Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
ROSA BARICUATRO, CELSO G.R.
NO. 158643
BARICUATRO
and ANITA
BARICUATRO-OSMEÑA,*
Petitioners,
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
and
NACHURA,
JJ.
ROMEO
CABALLERO, TASIANA
CABALLERO,
RUFO C. VERANO,
PAULINA
C. VERANO, CARMEN
C.
VERANO, PASCUAL C. VERANO,
EDDIE
C. VERANO, PEDRO
CABALLERO,
DELIO CABALLERO,
VICTORINO** CABALLERO, LAURO
CABALLERO
and CRISTOBAL
CABALLERO, Promulgated:
Respondents. June 19, 2007
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before
this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court seeking
the reversal of the Decision[1]
of the Court of
Appeals (CA) dated
The facts are as follows:
On
November 15, 1998, herein respondents Romeo Caballero, Tasiana
Caballero, Rufo C. Verano, Paulina C. Verano, Carmen C. Verano, Pascual C. Verano, Eddie C. Verano, Pedro
Caballero, Delio Caballero, Victorino
Caballero, Lauro Caballero and Cristobal
Caballero (Caballero, et al.) filed a complaint for Quieting of Title,
Cancellation of Free Patents/OCT and Damages against herein petitioners Rosa, Celso, and Anita Baricuatro (Baricuatros) over two parcels of land located in Naga, Metro Cebu. The case was assigned to Branch 16 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Metro Cebu, and docketed
as Civil Case No. CEB-23101.[3]
Upon
motion of Caballero, et al., RTC Branch 16 issued an Order on
The plaintiffs having filed through counsel a Motion for leave to withdraw the complaint, the improper filing of which was due to oversight, the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants through counsel is rendered moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, the
plaintiffs' motion is granted and they are allowed to withdraw the complaint
for re-filing with the proper court.[4]
On
IN VIEW of the foregoing, this Court is of the position that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or matters of this case. This court finds it proper, therefore, to order for the dismissal of the above-entitled case for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.[5]
On
The issue of whether or not the Municipal Trial Court has jurisdiction on the case was resolved by the Municipal Trial Court of Naga, Metro Cebu, thru Presiding Judge Gerardo Gestopa, Jr.
The Order of said court
dated
Under Section 1, Rule 40 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, an appeal from a judgment for final order of a Municipal Trial Court may be taken to the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the area to which the former pertains.
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the motion to reinstate case is DENIED for lack of merit.[7]
Caballero,
et al. thereafter re-filed the complaint with
The
Baricuatros filed with the RTC Branch 13 their Answer
with Affirmative Defense
and Counterclaim dated
which, said court issued an Order dated
On
Dissatisfied,
the Baricuatros went to the CA on a Petition for Certiorari
alleging that the RTC had already lost jurisdiction over the subject matter.[15]
The CA in its
Decision dated September 27, 2002, denied the petition, ratiocinating that an
action for quieting of title to real property and cancellation of free patents,
such as this case, was within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC;
the Order of Branch 16 denying the reinstatement of the present case did not
bar Branch 13 from assuming jurisdiction to hear and decide the present
controversy; the act of Branch 13 of assuming jurisdiction over the present
case was corrective of the decision rendered earlier by Branch 16 and had cured
whatever error was committed by the
latter; Caballero, et al. were not guilty of forum shopping since the
elements of litis pendencia
or res judicata
were not present in this case; there was no litis
pendencia, since the case filed before the MTC
(Civil Case No. R-414) and the Motion to Reinstate Case filed by Caballero, et
al. before RTC Branch 16 had been denied with finality; there was also no res judicata, as
the Order denying the motion for reinstatement issued by Branch 16 was not a
judgment on the merits.[16]
The Baricuatros filed a Motion
for Reconsideration which the CA denied in its Resolution dated
Hence, the
present petition whereby the Baricuatros (hereinafter
referred to as petitioners) claim that Caballero, et al. (hereinafter
referred to as respondents) erred in not appealing the denial by RTC Branch 16
of their Motion to Reinstate Case; that said denial was a final disposition of
the case, the remedy of which was to file an appeal and not to re-file the
complaint with the RTC; and that when the order of denial became final and executory, the RTC lost jurisdiction over the case and RTC
Branch 13 could not be construed as having acquired jurisdiction.[18]
In their
Comment and Memorandum, respondents averred that RTC Branch 13 and the CA
already settled the matter subject of the present petition and that petitioners
were merely pursuing frivolous matters to delay proceedings.[19]
Petitioners in
their Memorandum raised a sole issue, thus:
WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT BY RTC BRANCH 16,
Petitioners argue
that with the failure of respondents to appeal within the reglementary period the Order of Branch 16 dismissing
their Motion to Reinstate Case, such order has already become final and executory and can no longer be disturbed no matter how
erroneous it may be.[21]
The petition
lacks merit.
Petitioners,
while not explicitly using the term res judicata, manifestly invoke the principle in arguing
that respondents are already barred from filing for the second time, with the
RTC, the complaint for Quieting of Title, Cancellation of Free Patents/OCT and
Damages.
The doctrine
of res judicata
provides that the judgment in a first case is final as to the claim or demand
in controversy, between the parties and those privy with them, not only as to
every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or
demand, but as to any other admissible matter which must have been offered for
that purpose and all matters that could have been adjudged in that case.[22]
The rationale
for this principle is that a party should not be vexed twice concerning the
same cause. Indeed, res
judicata is a fundamental concept in the
organization of every jural society, for not only
does it ward off endless litigation, it ensures the stability of judgment and
guards against inconsistent decisions on the same set of facts.[23]
Res judicata applies
when four essential requisites are present: (1) the former judgment or order
must be final; (2) it must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it
was rendered after a consideration of the evidence or stipulations submitted by
the parties at the trial of the case; (3 ) it must have been rendered by a
court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4)
there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties,
subject matter and causes of action.[24]
The present
case lacks the second requisite. While
the Order of Branch 16 denying respondents' Motion to Reinstate Case had
already become final, the same does not have the effect of barring the filing
of the complaint anew, for the same is not a judgment on the merits.
A
judgment or order is said to be on the merits of the case when it determines
the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the ultimate facts as
disclosed by the pleadings or issues presented for trial. It is not required that a trial, actual
hearing, or argument on the facts of the case ensued, for as long as the
parties had the full legal opportunity to be heard on their respective claims
and contentions.[25]
In this case,
the rights and liabilities of the parties were not settled by the Order of RTC
Branch 16 denying respondents' Motion to Reinstate Case for lack of merit. The said Order merely stated that the issue
of whether the MTC had jurisdiction over the case was resolved by MTC Naga, Metro Cebu; that the Order
of the MTC dated March 1, 1999 is a final order; and an appeal from a judgment
for final order of the MTC may be taken to the RTC exercising jurisdiction over
the area to which the former pertains.[26]
Nowhere in the
said Order or in any other order issued by RTC Branch 16 have the issues
pertaining to quieting of title, cancellation of free patents/OCT and damages been
taken up and resolved. It is clear
therefore that the Order of RTC Branch 16 being invoked by petitioners cannot be
deemed a judgment on the merits.
Moreover, the act of respondents in seeking to
reinstate the Complaint they filed with RTC Branch 16 is a clear manifestation
that they were abiding with the Order of the MTC that the latter had no
jurisdiction and they were no longer appealing the said MTC Order. Thus, RTC Branch 16 could not insist that
respondents should have appealed the MTC Order.
The Order of RTC Branch 16 denying respondents' Motion
to Reinstate Case, not being a judgment or an order on the merits, no res judicata
applies in this case. The re-filing by
respondents of their complaint with the RTC is therefore not barred; neither has the RTC
lost jurisdiction to hear and try the case.
As correctly
pointed out by the CA,
The acts of the two branches of the Regional Trial Courts, though diagonally opposed to each other, have not affected its jurisdiction over the case. If at all, the act of one Branch, i.e., Branch 13, of rightfully assuming jurisdiction over the instant case is merely corrective of the decision rendered earlier by Branch 16 which appears to be tainted with impropriety.
Public respondent's act of assuming jurisdiction over the
instant case has cured whatever incipient defect committed by the other
branch. After all, the rule is settled
that “branches of
the trial court are not distinct and separate tribunals from each other;
Jurisdiction does not attach to the judge but to the court.” x x x[27]
Finding no
error in the Decision rendered by the CA, the same is hereby AFFIRMED.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA V.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s attestation,
it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Referred to as “Anita Baricuatro” in other parts of the records.
** Spelled as “Victorio” in other parts of the records.
[1] Penned by CA Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes (now Presiding Justice of the CA) and Danilo B. Pine, rollo, pp. 16-25.
[2]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Rollo, p. 20.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[24] Id. at 130; Perez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157616, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 89, 106-107.
[25]
[26] CA rollo, p. 18.
[27] Rollo, p. 22.