
judgment
therein
as
far
as
the
parties
to
that
action
and
persons
in
privity
with
them
are
concerned
and
cannot
be
again
litigated
in
any
future
action
between
such
parties
or
their
privies,
in
the
same
court
or
any
other
court
of
concurrent
jurisdiction
on
either
the
same
or
different
cause
of
action,
while
the
judgment
remains
unreversed
by
proper
authority.
It
has
been
held
that
in
order
that
a
judgment
in
one
action
can
be
conclusive
as
to
a
particular
matter
in
another
action
between
the
same
parties
or
their
privies,
it
is
essential
that
the
issue
be
identical.
If
a
particular
point
or
question
is
in
issue
in
the
second
action,
and
the
judgment
will
depend
on
the
determination
of
that
particular
point
or
question,
a
former
judgment
between
the
same
parties
or
their
privies
will
be
final
and
conclusive
in
the
second
if
that
same
point
or
question
was
in
issue
and
adjudicated
in
the
first
suit
(Nabus
vs.
Court
of
Appeals,
193
SCRA
732
[1991]).
Identity
of
cause
of
action
is
not
required
but
merely
identity
of
issues.
3
Article 497, Civil Code: The creditors or assignees of the co-owners may take part in the division of the thing owned in common and object to its being effected without their concurrence. But they cannot impugn any partition already executed, unless there has been fraud, or in case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it, without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its validity.
may no longer be allowed in a case already terminated by final judgment. NO SEPARATE OPINIONS