Law Of The Case Is The Opinion Delivered On A Former Appeal
Genalyn, the legitimate daughter George and Lilia, filed a complaint
against spouses Manuel and Victoria. According to her, when George died, he left an unregistered land. Lilia then executed a Supplemental To the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition which adjudicated the property solely in her favour. She represented Genalyn, then still a minor. Lilia then mortgaged the property to the spouses Manuel and Victoria. Because Lilia was unable to pay the loan, the spouses foreclosed the property, registered the certificate of sale, and obtained a tax declaration in their name. Thus, Genalyn filed the complaint, alleging that the partition was unenforceable since she was only a minor at the time of its execution, contrary to the Rules of Court, and the spouses entered into the mortgage knowing that Lilia was unauthorised. Genalyn then filed a Motion to Admit Supplemental Complaint, invoking her right to exercise legal redemption as a co-owner of the disputed property. The RTC denied it, ruling that her cause of action under the Supplemental Complaint was entirely different from the first complaint. Genalyn elevated the denial to the Court of Appeals, which however, affirmed the RTC ruling. This denial of the petition by the CA was elevated to the Supreme Court as G.R. No. 157955. While her petition was pending in the upper courts, the RTC proceeded with the hearing of the case. Genalyn moved to suspend the proceedings, but the same was denied. On August 29, 2001, Genalyn moved to cancel the hearing, but the RTC denied it and issued an order on August 30, 2001 dismissing her complaint for non-suit. She thus filed her appeal before the CA (CA-GR. 74045), questioning the orders dismissing her complaint. In the same vein, she also filed a petition for certiorari to annul the same RTC order subject of the appeal, but the petition was denied, hence it went up to the Supreme Court as G.R. No. 157745, which eventually was consolidated with G.R. No. 157955. The Supreme Court, ruling on the consolidated cases, granted G.R. No. 157955, but denied G.R. No. 157745 for lack of merit. In G.R. 157955, it ruled that Genalyns right to legal redemption flows out of her right as co-owner, thus it ordered the RTC to admit the supplemental complaint.
In G. R. 157745, it ruled that Genalyn engaged in forum shopping when
she filed a petition for certiorari despite the pendency of an appeal (CA-GR. 74045), thus the petition for certiorari should be dismissed. With respect to the appeal filed by Genalyn on the order dismissing her case (CA-G.R. 74045), the CA granted it and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings. Thus, the spouses Manuel and Victoria filed their own petition for review with the Supreme Court, questioning the CA decision granting Genalyns appeal. The Supreme Court: We deny the petition. The present action is barred by the law of the case In denying the petition, we necessarily must reiterate our ruling in Young which constitutes as the controlling doctrine or the law of the case in the present case. Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. It means that whatever is once irrevocably established the controlling legal rule of decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.[1] We point out in this respect that the law of the case does not have the finality of res judicata. Law of the case applies only to the same case, whereas res judicata forecloses parties or privies in one case by what has been done in another case. In law of the case, the rule made by an appellate court cannot be departed from in subsequent proceedings in the same case. Furthermore, law of the case relates entirely to questions of law while res judicata is applicable to the conclusive determination of issues of fact. Although res judicata may include questions of law, it is generally concerned with the effect of adjudication in a wholly independent proceeding.[2] The rationale behind this rule is to enable an appellate court to perform its duties satisfactorily and efficiently, which would be impossible if a question, once considered and decided by it, were to be litigated anew in the same case upon any and every subsequent appeal. Without it, there would be endless litigation. Litigants would be free to speculate on changes in the personnel of a court, or on the chance of our rewriting propositions once gravely ruled on solemn argument and handed down as the law of a given case.[3]
In Young, we directed the RTC to admit Genalyns supplemental
complaint. In so ruling, we also vacated the RTC Orders which dismissed Genalyns complaint for failure to prosecute. Moreover, Genalyns move to suspend the proceedings which led to the dismissal of her complaint stemmed essentially from the RTCs erroneous refusal to admit the supplemental complaint. On the second issue, we unequivocably also settled that Genalyn committed forum shopping when she filed an appeal and a petition for certiorari successively. This ruling we uphold as the ruling that should apply. Petition denied. SECOND DIVISION, G.R. No. 169214, June 19, 2013, SPOUSES MANUEL SY AND VICTORIA SY, PETITIONERS, VS. GENALYN D. YOUNG, RESPONDENT.