Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
SECOND division
|
the United abangan clan, inc., represented by
cristituto f. abangan, Petitioner, versus yolanda c. sabellano-sumagang, ernesto tiro,
basilisa cabellon-moreno, martin c. tabura, jr., romualdo c. tabura, rolando
cabellon, represented by rolando cabellon, and the honorable city civil registrar of cebu
city, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 186722 Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: June 18, 2012 |
|
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - x
R E S O L
U T I O N
SERENO, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition
for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 in relation to Rule 41, Section
2(c) of the Rules of Court pertaining to appeals involving pure questions of
law. The petition assails the 6 February 2009 Resolution of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC),[1]
which dismissed the action of United Abangan Clan, Inc. (United Abangan Clan) for
the cancellation of the entry in the Register of Marriages of the City Civil
Registrar of Cebu City (Civil Registrar), involving the alleged marriage of
Anastacia Abangan (Anastacia) to Raymundo Cabellon (Raymundo). Petitioner
United Abangan Clan is an association comprised of members who are supposedly
the collateral relatives and nearest intestate heirs of Anastacia. Respondents
Yolanda C. Sabellano-Sumagang, Ernesto Tiro, Basilisa Cabellon-Moreno, Martin C.
Tabura, Jr., Romualdo C. Tabura, and Rolando Cabellon (Cabellon Descendants)
are the purported grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Anastacia and
Raymundo.
The present case
stemmed from the registration of the purported marital union between the late Anastacia
and Raymundo. They were allegedly married on 18 February 1873 at the Santo
Tomas de Villanueva Parish in El Pardo, Cebu City. A delayed registration of
the marriage was entered in the records of the Civil Registrar, and a
Certificate of Marriage issued sometime in September 2007 or 134 years after
their purported matrimonial bond. The petition for late registration was filed
by Rolando Cabellon, Edith T. Casas, and Imelda T. Casugay, who were allegedly
the true legal heirs and descendants of Anastacia and Raymundo.
On 19 May 2008,
the United Abangan Clan filed a Petition seeking the cancellation of the entry
in the Register of Marriages. It averred[2]
that Anastacia died single and without issue. It then posited that the claimed
marriage could not be registered under Act No. 3753, because it had ostensibly taken
place before 27 February 1931, which was the date of effectivity of the law. Furthermore,
petitioner contended that it was not Anastacia and Raymundo who had filed the
application for the late registration of their marriage, and that there was
failure to show cause for the delay in registration.
On the other
hand, respondents argued[3]
that petitioner was engaged in forum shopping, since the fact of marriage
between Anastacia and Raymundo was an important issue to be resolved in another
case. Docketed as SP. PROC. No. 16171-CEB, the case involved a petition for the
judicial declaration of the heirs of decedent Anastacia (first petition). They next
asserted that the United Abangan Clan was estopped from questioning the late
registration of the marriage, which petitioner had failed to contest after the publication
of the Notice of Delayed Registration. They then averred that it failed to
exhaust administrative remedies, as it did not appeal the decision of the Civil
Registrar to a higher office. Finally, they claimed that the marriage of
Anastacia and Raymundo had been established by means of an ancient document
found in the church records of the Santo Tomas de Villanueva Parish.
On 6 February
2009, the RTC issued a Resolution[4]
dismissing the Petition for cancellation of the entry in the Register of
Marriages (second petition) on the ground of litis pendentia. According to the trial court, the first petition (SP.
PROC. No. 16171-CEB) and the second petition (SP. PROC. No. 16180-CEB), which
were both initiated by petitioner, involved the same parties and concerned the
same issues and reliefs prayed for. The trial court explained that any decision
on the first petition would necessarily constitute res judicata in the present case, since the ultimate purpose of the
second petition was to assert heirship and the right of succession over the
inheritance left by Anastacia. Finally, the RTC declared that the present petition
was still premature, because petitioner should have first brought the issue to
the attention of the Civil Registrar pursuant to the doctrine of primary
administrative jurisdiction.
Issue
The sole issue
before this Court is whether or not the instant petition was properly dismissed
on the ground of litis pendentia.
Discussion
Litis pendentia, as a ground for the dismissal of an action, refers
to a situation in which another action is pending between the same parties for
the same cause of action, and the second action becomes unnecessary and
vexatious.[5]
In order to successfully invoke the rule, the movant must prove the existence of
the following requisites: (a) the identity of parties, or at least like those representing
the same interest in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and
relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the
identity of the two (2) cases, such that the judgment that may be rendered in
the pending case would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other.[6]
The crucial
consideration in litis pendentia is
the identity and similarity of the issues under litigation.[7]
As early as in J. Northcott & Co.,
Inc. v. Villa-Abrille, we ruled: One of the recognized tests of such
identity is to discover whether a judgment in the prior action would be
conclusive as to the liability sought to be enforced in the second and would
operate as a bar to the latter. In other words, if a final judgment in the
prior action, be it of whatsoever character it may, would support the plea of res judicata in the second, the two
suits may be considered identical; otherwise not.[8]
There is no identity
and similarity between the first and the second petitions with respect to the
issues under litigation. The action in the prior Petition (SP. PROC. No. 16171-CEB)
involves a judicial declaration of heirship, while the main issue in the present
one (SP. PROC. No. 16180-CEB) pertains to a cancellation of entry in the civil register.
An action for declaration of heirship (declaracion
de herederos) refers to a special proceeding in which a person claiming the
status of heir seeks prior judicial declaration of his or her right to inherit from a decedent.[9]
On the other hand, an action for cancellation of entry in the civil register refers
to a special proceeding whereby a substantial change affecting the civil status
of a party is sought through the amendment of the entry in the civil register.[10]
In the former, what is established is a partys right of succession to the
decedent; in the latter, among those settled are the issues of nationality,
paternity, filiation, legitimacy of the marital status, and registrability of
an event affecting the status or nationality of an individual. Because the
respective subject matters in the two actions differ, any decision that may be
rendered in one of them cannot constitute res
judicata in the other. A judicial declaration of heirship is inconclusive on
the fact of occurrence of an event registered or to be registered in the civil
register, while changes in the entries in the civil register do not in
themselves settle the issue of succession.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED.
The 6 February 2009 Resolution of the Cebu City RTC in SP. PROC. No. 16180-CEB is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. We hereby order the REMAND of the case (SP. PROC. No. 16180-CEB) to the RTC for a trial
on the merits.
SO
ORDERED.
MARIA
LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ARTURO
D. BRION Associate Justice |
JOSE
PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
BIENVENIDO
L. REYES
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the
conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)
[1]
The Resolution in SP. PROC. No. 16180-CEB was penned by RTC Judge Silvestre A. Maamo, Jr.
[2] Petition
at 2-4 (In re: Cancellation of the Entry
in Register of Marriages in the Office of the City Civil Registrar Cebu City on
the Alleged Marriage of Anastacia Abangan to Raymundo Cabellon, SP. PROC.
No. 16180-CEB dated 19 May 2008), rollo,
pp. 23-25. See also Petition for Review on Certiorari at 3-8 (filed
on 11 March 2009), rollo, pp. 8-13.
[3] Position Paper for the Oppositors (In re: Cancellation of the Entry in Register of Marriages in the Office of the City Civil Registrar Cebu City on the Alleged Marriage of Anastacia Abangan to Raymundo Cabellon, SP. PROC. No. 16180-CEB dated 26 September 2008), rollo, pp. 27-30. See also Private Respondents Comment (filed on 10 June 2009), rollo, pp. 36-38.
[4] RTC Resolution (In re: Cancellation of the Entry in Register of Marriages in the Office of the City Civil Registrar Cebu City on the Alleged Marriage of Anastacia Abangan to Raymundo Cabellon, SP. PROC. No. 16180-CEB, decided on 6 February 2009), rollo, pp. 16-18.
[5] Bangko Silangan Development Bank v. Court of Appeals, 412 Phil. 755 (2001).
[6] Mariscal v. Court of Appeals, 370 Phil. 52 (1999).
[7] Id.
[8] J. Northcott & Co., Inc. v. Villa-Abrille, 41 Phil. 462, 465 (1921).
[9] See Suiliong & Co. v. Chio-Taysan, 12 Phil. 13 (1908); Cabuyao v. Caagbay, 95 Phil. 614 (1954); Marabiles v. Quito, 100 Phil. 64 (1956).
[10] Republic v. Medina, 204 Phil. 615 (1982)