SECOND DIVISION
|
MARIA JUMAMIL BALANAY and FLORENCIA JUMAMIL VILLARTA-GABIN, Petitioners, versus - ATTY. JORGE PADERANGA and FELICISIMO KILAT, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 136963 Present: PUNO,
J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, * AZCUNA,
and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: |
|
x
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------x |
|
|
|
|
|
DECISION |
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
|
|
|
For our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the
Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated
Braulio Jumamil,
during his lifetime, was the registered owner of three (3) lots situated in
On
In his answer with counterclaim, Felicisimo
specifically denied the allegations in the complaint, claiming that Braulio Jumamil donated the three
(3) lots to him as shown by a “Donation Inter-Vivos
with Right of Usufruct.”
During
the hearing, petitioners testified that the deed of donation is void; that Braulio was already sick and bed-ridden in March 1987 when
he supposedly donated the lots to Felicisimo; that Braulio’s signature on the deed of donation was procured
through fraud and deceit; and that Atty. Jorge Paderanga,
who notarized the document, misled Braulio, by making
him believe that what he was signing were vouchers necessary for the sale of
his coconuts.
On
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision promulgated
on P10,000.00
as actual damages and another P10,000.00
as attorney’s fees.
Petitioners then filed with this Court a Petition for Review
on Certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 114416. In its Resolution dated
It soon became apparent that this Court’s Decision did not
write finis to the controversy. On
Forthwith, both respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint on the ground of res judicata.
In a Resolution dated
Petitioners timely filed a motion for reconsideration but
it was denied by the trial court in an Order dated
Petitioners then interposed an appeal to the Court of
Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 52074.
On
Hence, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari.
The sole issue for our resolution is whether the Court of
Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s Resolution dismissing petitioners’
complaint in Civil Case No. 3455 by reason of res judicata.
Petitioners
contend that the principle of res judicata does not apply to Civil Case
No. 3455. First, there is no
identity of parties between Civil Case No. 1327 and Civil Case No. 3455. In the first case, Atty. Paderanga
was not impleaded as a defendant. Second,
there is no identity of causes of action between the two cases. In the first case, petitioners’ main cause of
action is their right as owners of the lots which was violated by Felicisimo by taking possession thereof and harvesting
coconuts in the area. In the second
case, their cause of action is the nullity of the subject deed of donation, not
Felicisimo’s acts of occupying the lots and the harvesting
of coconuts.
For their part, respondents maintain that the judgment in
the first case constitutes res judicata on the second case.
A
case is barred by prior judgment or res judicata when the following elements
are present:
1. The former judgment is final;
2. It is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties;
3. It is
a judgment or an order on the merits; and
4. There is
between the first and the second action identity of parties, identity of
subject matter, and identity of causes of action. [2]
On petitioner’s contention that there is no identity of
parties between the two cases since Atty. Pederanga
was impleaded as additional defendant in the second case, we agree with
the Court of Appeals that absolute identity of parties is not required, a
substantial identity of parties is sufficient.
Well settled is the rule that only
substantial, and not absolute, identity
of parties is required
for res judicata to lie. There is
substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest between a
party in the first case and a party in the second case albeit the latter was
not impleaded in the first case. [3]
As
admitted by the parties, respondent Atty. Paderanga
was the one who notarized the deed of donation signed by Braulio
Jumamil in favor of respondent Felicisiomo
Kilat. Consequently,
petitioners impleaded Atty. Paderanga as additional
defendant in the second case. In both
cases, petitioners are challenging the validity of the deed of donation notarized
by Atty. Paderanga.
Thus, the interest of petitioners are inextricably intertwined with that
of Atty. Paderanga, such that if there is a finding
that the deed of donation is void and the reason can be attributed to him, then
petitioners’ cause of action can be sustained.
Otherwise, their complaint should be dismissed. Clearly, therefore, a community of interest,
and corollarily, substantial identity of parties,
exist between petitioners and Atty. Paderanga in both
cases.
We now rule on petitioners’ contention that the causes of
action in both cases are not the same.
“Cause
of action” is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.[4] It
contains three elements: (1) a right existing in favor of the plaintiff; (2) a
duty on the part of the defendant to respect the right of the plaintiff; and
(3) a breach of the defendant’s duty.
In the
first case, Civil Case No. 1327, petitioners’ cause of action is specified as
follows: first, petitioners have a right as owners to apply for an injunction
to enjoin respondent Felicisimo from taking
possession of the lots and from gathering coconuts therefrom; second, respondent
Felicisimo has the duty to recognize petitioners’
right of ownership; and third, the alleged breach arose when said respondent
occupied the lots and gathered coconuts, claiming he is the owner thereof as
shown by the deed of donation signed by petitioners’ predecessor.
The
cause of action in the second case, Civil Case No. 3455, is as follows: first,
petitioners have a right as owners to implore the trial court to annul the deed
of donation executed by Braulio in favor of respondent
Felicisimo; second, despite the nullity of the deed of
donation, said respondent still claims to be the owner of the contested lots;
and third, respondent Atty. Paderanga lured Braulio into signing the said document of which respondent Felicisimo is not even aware of.
The
issue in both cases as shown by the allegations in the complaints, is the
validity or nullity of the deed of donation.
Thus, if the judgment in the first case declares that the document is
valid, as what happened herein, then the second case should be dismissed under
the principle of res judicata.
The
principle of res judicata is dictated by public interest. Relitigation of
issues already settled merely burdens the courts and the taxpayers, creates
uneasiness and confusion, and wastes valuable time and energy that could be
devoted to worthier cases.[5] Even at the risk of occasional errors,
judgments of courts should become final at some definite time fixed by law and
x x x parties should not be
permitted to litigate the same issues over again.[6]
Verily, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the
trial court’s resolution dismissing the complaint in the second case, Civil
Case No. 3455.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM
the challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 52074. Costs against petitioners.
SO
ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
|
REYNATO
S. PUNO Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
(On leave) RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Second
Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
* On leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 64-67. Penned by Associate Justice Hector L. Hofileña (retired) and concurred in by then Associate Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes (a former member of this Supreme Court, now retired) and Associate Justice Omar U. Amin (retired).
[2]
[3] Sempio
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124326,
[4] Luzon Development Bank v. Conquilla, supra., citing Section 2, Rule II of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
[5] Aguila v. J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc., 22 SCRA 690 (1968).
[6] Allied Bank Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, supra.