Heirs of Campo-Tauyan v. Heirs of Miramon

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 244333. January 20, 2020.]

THE HEIRS OF GENEROSA CAMPO-TAUYAN, AS REPRESENTED BY CLARITA TAUYAN-CARTAGENA AND DANTE CAMPO-TAUYAN, petitioners, vs.THE HEIRS OF PEDRO MIRAMON, NAMELY: EMILIA MIRAMON, JOSEFINA PICHAY-EVILLA, CONCEPCION PICHAY-GOROSPE, DOMINADOR MIRAMON-PICHAY AND EDILBERTO MIRAMON-PICHAY, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 20, 2020which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 244333 — THE HEIRS OF GENEROSA CAMPO-TAUYAN, AS REPRESENTED BY CLARITA TAUYAN-CARTAGENA AND DANTE CAMPO-TAUYAN, petitioners,versus THE HEIRS OF PEDRO MIRAMON, NAMELY: EMILIA MIRAMON, JOSEFINA PICHAY-EVILLA, CONCEPCION PICHAY-GOROSPE, DOMINADOR MIRAMON-PICHAY AND EDILBERTO MIRAMON-PICHAY, respondents.

The doctrine of res judicata comprehends two distinct concepts: (1) bar by former judgment; and (2) conclusiveness of judgment. There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as "conclusiveness of judgment." 1 Here, the Court of Appeals (CA) correctly applied the principle of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment. There is identity of parties and issues.

There is identity of parties where the parties in both actions are the same, or there is privity between them, or they are successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity. Privity exists between a decedent and his heir, next of kin, devisee, or legatee, and a judgment for or against a decedent prior to his death will conclude such persons as to all matters in issue in the case and determined by the judgment. 2

In this case, there is privity between the Heirs of Generosa and the Heirs of Fernando. Notably, Generosa is the successor-in-interest of Fernando. Given that the Heirs of Fernando actively participated during trial in Civil Case No. II-2971, the final determination on the question of ownership over the disputed property in favor of the Heirs of Pedro is binding to the Heirs of Generosa, whose title merely emanates from the title of Fernando. Needless to say, there is also identity of issue because both Heirs of Generosa and Heirs of Fernando asserted their right of ownership over the disputed property, which was involved and already resolved in the judgment in Civil Case No. II-2971 3 in favor of the Heirs of Pedro which was affirmed in CA-G.R. CV No. 91689 4 that became final and executory. On this point, it bears emphasis that the principle of res judicata forecloses parties or privies in one case by what has been done in another case. Otherwise, there would be endless litigation.

FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Sps. Ocampo v. Heirs of Bernardino U. Dionisio, 744 Phil. 716, 726 (2014).

2. Diaz, Jr. v. Valenciano, Jr., G.R. No. 209376, December 6, 2017, 848 SCRA 85, 99.

3. Rollo, p. 42.

4. Id. at 44-58.