SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226195. November 7, 2016.]
ROBENITO C. BONAYON, petitioner, vs. ROLYN B. VILLEGAS AND ROBERLOU C. BONAYON, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 November 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226195 — Robenito C. Bonayon, petitioner vs. Rolyn B. Villegas and Roberlou C. Bonayon, respondents.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in affirming the Orders dated March 1, 2012 and May 14, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, Roxas City in Civil Case No. V-03-11. Said RTC-Branch 17 Orders dismissed the Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Deeds of Sale and Certificates of Title, Partition, and Damages filed by petitioner and Roberto Bonayon, Jr. (Roberto Jr.) against respondents and Spouses Thamarr and Russel Ilejay (Spouses Ilejay). As appropriately enumerated by the CA, jurisprudence mandates certain requirements that have to be met for res judicata in its aspect as a bar by prior judgment to apply, to wit:
[T]he elements of res judicata are: (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, subject matter, and causes of action. 1
Thus, the CA correctly affirmed the RTC-Branch 17's dismissal of Civil Case No. V-03-11 as regards Lots 8 and 177 due to res judicata in view of the final dismissal with prejudice by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Pontevedra, Capiz (MCTC) of the Complaint for Cancellation of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-36324 and T-37093 instituted by petitioner and Roberto Jr. against Spouses Ilejay and the Registrar of Deeds in Civil Case No. 471.
Petitioner cannot assail in Civil Case No. V-03-11 the MCTC's jurisdiction over the persons of Spouses Ilejay in Civil Case No. 471 and the consequences thereof. The October 20, 2009 Civil Case No. 471 Order was affirmed in the May 27, 2010 RTC-Branch 16 Decision and attained finality on June 21, 2010 since no appeal was filed. "It is a well-established rule that once a judgment has become final and executory, it is no longer susceptible to any modification." 2 In any event, "lack of jurisdiction over the person, being subject to waiver, is a personal defense which can only be asserted by the party who can thereby waive it by silence." 3
Petitioner cannot also insist that the requisite of identity of parties is absent in Civil Case No. V-03-11 since respondents were not impleaded in Civil Case 471. Consistent with the CA's ruling that res judicata may lie as long as there is a community of interest, it is well-entrenched that:
On the element of identity of parties, res judicata does not require absolute identity of parties as substantial identity is enough. Substantial identity of parties exists 'when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case, even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case.' Parties that represent the same interests in two petitions are, thus, considered substantial identity of parties for purposes of res judicata. Definitely, one test to determine substantial identity of interest would be to see whether the success or failure of one party materially affects the other. 4 TIADCc
With respect to the remaining Lot 143-pt, the CA likewise properly upheld the RTC-Branch 17's dismissal of Civil Case V-03-11 for lack of jurisdiction in the first instance under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, since the value of such property as stated in the Complaint therein is just P6,540.00. 5
Finally, it is settled that "in making [the] indictment that the trial court's Decision fails to express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, [parties] should not mistake brevity for levity." 6 Indeed, compliance with the requirements regarding the content and the manner of writing a decision prescribed in the Constitution and the Rules of Court is apparent from the ability of petitioner and Roberto Jr. to impute and assign errors to RTC-Branch 17 in their appeal before the CA. 7
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the October 28, 2015 Decision and June 21, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 05063.
SO ORDERED. (Mendoza, J., on leave)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Lee vs. Lui Man Chong, G.R. No. 209535, June 15, 2015.
2. Solidbank Union vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., 695 Phil. 66, 105 (2012).
3. Boston Equity Resources, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 711 Phil. 451, 467 (2013); citation omitted.
4. Pryce Corporation vs. China Banking Corporation, 727 Phil. 1, 12 (2014); citations omitted.
5. Spouses Trayvilla vs. Sejas, G.R. No. 204970, February 1, 2016.
6. Chung, Jr. vs. Mondragon, 699 Phil. 108, 117 (2012).
7. Halley vs. Printwell, Inc., 664 Phil. 361, 379 (2011).