Posted by: Michelle M. Bacarra | July 25, 2018
FACTS:
Dela Rama sold to the government on expropriation a parcel of land for use in the construction of the EDSA Extension Project. The sale was subject to the reconveyance to petitioner of any unused portion of the property after the project is completed. Subsequently, he executed an Agreement to Sell and Buy with Titan Construction Corporation, stating among others:
1. That in the event the Republic of the Philippines will return to the vendors(Dela Rama) the area sold which is 1,224 sq. ms. or any portion therein, the Vendee (Titan Construction Corporation) is given the exclusive option to buy any area returned at P2,000.00 per square meter.
2. That in consideration of said exclusive option granted to the said Vendee by the Vendors, the Vendee upon registration of this instrument at the back of T.C.T. No. 22066 shall pay P200,000.00 to the Vendors.[5]
After the execution of the Agreement to Sell and Buy, respondent paid petitioner the amount of P200,000.00, for which the latter issued a receipt which contained the inscription: amount is not refundable & not deductible from the agreed price.[6]
Dela Rama sought the reconveyance of the unused portion of the property from the government. On December 4, 1996, the Office of the President executed the corresponding Deed of Reconveyance in his favor over 303 square meters of unused land.
On January 3, 1997, Titan filed with the RTC of a Petition for Declaratory Relief, Prohibition, Mandamus and Preliminary Injunction with Prayer for Restraining Order. It prayed that the Deed of Reconveyance be declared void on the grounds that the same violated its right of preemption under Article 1622 of the Civil Code; and that no public bidding was conducted, resulting in a denial of respondents right to bid considering that petitioners had waived any and all rights over the land by virtue of their Deed of Agreement to Sell and Buy. Titan also prayed that the Office of the President be ordered to give due course to its application to purchase the subject land. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of merit on March 5, 1997. Thus, respondent instituted a petition for certiorari before this Court on March 24, 1997 which, however, was referred to the Court of Appeals.
On June 4, 1997, respondent filed an action for specific performance based on the compromise judgment with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, which was docketed as. Petitioner thus filed with the Court of Appeals, a Motion for Direct Contempt and to Dismiss based on Forum Shopping. He also filed a similar motion with the RTC of Pasay City.
On July 18, 1997, respondent filed a motion to withdraw the petition in which the Court of Appeals, in its Resolution dated December 10, 1997, granted. Thus, the case was dismissed with finality.
The RTC of Pasay City denied the motion to dismiss and for direct contempt based on forum shopping filed by Dela Rama. It held that the alleged violation of Supreme Court Circular was cured when Titan's petition for certiorari was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. Moreover Dela Rama failed to show that the two cases have the same causes of action.Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the specific performance case is barred by the petition for declaratory relief case on the ground of res judicata.
2) Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in denying petitioners Motion to Dismiss Complaint and For Direct Contempt Based on Forum Shopping, as well as the Order denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
HELD:
Yes.
There is res judicata where the following four essential conditions concur, viz: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the two cases, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.
Reviewing the records of the case, there is no question that all the first three elements of res judicata are present. The declaratory relief case, which was elevated by way of a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, has been dismissed with finality. The decision was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and the case was resolved on its merits.
As regards the fourth condition, it is clear that there is identity of parties in the two cases. The declaratory relief case was filed by Titan against Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres, DPWH Secretary Gregorio R. Vigilar, the Register of Deed of Pasay City, petitioner Jose V. Dela Rama and Esperanza Belmonte (deceased). On the other hand, the specific performance case was filed by respondent Titan against petitioner Dela Rama and the heirs of Esperanza Belmonte.Although the public respondents in the declaratory relief case were not impleaded in the specific performance case, only a substantial identity is necessary to warrant the application of res judicata. The addition or elimination of some parties does not alter the situation.
The subject matters and causes of action of the two cases are likewise identical. A subject matter is the item with respect to which the controversy has arisen, or concerning which the wrong has been done, and it is ordinarily the right, the thing, or the contract under dispute. In the case at bar, both the first and second actions involve the same real property.
Causes of action are identical when there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions, or where the same evidence will sustain both actions. If the same facts or evidence can sustain either, the two actions are considered the same, so that the judgment in one is a bar to the other.
A cause of action, broadly defined, is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other. Its elements are the following: (1) the legal right of plaintiff; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.
It is true that the first case was a special civil action for declaratory relief while the second case was a civil action for specific performance.However, the difference in form and nature of the two actions is immaterial. The philosophy behind the rule on res judicata prohibits the parties from litigating the same issue more than once. The issue involved in the declaratory relief case was whether respondent has rights over the property which was reconveyed to petitioner considering that he waived all his rights by executing the Agreement to Sell and Buy.In the specific performance case, the issue involved was the same, that is, whether respondent was entitled to the property reconveyed when the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of their agreement embodied in the same Agreement to Sell and Buy. Respondents alleged right in both cases depends on one and the same instrument, the Agreement to Sell and Buy. Clearly, respondents ultimate objective in instituting the two actions was to have the property reconveyed in its favor.
When material facts or questions in issue in a former action were conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein, such facts or questions constitute res judicata and may not be again litigated in a subsequent action between the same parties or their privies regardless of the form of the latter. This is the essence of res judicata or bar by prior judgment. The parties are bound not only as regards every matter offered and received to sustain or defeat their claims or demand but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose and of all other matters that could have been adjudged in that case.
The principle of res judicata requires that stability be accorded to judgments. Controversies once decided on the merits shall remain in repose for there should be an end to litigation which, without the doctrine, would be endless.Given the circumstances in this case, we find that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied the motion to dismiss filed by petitioners.
FACTS:
Dela Rama sold to the government on expropriation a parcel of land for use in the construction of the EDSA Extension Project. The sale was subject to the reconveyance to petitioner of any unused portion of the property after the project is completed. Subsequently, he executed an Agreement to Sell and Buy with Titan Construction Corporation, stating among others:
1. That in the event the Republic of the Philippines will return to the vendors(Dela Rama) the area sold which is 1,224 sq. ms. or any portion therein, the Vendee (Titan Construction Corporation) is given the exclusive option to buy any area returned at P2,000.00 per square meter.
2. That in consideration of said exclusive option granted to the said Vendee by the Vendors, the Vendee upon registration of this instrument at the back of T.C.T. No. 22066 shall pay P200,000.00 to the Vendors.[5]
After the execution of the Agreement to Sell and Buy, respondent paid petitioner the amount of P200,000.00, for which the latter issued a receipt which contained the inscription: amount is not refundable & not deductible from the agreed price.[6]
Dela Rama sought the reconveyance of the unused portion of the property from the government. On December 4, 1996, the Office of the President executed the corresponding Deed of Reconveyance in his favor over 303 square meters of unused land.
On January 3, 1997, Titan filed with the RTC of a Petition for Declaratory Relief, Prohibition, Mandamus and Preliminary Injunction with Prayer for Restraining Order. It prayed that the Deed of Reconveyance be declared void on the grounds that the same violated its right of preemption under Article 1622 of the Civil Code; and that no public bidding was conducted, resulting in a denial of respondents right to bid considering that petitioners had waived any and all rights over the land by virtue of their Deed of Agreement to Sell and Buy. Titan also prayed that the Office of the President be ordered to give due course to its application to purchase the subject land. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of merit on March 5, 1997. Thus, respondent instituted a petition for certiorari before this Court on March 24, 1997 which, however, was referred to the Court of Appeals.
On June 4, 1997, respondent filed an action for specific performance based on the compromise judgment with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, which was docketed as. Petitioner thus filed with the Court of Appeals, a Motion for Direct Contempt and to Dismiss based on Forum Shopping. He also filed a similar motion with the RTC of Pasay City.
On July 18, 1997, respondent filed a motion to withdraw the petition in which the Court of Appeals, in its Resolution dated December 10, 1997, granted. Thus, the case was dismissed with finality.
The RTC of Pasay City denied the motion to dismiss and for direct contempt based on forum shopping filed by Dela Rama. It held that the alleged violation of Supreme Court Circular was cured when Titan's petition for certiorari was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. Moreover Dela Rama failed to show that the two cases have the same causes of action.Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the specific performance case is barred by the petition for declaratory relief case on the ground of res judicata.
2) Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in denying petitioners Motion to Dismiss Complaint and For Direct Contempt Based on Forum Shopping, as well as the Order denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
HELD:
Yes.
There is res judicata where the following four essential conditions concur, viz: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the two cases, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.
Reviewing the records of the case, there is no question that all the first three elements of res judicata are present. The declaratory relief case, which was elevated by way of a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, has been dismissed with finality. The decision was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and the case was resolved on its merits.
As regards the fourth condition, it is clear that there is identity of parties in the two cases. The declaratory relief case was filed by Titan against Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres, DPWH Secretary Gregorio R. Vigilar, the Register of Deed of Pasay City, petitioner Jose V. Dela Rama and Esperanza Belmonte (deceased). On the other hand, the specific performance case was filed by respondent Titan against petitioner Dela Rama and the heirs of Esperanza Belmonte.Although the public respondents in the declaratory relief case were not impleaded in the specific performance case, only a substantial identity is necessary to warrant the application of res judicata. The addition or elimination of some parties does not alter the situation.
The subject matters and causes of action of the two cases are likewise identical. A subject matter is the item with respect to which the controversy has arisen, or concerning which the wrong has been done, and it is ordinarily the right, the thing, or the contract under dispute. In the case at bar, both the first and second actions involve the same real property.
Causes of action are identical when there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions, or where the same evidence will sustain both actions. If the same facts or evidence can sustain either, the two actions are considered the same, so that the judgment in one is a bar to the other.
A cause of action, broadly defined, is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other. Its elements are the following: (1) the legal right of plaintiff; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.
It is true that the first case was a special civil action for declaratory relief while the second case was a civil action for specific performance.However, the difference in form and nature of the two actions is immaterial. The philosophy behind the rule on res judicata prohibits the parties from litigating the same issue more than once. The issue involved in the declaratory relief case was whether respondent has rights over the property which was reconveyed to petitioner considering that he waived all his rights by executing the Agreement to Sell and Buy.In the specific performance case, the issue involved was the same, that is, whether respondent was entitled to the property reconveyed when the petitioner failed to comply with the terms of their agreement embodied in the same Agreement to Sell and Buy. Respondents alleged right in both cases depends on one and the same instrument, the Agreement to Sell and Buy. Clearly, respondents ultimate objective in instituting the two actions was to have the property reconveyed in its favor.
When material facts or questions in issue in a former action were conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein, such facts or questions constitute res judicata and may not be again litigated in a subsequent action between the same parties or their privies regardless of the form of the latter. This is the essence of res judicata or bar by prior judgment. The parties are bound not only as regards every matter offered and received to sustain or defeat their claims or demand but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose and of all other matters that could have been adjudged in that case.
The principle of res judicata requires that stability be accorded to judgments. Controversies once decided on the merits shall remain in repose for there should be an end to litigation which, without the doctrine, would be endless.Given the circumstances in this case, we find that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied the motion to dismiss filed by petitioners.
