8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

1/85

Sps. Antonio vs. Monje

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

2/85

Ownership

Parcel of coconut land covered by OCT in Davao 15.903 sq. m.

Original owners: Sps. Catalino Manguiob and Andrea Pansaon

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

3/85

Manguiob died. Pansaon survived her husband.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

4/85

Sale (1962)

Pansaon and other heirs sold land to: Macedonio Monje Only : 7.5k sq. m out of 15.9k sq. m Deed of Sale Notarized by notary public

Ricardo Reyes

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

5/85

Possession by buyer

Monje immediately took possession Constructed house: P30,000

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

6/85

2nd Sale (Jan. 1967)

Pansaon died Heirs of Sps. Manguiob and Pansaon:

Sold property ALREADY SOLD to Monje Buyer:

Nicanor Manguiob Carolina Manguiob

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

7/85

Execution of Deed

Subsequent buyers Sps. Manguiob executedabsolute deed of sale in favor of: Nicanor Manguiobs sister-in-law Avelyn Antonio Entire lot consisting of 15.9k sq. m. Notarized:

Juanito Hernandez

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

8/85

Knowledge by Monje (Aug. 1967)

received a letter from Avelyn B. Antonio: informing him that she is now the registered

owner of the subject property under a new Transfer Certificate of Title

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

9/85

Complaint: Annulment of Sale(October 1967)

CFI of Baganga Davao Oriental Plaintiff: Monje Complant:

Annulment of Deed of Sale between: Seller: heirs of Sps. Manguiob Buyer: Carolina/Nicanor Manguiob

Annulment of subsequent deed of absolute salebetween:

Seller: Carolina/Nicanor Manguiob Buyer: Avelyn Antonio

Cancellation of TCT in name of Antonio

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

10/85

CFI Decision (1981)*

2nd and 3 rd deeds of sale null and void TCT also null and void

Moral damages (P30k) Actual damages (P20k) Legal interest

Costs

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

11/85

CFI Decision (2)

Erroneous order of lower court: to deliver to Monje an area larger than what he

bought from the heirs of Manguiob & claimed inthe action he had filed

Delivery of ENTIRE AREA covered by TCT which is

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

12/85

Spouses Antonio appealed the above-mentioned decision all the way to theSupreme Court.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

13/85

SC Decision (1992)

We find that while the principle of res judicata is better disregarded if its application wouldinvolve the sacrifice of justice to technicality;to so disregard it now and reopen the casewould further delay its disposition.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

14/85

SC Decision (2)

However, the lower court should take note ofits erroneous order to deliver to Monje anarea larger than what he bought from theheirs of Manguiob and claimed in the actionhe had filed, in the eventual execution of itsdecision.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

15/85

SC Decision (3)

In the same way that the power of the court inthe execution of its judgment extends onlyover properties belonging to the judgmentdebtor , the court below may not, in theexecution of its decision, deliver to Monje theentire area covered by TCT as it is more than

double that of the property he had bought.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

16/85

Prescinding from the SC decision

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

17/85

2nd Civil Case

Plaintiff: Sps. Antonio Complaint:

Sum of money Accounting of copra proceeds Damages Atty. fees

Defendant: Monjes heirs (on substitution) RTC Baganga, Davao

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

18/85

Sps . Antonios Complaint

Monje is in possession of 15.9k sq.m (Monje died) (Possession continued by Monjes heirs) Possession by Monje and heirs: in bad faith

They know the extent of sale for 7.5k since 1967 up to the present or a period of 27

years, Monje and heirs appropriated untothemselves the proceeds of the copra of the landbelonging to the Sps. Antonio: P420.7k

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

19/85

Heirs of Monjes MTD

Res judicata Violation of SC Circular 04-94 on non-forum

shopping

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

20/85

RTC Order (1994)

Dismiss complaint Ground: res judicata (barred by prior judgment)

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

21/85

Appeal: Sps. Antonio

Heirs of Monje : failed to file appellees brief CA: deemed case submitted for decision without

brief

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

22/85

CA Decision (2001)

Affirm RTC Order of dismissal MR denied

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

23/85

SC: Sps. Antonio

Issue: whether or not the CA erred in applyingthe principle of res judicata with respect to 1 st and 2 nd Civil Case?

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

24/85

SC proceedings

Heirs of Monje: failed to file comment onpetition Resolutions of Court to heirs: returned unserved SC: dispensed filing of comment

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

25/85

There is identity of parties in 1 st and 2 nd CivilCase.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

26/85

Identity of Issues: none

Issue in 1 st Civil Case: whether the sale to Sps. Antonio of the 7,500 square

meter portion of Lot No. 1 being contested by Heirs ofMonje is valid .

Issue in 2 nd Civil Case: whether Sps. Antonio were deprived of possession of

the remaining 8,403 square meter portion of Lot No. 1which was validly sold to them

whether they are entitled to an accounting of theproceeds of the copra harvested from their propertywhich was supposedly appropriated by Heirs ofMonje.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

27/85

Different issues Do not overlap

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

28/85

Identity of COA: none

Tests:1. absence of inconsistency test 2. same evidence test

3. Judgment touched on [a] matter alreadydecided, or if the parties are in effect litigatingfor the same thing.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

29/85

Test 1: Absence of Inconsistency

See: whether the judgment sought will beinconsistent with the prior judgment With inconsistency: barred Without inconsistency: not barred

NO INCONSISTENCY BECAUSE: Reliefs prayed for are different

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

30/85

Test 2: Same Evidence

would the same evidence support andestablish both the present and former causesof action? Different pieces of evidence

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

31/85

Test 3

a previous judgment operates as a bar to asubsequent one when: it had touched on *a+ matter already decided, or if the parties are in effect litigating for the same

thing.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

32/85

Test 3

A reading of the decisions of the lower andappellate courts in 1 st Civil Case would showthat there were neither discussions nordisposition of the issues raised in 2 nd Civil Case.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

33/85

Identity of Subject Matter

NOT identical! 1st civil case: 7,500 square meter portion of

Lot No. 1 bought by the predecessor-in-interest of heirs of Monje

2nd civil case: the remaining 8,403 squaremeter parcel of the same lot.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

34/85

Since there is no identity of subject matterbetween the two cases, it is but logical toconclude that there is likewise no identity ofcauses of action.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

35/85

confusion

Both the questioned rulings of the RTC and theCA may have arisen from an apparent confusion that the whole of Lot No. 1, consisting of 15,903square meters, is owned by Heirs of Monje.

It is clear, however, from the December 7, 1992ruling of this Court in G.R. No. 69696 thatrespondents' predecessor-in-interest acquiredonly a 7,500 square meter portion of Lot No. 1

and not the entirety thereof and that theremaining 8,403 square meters are still owned bypetitioners.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

36/85

No res judicata

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

37/85

Not compulsory counterclaims

claims for accounting recovery of the proceeds of the sale of copra damages

do not take the nature of a compulsory

counterclaim that should have been barred ifnot set up in the action.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

38/85

Dispositive

Grant petition Reverse and set aside CA decision Remand case to RTC

Directed to decide on the merits with reasonabledispatch

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

39/85

San Diego vs. CA, Matias

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

40/85

Parcel of land Hernandez Street, Catmon , Malabon TCT No. T-134756 refers to a property located in

Barrio Tinajeros, Malabon Lot No. 3, Block No. 13 228 sq. m.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

41/85

1st Civil Case: Ejectment case

MTC: B.E. San Diego vs. Matias family a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-134756 at

Hernandez Street, Barrio Catmon , Malabon

Matias never questioned IDENTITY & LOCATION ofproperty

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

42/85

2nd Civil Case:Complaint for Recovery of Possession

BE San Diego claims ownership Matias occupied the property for over a year .

Without authority/consent of BE San Diego

Oral and written demands to vacate Unheeded

RTC in 1990 Accion publiciana

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

43/85

Matias MTD

Res judicata Accion publiciana is barred by judgment in

ejectment suit

Same parties, same subject , same COA

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

44/85

Matias Answer

she and her family have been living on thesubject property since the 1950s on the basis of a written permit issued by the local

government of Malabon in 1954 . Substantial improvements Paying realty taxes

Legitimate beneficiary of PD 1517 and PD 2016 Classified property as part of Urban Land Reform Zone Classified as Area for Priority Development

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

45/85

Matias Answer (2)

the title relied on by B. E. San Diego (TCT No.T-134756) covers a property located in Barrio Tinajeros , Malabon

while the subject property is actually located inBarrio Catmon , Malabon

property she is occupying in Barrio Catmon isdifferent from the property that B. E. San Diegoseeks to recover

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

46/85

RTC

SAME property Judicial notice: fact that Barrio Catmon was

previously part of Barrio Tinajeros. Approved Subdivision Plan & tax

declarations: showed that the subject property is located in

Barrio Catmon , Malabon

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

47/85

RTC

B. E. San Diego sufficiently proved its right torecover possession of the subject property onthe basis of its TCT No. T-134756

Unfounded: Matias claimed possession as long -time occupant Matias clam as beneficiary of PD 1517 and 2016

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

48/85

CA: reversed RTC

discrepancy in the location significant should have prompted the RTC to require an

expert witness from the concernedgovernment agency to explain the matter.

Art. 538, Civil Code: uphold possession ofMatias

Uphold PD 1517 and 2016

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

49/85

SC (pet. rev.)

B.E. Sandiego: evidence shows TCT is SAMEproperty occupied by Matias.

1 TCT N T 134756 i d i h f B E S

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

50/85

1. TCT No. T-134756 issued in the name of B. E. SanDiego, covering a property delineated as Lot No. 3,Block No. 13; refers to TINAJEROS

2. Approved Subdivision Plan showing Lot No. 3, BlockNo. 3 is situated in Barrio Catmon , Malabon;

3. Tax Declaration No. B-005-00296: refers to CATMON ,but SHARES BOUNDARIES with TCT

4. Testimonial evidence of B. E. San Diegos witness thatthe property described in TCT No. T-134756 is thesame property occupied by Matias; and

5. Judicial notice taken by the RTC of Malabon, based onpublic and common knowledge , that Barrio Catmonwas previously part of Barrio Tinajeros, Malabon.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

51/85

SC (pet. rev.)

B.E. San Diego argument #2: Matias is estopped from alleging different properties

on account of: MTD in accion publiciana (2 nd civil case) based on res

judicata

by raising the ground of res judicata , has impliedlyadmitted there is no difference in the subject

matter of the two actions and, thus, could nolonger question the identity and location of thesubject property.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

52/85

SC Ruling

ISSUE:

WON subject property that Matias occupies isthe same as property covered by B.E. SanDiegos title?

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

53/85

Judicial Notice

Testimony of expert: not necessary to explaindiscrepancy

Subject of mandatory judicial noticeRule 129.1: geographic divisions

Barrio Tinajeros is adjacent to Barrio Catmon

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

54/85

Even without Judicial Notice

Sufficient evidence exists: TCT: Tenajeros Tax declaration: Catmon Both TCT and the tax declaration share the same

boundaries to identify the property.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

55/85

Estoppel

An allegation of res judicata necessarilyconstitutes an admission that the subjectmatter of the pending suit (the accion

publiciana ) is the same as that in a previousone (the ejectment case).

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

56/85

ISSUE 2

core issue of the accion publiciana whobetween the parties is entitled possession ofthe subject property.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

57/85

1. No identity of COA2. BE San Diegos right: TCT.3. Matias basis:

1954 permit from LOCGOV Miscellaneous Sales Application tax declarations realty tax payments from 1974 standing as beneficiary of PD 1517 and 2016 long possession from 1954 up to present

Does not establish better right of possession

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

58/85

Possession vs. Registered Title

no title to register land in derogation of that ofthe registered owner shall be acquired byprescription or adverse possession.

Despite her claim of possession since 1954,Matias began paying realty taxes on thesubject property only in 1974 when B. E. San

Diego filed an ejectment case against herhusband/predecessor, Pedro Matias.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

59/85

Sales application

A sales application, in the absence of approvalby the Bureau of Lands or the issuance of asales patent, remains simply as an application

that does not vest title in the applicant.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

60/85

LOCGOV Permit

The local government permit contained only astatement of the local executive that the casebetween the local government and B. E. San

Diego was decided by a trial court in favor ofthe former.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

61/85

PD 1517 and 2016

Matias is not a qualified beneficiary of theselaws.

The tenants /occupants who have a right not to

be evicted from urban lands does not includethose whose presence on the land is merelytolerated and without the benefit of contract ,those who enter the land by force or deceit, or

those whose possession is under litigation . Pending ejectment suit Not considered tenants

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

62/85

Dispositive

Grant Reverse CA Reinstate RTC

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

63/85

Chavez vs. CA, Trillana

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

64/85

Lease

Teodoro Chavez leased to Jacinto Trillana: Fishpond @ Bulacan 60 year from October 1994 October 2000 PAYMENT TERMS

Rent: P2.2m P1m upon signing

Balance payable: 6 mo. - 1 yr.: 1995 1998

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

65/85

Lease

Paragraph 5: Lessee Trillana to undertake all construction &

preservation of improvements in the fishpond

May be destroyed during the period of lease @expense of lessee

Without reimbursement from lessor Chavez

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

66/85

Typhoon

Damages fishpond Trillana did not immediately undertake the

necessary repairs as the water level was still high.

Three (3) weeks later, Trillana was informed by abarangay councilor that major repairs were beingundertaken in the fishpond with the use of a crane .

Trillana found out that the repairs were at theinstance of Chavez who had grown impatient with hisdelay in commencing the work.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

67/85

Trillana: Complaint

Office of Barangay Captain (Bulacan) Complaint:

unauthorized repairs by Chavez Ouster of Trillanas personnel from premises Unlawful taking despite lease contract

Conciliation: they reached agreement

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

68/85

Kasunduan (September 17)

Chavez to return P150k to Trillana If paid at 23 rd of September: Chavez to pay P100k,

and the same shall be deemed P150k

If not paid on 23rd

: Chavez to pay P150k. Asfollows: P50k payable on 31 st of October In one year: P100k

Kung mabubuwisan ang kanyang palaisdaan : Chavez togive whole P150k immediately (acceleration clause) Upon payment: Trillana to pay waiver

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

69/85

Complaint: Trillana

RTC Non-compliance with lease Non-compliance with Kasunduan

Prayer P300k rent reimbursement (unexpired portion oflease)

P500k unrealized profits P200k moral damages P200k exemplary damages P100k atty. fees P1k for each court appearance of counsel

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

70/85

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

71/85

RTC Decision

Granting relief to Trillana

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

72/85

CA: appeal by Chavez

CA: modified RTC decision Delete P500k unrealized profits: lack of basis Reduce atty. fees to P50k

Chavez: MR denied

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

73/85

SC: pet for rev

Chavez: RTC Valenzuela has no jurisdiction over action

Because of amicable settlement before Brgy. Captain of Bulacan Follow procedure for enforcement in: Revised Katarungang

Pambarangay Law . Assuming RTC has jurisdiction:

Award cannot exceed P150k of Kasunduan No factual/legal basis for reimbursement :

advance rentals for unexpired portion Moral Exemplary Atty. fees

Revised Katarungang

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

74/85

Revised KatarungangPambarangay Law

an amicable settlement reached afterbarangay conciliation proceedings has theforce and effect of a final judgment of a court if not repudiated, or a petition to nullify the same is filed before the

proper city or municipal court within ten (10)days from its date.

Revised Katarungang

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

75/85

Revised KatarungangPambarangay Law

settlement may be enforced by execution by: the lupong tagapamayapa within six (6) months

from its date, or

by action in the appropriate city or municipalcourt, if beyond the six-month period.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

76/85

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

77/85

Compromise Agreement: effect

Effect of res judicata even if not judiciallyapproved

Cannot be lightly set aside or disturbed Except: vices of consent Except: forgery

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

78/85

Art. 2037 qualified by Art. 2041

If one of the parties fails or refuses to abide bythe compromise, the other party may eitherenforce the compromise or regard it as

rescinded and insist upon his original demand .

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

79/85

Heirs of Zari, et al. v. Santos

Before new CC: no right to rescindcompromise agreement

After new CC: with right to rescind Art. 2041

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

80/85

Extra-judicial rescission

In exercising the second option under Art.2041, the aggrieved party may, if he chooses,bring the suit contemplated or involved in his

original demand , as if there had never beenany compromise agreement, without bringingan action for rescission .

he may regard the compromise as alreadyrescinded by the breach thereof of the otherparty.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

81/85

Morales vs. NLRC

Original demand of workers: reinstatement Compromise agreement: payment of

monetary benefits within period agreed Upon breach:

Demand reinstatement, or Writ of execution

2-tiered mode of enforcement of

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

82/85

2 tiered mode of enforcement ofamicable settlement

Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law: (a) by execution by the Punong Barangay which is

quasi-judicial and summary in nature on meremotion of the party entitled thereto; and

(b) an action in regular form , which remedy is judicial

DOES NOT RULE OUT RIGHT OF RESCISSION.Because of may in Sec. 417.

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

83/85

Effect of Kasunduan

Not limited to P150k claim Kasunduan: not admission of liability , but

mere recognition of dispute Kasunduan: only required to execute waiver

of all possible claims, upon compliance withobligation of Chavez

CHAVEZ CLEARLY DID NOT COMPLY.

f b

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

84/85

Basis of Reimbursement

No competent proof was present to prove:

1. P300k as advance rentals for unexpired portion oflease

Lease: pay on 1998 Suit: 1997 No receipt Only self-serving assertion

2. P1m paid by Trillana to Chavez upon signing No proof Chavez specifically denied it

f b

8/12/2019 Rule 39_47 and 48 Cases

85/85

Basis of Reimbursement

1. Moral damages Only available: fraud or bad faith Chavez did not present evidence to prove DEFENSE Chavez did not attend pretrial Declared in default SUBSISTING lease contract

2. Exemplary: Allowed Did not honor contractual oblig

Did not honor amicable settlement3. Atty. fees: Trillana was compelled to litigate