SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230142. November 24, 2021.]
EDNA AQUINO-NAGAI, petitioner,vs. HILDA GLORIA HONG, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated24 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230142(Edna Aquino-Nagai v. Hilda Gloria Hong).— Before the Court is a petition for review 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated June 23, 2016 and the Resolution 3 dated February 22, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 105441 which dismissed petitioner Edna Aquino-Nagai's (Edna) appeal and denied her Motion for Reconsideration, 4 respectively. The CA affirmed the Decision 5 dated April 6, 2015 of Branch 198, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City in SP Case No. LP-11-0007.
The Antecedents
Edna was the sister of Gerardo Hong (Gerardo) who died intestate on August 4, 2002, 6 while respondent Hilda Gloria Hong (Hilda) was Gerardo's wife. Gerardo and Hilda owned a parcel of land in Parañaque City (subject property) covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 31066. 7
Sometime in 1999, Gerardo was diagnosed with cancer. Because Gerardo was already estranged from his wife at the time, Edna was the one who took care of him and paid for his medical expenses. After using up all his savings for treatments, Gerardo promised Edna that he will pay her for her expenses. 8
On April 12, 2000, Gerardo executed a deed of transfer in favor of his mother Remedios Castro Aquino (Remedios) and his son with Hilda, Michael Anthony Hong (Michael). TCT No. 31066 was cancelled and TCT No. 151440 was issued in the names of Remedios and Michael. 9
On August 4, 2002, Gerardo died of cardiopulmonary arrest due to stage IV nasopharyngeal cancer with liver metastasis. 10
Edna claimed that the estate of Gerardo owed her the total amount of P1,042,798.84, 11 representing Gerardo's medical, funeral, and miscellaneous expenses. In order to reimburse her for the expenses, Remedios and Michael executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 26, 2002 in favor of Edna and her daughter Kristine Marie Gaboy (Kristine), covering the subject property. Thus, TCT No. 151440 was cancelled and TCT No. 153668 was issued in the names of Edna and Kristine. Edna thereafter spent P179,000.00 for the construction of a concrete fence around the subject property. 12
Parañaque Case
On December 1, 2004, Hilda and Michael filed a civil case for "Annulment of Title, Reconveyance and Damages" before Branch 196, RTC of Parañaque City, docketed as Civil Case No. 04-0463. 13
Hilda alleged that she and Gerardo acquired the subject property during their marriage. In 1988, she and Gerardo separated because of strained relations with her in-laws. In 1992, she discovered that the owner's copy of TCT No. 31066 was missing. Thus, she executed an affidavit of loss and caused its annotation at the dorsal portion of the title in the possession of the Register of Deeds of Parañaque City. 14
After Gerardo's death, Hilda verified the status of the subject property and discovered that TCT No. 31066 had been cancelled and TCT No. 151440 was issued in the names of Remedios and Michael. 15
On October 14, 2008, Branch 196, RTC of Parañaque City rendered a Decision 16 against Edna and Kristine, ordering them to return the subject property to the heirs of Gerardo, namely Hilda and Michael. 17 CAIHTE
The dispositive portion of the Decision 18 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is herewith rendered as follows:
1. The 'Deed of Transfer' dated 'April 12, 2000' under Document No. 1180, Page 108, Book VII, Series of 2000 per Entry No. 8075 in favor of Remedios Castro Aquino and Michael Anthony Hong, along with the Deed of Sale dated July 26, 2002 in favor of defendants Edna C. Aquino and Kristine Marie A. Gaboy are both ordered invalidated and declared void;
2. The Transfer Certificate of Title No. 151440 dated February 15, 2002 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 153668 dated September 9, 2002 are ordered canceled for having been issued under void circumstances in contravention of rights and entitlement of the co-owner of TCT No. 31066, particularly Hilda G. Hong;
3. Defendants Edna C. Aquino and Kristine Marie A. Gaboy, their assigned (sic) and successor's (sic) in interest are directed to surrender the owner's duplicate certificate of title over TCT No. 153668 to the Register of Deeds of Parañaque City, the latter being order (sic) to cause the cancellation of said title and other derivative title thereto; and to reinstate TCT No. 31066 under the correct names of its registered owners Spouses Gerardo A. Hong and Hilda G. Hong, a copy of which original certificate of title are (sic) on file with the said Registry;
4. and, for defendants to pay the plaintiff the amount of Eighty Thousand pesos (P80,000.00) for attorney's fees, and costs of suit.
SO ORDERED. 19
Las Piñas Case
In 2010, Edna, through counsel, sent a demand letter 20 to Hilda and Michael demanding compliance with their promise to reimburse her the amount of P1,042,798.84, plus interest, pertaining to the medical, funeral, and burial expenses of Gerardo. 21
With Hilda's refusal to pay, Edna filed on January 11, 2011 a petition before Branch 198, RTC of Las Piñas City, entitled "In re: Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Gerardo Hong — Appointment of Administrator." 22
The case was initially referred to a Judicial Dispute Resolution. However, with the failure of the parties to reach an amicable settlement, the case was set for pre-trial and the issues were narrowed down to: 1) whether Edna's claims in Gerardo's estate had already been claimed and passed upon by Branch 196, RTC of Parañaque City; and 2) whether Hilda was entitled to counterclaims. 23
According to Hilda, the estate of Gerardo has no obligation to reimburse the claims of Edna because it was only Edna who decided to spend lavishly for the wake and burial of Gerardo and some of the expenses were spent long after Gerardo's death. In any case, Edna already demanded the payment of her advances by way of counterclaim in the reconveyance case filed by Hilda before Branch 196, RTC of Parañaque City. 24
Trial proceeded.
RTC Decision
On April 6, 2015, Branch 198, RTC of Las Piñas City rendered its Decision, 25 thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of the expenses she incurred for the medical/hospitalization, interment and other expenses for the deceased Gerardo Hong is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit.
Accordingly, the instant petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. 26
The RTC ruled that Edna had already brought her claim before Branch 196, RTC of Parañaque City in Civil Case No. 04-0463. She presented and offered in evidence documents and receipts for the expenses she incurred for the hospitalization, medical treatment, interment, burial, and miscellaneous expenses of Gerardo. In the Parañaque case, she sought reimbursement for the total amount of P1,000,796.63, while in the instant case, she sought to relitigate her claims against Gerardo's heirs pursuant to Section 5, 27 Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, raising the amount of her claim to P1,042,798.70. 28 The RTC also noted that almost all official receipts offered as evidence in the instant petition had already been offered in evidence in the Parañaque case. 29
According to the RTC, the claims had already been put in issue and adjudged in the former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The decision of the Parañaque court is already binding upon Edna and will continue to bind her while the judgment remains standing and unreversed by the appellate court. 30
Edna elevated the case to the CA where the main issue presented was whether the principle of res judicata is applicable in the case at bar. She argued that Branch 196, RTC of Parañaque City did not have the authority to adjudicate matters relating to the settlement of estate; thus, it could not have validly rendered judgment against her. 31
CA Decision
In the Decision 32 dated June 23, 2016, the CA held:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated April 6, 2015, rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 198 in SP Case No. LP-11-0007, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 33
The CA noted that the ruling of Branch 196, RTC of Parañaque City had become final and executory, and hence, immutable and unalterable. It also held that Branch 196, RTC of Parañaque City had jurisdiction over Edna's counterclaim for reimbursement of expenses, as it was necessarily connected with the transaction that was the subject matter of the claim for reconveyance. The evidence presented in both the Parañaque and Las Piñas cases are the receipts of the expenses incurred by Edna during Gerardo's hospitalization and interment. Thus, the CA ruled that res judicata applies in this case. 34
The CA denied Edna's Motion for Reconsideration 35 in a Resolution 36 dated February 22, 2017. DETACa
Hence, the present petition where Edna raises the following issues:
(A.)
May a Regional Trial Court, acting as a court of general jurisdiction in an action for Annulment of title with damages, adjudicate matters relating to the settlement of an Estate?
(B.)
Will a Decision rendered by a Regional Trial Court, acting as a court of general jurisdiction, bar the institution of a Special proceedings case for the Settlement of an Estate?
(C.)
Otherwise stated, may a counterclaim presented in that Regional Trial Court will (sic) effectively prevent the pleader from instituting a claim for the Settlement of an Estate?
(D.)
Corollary, whether or not the Estate of Gerardo Hong may be held liable for the reimbursement of the subject expenses, including attorney's fees, and costs of suit. 37
Edna asserts that the Parañaque case does not bar the filing and prosecution of the petition before Branch 198, RTC of Las Piñas to recover expenses against the estate of Gerardo. 38 She contends that the RTC and the CA erred in holding that res judicata applies in the case, and that the matters involving the claim for reimbursement were not directly and actually controverted and were not even raised in the Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim 39 in the Parañaque case. 40 Thus, she maintains that the Decision 41 of Branch 196, RTC of Parañaque City is not binding on this petition before Branch 198, RTC of Las Piñas, which pertains to a special proceeding for settlement of estate. Further, she claims that she was able to present evidence to support her claim for reimbursement, while Hilda failed to present contrary evidence. 42
Hilda in her comment 43 avers that Branch 196, RTC of Parañaque City did not just adjudicate matters relating exclusively to the settlement of an estate but also other matters brought before it, which included the reimbursement claim of Edna. Moreover, she argues that Edna, after failing to secure a favorable judgment on her counterclaim for reimbursement before Branch 196, RTC of Parañaque City and having lost her appeal on the same case before the CA, decided to void the Parañaque proceedings and recover her claims via the instant settlement of estate. Thus, Hilda maintains that the CA correctly ruled that all the elements of res judicata are present in this case. 44
Edna filed a reply 45 reiterating her arguments.
Issue
Whether res judicata applies in this case.
Our Ruling
The petition has no merit.
Res judicata literally means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment." 46 It refers to the rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the former suit. 47
Res judicata rests on the principle that parties should not be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once. When a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or an opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of the court, so long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate. 48
The principle of res judicata has two main rules: (1) "bar by prior judgment" as stated in paragraph (b) of Section 47, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which holds that the judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes the litigation between the parties and their privies and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action either before the same or any other tribunal; and (2) "conclusiveness of judgment" as embodied in paragraph (c) of the same rule, which provides that any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which a judgment or decree is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claims or demands, purposes, or subject matters of the two suits are the same. 49 aDSIHc
It is res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment that is applicable in this case.
The Court explained "conclusiveness of judgment" in Heirs of Elliot v. Corcuera50 as follows:
Conclusiveness of judgment is a species of res judicata and it applies where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but there is no identity of causes of action. Any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein, and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same. Thus, if a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties or their privies will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit. Identity of cause of action is not required but merely identity of issue. 51
Verily, there is res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment when the following elements are present: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, but not identity of causes of action. 52
Here, there is no identity of causes of action between the Parañaque and Las Piñas cases. The first is an ordinary civil action for annulment of title, reconveyance, and damages, while the second is a special proceeding for the settlement of estate.
However, the two cases involve the same parties, i.e., Edna and Hilda, and the same subject matter, i.e., the subject property owned by the spouses Gerardo and Hilda. The two cases also touched upon the same issue of whether the subject property, which is the only property in Gerardo's estate, should be used to pay for the medical, funeral, and miscellaneous expenses of Gerardo that were paid for by Edna.
As mentioned in the Decision 53 of Branch 196, RTC of Parañaque City:
On November 7, 2005, defendants Remedios C. Aquino, Edna A. Nagai and Kristine Marie A. Gaboy filed an amended answer claiming that the property was regularly transferred to answering defendant Remedios C. Aquino and Plaintiff Michael Anthony G. Hong prior to the death of Gerardo A. Hong, which was thereafter transferred for valid consideration by sale to the remaining defendants Edna A. Nagai and Kristine A. Gaboy, to (sic)the latter transfer was made to cover the medical expenses of Gerardo A. Hong who was undertaking medical treatment for cancer, who later died sometime in August 14, 2002. Defendants move for the dismissal of the complaint and the payment of their counterclaim for actual, moral, exemplary damages with attorney's fees and costs. 54 (Emphasis supplied.)
It further couched the principal issue of the case, thus:
x x x whether or not plaintiffs are entitled for the recovery of their property given the voidness of a contract entered in favor of defendants in their individual capacity, the entitlement for the recovery of consequential damages as adverted to in their complaint. Defendants Edna Aquino and Kristine Marie A. Gaboy posed the regularity to the acquisition of aforesaid property with the plaintiff cause of action, with which, there is further recovery of their counter claim as adverted in their answer. Defendant Edna Aquino likewise posed absence [of] cause of action for plaintiff given the regularity undertaken, with prayer for recovery of consequential damages. 55 (Emphasis supplied.)
The Parañaque RTC then summarized Edna's testimony as follows:
Defendant Edna claimed that [her] brother borrowed from her some money in August 1989 to purchase the lot in question which she accented to, thus, the property was purchased and registered in the name of the Spouses Hong. That, at the bedside of her ailing brother at the Las Piñas General Hospital, her brother Gerardo allegedly requested her to "abonohan and gastusin" at the hospital hence she spent close to about One Million pesos (P1,000.00) (sic) for the medical needs of his brother inclusive of interment costs evidence[d] by Exhibits "1 to 177", inclusive. She identified a deed of sale dated July 26, 2002 to cover the purchase of the property. She further claimed that the amount of Six Hundred Thousand pesos (P600,000.00) spent for her late brother is "bigay ko na lang" or "dagdag sa kanila" meaning to plaintiffs. 56
The Las Piñas RTC also observed that almost all official receipts covering the expenses incurred or paid by Edna which were offered as documentary exhibits before it had been offered in evidence in the Parañaque case. 57
There is conclusiveness of judgment in this case as the Decision 58 rendered by the Parañaque court was final and executory; the Parañaque RTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; the disposition was a judgment on the merits; and there is, between the Parañaque and Las Piñas actions, identity of parties, but not identity of causes of action. ETHIDa
The parties in the two cases are deemed the same even when they are not identical if they share substantially the same interest. Meanwhile, there is identity of issues when a competent court has adjudicated the fact, matter or right, or when the fact, matter or right was necessarily involved in the determination of the action. In order to determine whether an issue has been resolved in the first case, it must be ascertained that the evidence needed to resolve the second case "would have authorized a judgment for the same party in the first action." 59 If the fact or matter litigated in the first case is re-litigated in the second case, it is barred by res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment. 60
If a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties will be final and conclusive in the second if the same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit. 61
Edna raised in her Amended Answer the matter of shouldering the medical, funeral, and miscellaneous expenses of Gerardo, even presenting several receipts in support of her claim for reimbursement. She clearly asked for recovery of her counterclaim which was even specified as an issue by the Parañaque court during pre-trial. In the course of the proceedings and the disposition of the case, however, the trial court found no merit in Edna's claims. Hence, the Parañaque court's judgment in favor of Hilda.
The Court finds no reason to disturb such findings.
It is well to emphasize that the doctrine of res judicata exists as an obvious rule of reason, justice, fairness, expediency, practical necessity, and public tranquility. 62 Public policy, judicial orderliness, economy of judicial time, and the interest of litigants, as well as the peace and order of society, all require that stability should be accorded judgments, that controversies once decided on the merits shall remain in repose, that inconsistent judicial decision shall not be made on the same set of facts, and that there be an end to litigation which without the doctrine of res judicata would be endless. 63
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated June 23, 2016 and the Resolution dated February 22, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 105441 are hereby AFFIRMED.
The Court NOTES the letter dated October 13, 2021 of Ms. Jane G. Sabido, Chief, Archives Section, Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals, Manila, transmitting the original records and rollo of CA-G.R. CV No. 105441 in compliance with the Resolution dated July 5, 2021.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Denominated as "Appeal by Certiorari"; rollo, pp. 8-20.
2.Id. at 39-52; penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio with Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a retired Member of the Court) and Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, concurring.
3.Id. at 22-25; penned by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a retired Member of the Court), with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Romeo F. Barza, concurring.
4.Id. at 26-37.
5.Id. at 97-101; penned by Judge Erlinda Nicolas-Alvaro.
6.Id. at 98.
7.Id. at 40-41.
8.Id. at 39-40, 98.
9.Id. at 40-41.
10. Exh. "G," Records Vol. I, p. 415.
11. In the RTC Decision dated April 6. 2015, the total amount of the claim of Edna against the estate of Gerardo is P1,042,798.70.
12.Rollo, pp. 40-42, 98.
13.Id. at 40.
14.Id. at 43.
15.Id.
16. Records, Vol. II, pp. 571-591; penned by Judge Brigido Artemon M. Luna II.
17.Rollo, pp. 40-41, 98.
18. Records, Vol. II, pp. 571-591.
19.Id. at 590-591.
20. See Rollo, pp. 41-42.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 39, 97.
23.Id. at 45.
24.Id. at 99.
25.Id. at 97-101.
26.Id. at 101.
27. Section 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not filed, barred; exceptions. — All claims for money against the decent, arising from contract, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expense for the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the decent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice; otherwise they are barred forever, except that they may be set forth as counterclaims in any action that the executor or administrator may bring against the claimants. Where an executor or administrator commences an action, or prosecutes an action already commenced by the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor may set forth by answer the claims he has against the decedent, instead of presenting them independently to the court as herein provided, and mutual claims may be set off against each other in such action; and if final judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant, the amount so determined shall be considered the true balance against the estate, as though the claim had been presented directly before the court in the administration proceedings. Claims not yet due, or contingent, may be approved at their present value.
28. There are minor discrepancies in the figures.
29.Rollo, pp. 99-101.
30.Id. at 99.
31.Id. at 47.
32.Id. at 39-52.
33.Id. at 52.
34.Id. at 48-50.
35.Id. at 26-35.
36.Id. at 22-24.
37.Id. at 12.
38.Id. at 13-15.
39.Id. at 102-109.
40.Id. at 15.
41. Records, Vol. II, pp. 571-591.
42.Rollo, pp. 15-16.
43. Denominated as "Comment-Opposition to 'Appeal by Certiorari,'" Id. at 133-146.
44.Id. at 140-143.
45. Denominated as "Reply to Comment," Id. at 153-160.
46.Fenix (CEZA) Int'l., Inc. v. Hon. Executive Secretary, 838 Phil. 344, 351 (2018).
47.Id.
48.Id., citing Degayo v. Magbanua-Dinglasan, 757 Phil. 376, 382 (2015).
49.Facura v. Court of Appeals, 658 Phil. 554 (2011).
50. G.R. No. 233767, August 27, 2020.
51.Id., citing Tala Realty Services Corp., Inc. v. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, 788 Phil. 19, 28-29 (2016).
52.Heirs of Elliot v. Corcuera, supra note 50, citing Sps. Rosario v. Alvar, 817 Phil. 994, 1005 (2017).
53. Records, Vol. II, pp. 571-591.
54.Id. at 572-573.
55.Id. at 575.
56.Id. at 577.
57.Rollo, p. 101.
58. Records, Vol. II, pp. 571-591.
59.Padua v. Heirs of De Guzman, G.R. No. 221521 (Notice), February 3, 2021.
60.Id.
61.Heirs of Cornelio Miguel v. Heirs of Angel Miguel, 730 Phil. 79, 95 (2014), citing Nabus v. Court of Appeals, 271 Phil. 768, 784 (1991).
62.Fenix (CEZA) Int'l., Inc. v. Hon. Executive Secretary, supra note 46.
63.Id.