Heirs of Carreon v. Umali

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 242055. April 10, 2019.]

HEIRS OF CONSUELO CARREON, NAMELY: ELIGIO C. UMALI (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY HIS FOUR (4) CHILDREN, MERILLE JOY, ERVIN JAY AND ELLER JOHN, ALL SURNAMED UMALI, APOLONIO C. UMALI, DAMIANA C. UMALI-CUADRA, MARCELINA C. UMALI-ESTIPULAR, CARIDAD UMALI-AÑASCO1AND FELIX C. UMALI, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT, CARIDAD C. UMALI-AÑASCO AND ROSALINDA B. UMALI, petitioners, vs.GAVINA L. UMALI, IRENE TOLENTINO, ANGELITA UMALI AND THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 April 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 242055 — Heirs of Consuelo Carreon, namely: Eligio C. Umali (deceased) represented by his four (4) children, Merille Joy, Ervin Jay and Eller John, all surnamed Umali, Apolonio C. Umali, Damiana C. Umali-Cuadra, Marcelina C. Umali-Estipular, Caridad Umali-Añasco and Felix C. Umali, represented by their attorneys-in-fact, Caridad C. Umali-Añasco and Rosalinda B. Umali versus Gavina L. Umali, Irene Tolentino, Angelita Umali and the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City

After reviewing the instant Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 2 dated January 10, 2018 and Resolution 3 dated September 18, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 108229, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for failure of petitioners Heirs of Consuelo Carreon (petitioners Heirs of Consuelo) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. ETHIDa

Res judicata provides that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies; and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand or cause of action. The following are the requisites of res judicata: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) the court that rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment on the merits; and (4) there is — between the first and the second actions — an identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action. 4

In the instant case, petitioners Heirs of Consuelo concede that the first three requisites of res judicata find application. Hence, it is undisputed that: the Specific Performance Case has been decided in the respondents' favor with finality; the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC), Branch 215 had jurisdiction to hear the Specific Performance Case; and the Specific Performance Case was adjudged on the merits of the case. As to the fourth requisite, while not questioning the identity of the parties and subject matters of the two cases, petitioners Heirs of Consuelo argue that there is no identity of cause of action. 5

Petitioners Heirs of Consuelo's position is erroneous.

The mere variation of nomenclature as regards the causes of action and reliefs prayed for in the Specific Performance Case and the previous Cancellation of Title Case does not discount the application of res judicata. The Court has previously held that the identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity. Otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought. The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action. 6

In the instant case, it is readily apparent that both the Specific Performance Case and the Cancellation of Title Case depend on a common, singular matter: the fact that the subject property was sold by Consuelo Carreon to respondents Gavina Umali, Irene Tolentino and Angelita Umali, as evidenced by the deeds of sale dated April 3, 1990. Therefore, as correctly held by both the RTC, Branch 90 and the CA, the Specific Performance Case and the Cancellation of Title Case are dependent on the same evidence and essential facts.

It is unmistakably clear that the very cause of action of the Cancellation of Title Case is to undo and reverse the already final and executory Decision of the RTC, Branch 215 in the Specific Performance Case. With the finality of the Specific Performance Case, this cannot be done. cSEDTC

SO ORDERED. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave)"

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Also spelled as "Anasco" in some parts of the rollo.

2.Rollo, pp. 30-40. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting concurring.

3.Id. at 42-44.

4.Bardillion v. Barangay Masili of Calamba, Laguna, 450 Phil. 521, 528-529 (2003).

5.Rollo, pp. 19-20.

6.Pilar Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 716 Phil. 519, 531 (2013).