FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238427. July 11, 2018.]
HEIRS OF SPOUSES FELICIANO UY LIM, NAMELY: SHIRLEY GO LIM, JOCELYN LIM OQUIAS, EDWIN LIM, JOEL LIM AND CHRISTOPHER LIM, petitioners, vs. COMMUNAL HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, INC., MANUEL MORALDE AND RICHARD E. UNCHUAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 11, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238427 — Heirs of Spouses Feliciano Uy Lim, namely: Shirley Go Lim, Jocelyn Lim Oquias, Edwin Lim, Joel Lim and Christopher Lim vs. Communal Housing and Development Council, Inc., Manuel Moralde and Richard E. Unchuan
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on April 4, 2018 within which to file their Petition for Review on Certiorari.
After a judicious review of petitioners' allegations and in accordance with Rule 45 and other related provisions of the Rules of Court, the Court further resolves to DENY the present Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioners to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA) in rendering the assailed Decision 1 and Resolution dated June 16, 2017 and March 8, 2018, respectively, in CA G.R. CV No. 05410. HTcADC
In the present Rule 45 Petition, petitioners raise, on the main, a question of law, i.e., whether Civil Case No. R-LLP-13-06795-CV filed by respondent Communal Housing and Development Council, Inc. (CHDCI) against Spouses Feliciano Uy Lim (Spouses Lim), 2 respondent Manuel Moralde (Moralde) and respondent Richard E. Unchuan (Unchuan) is barred by an already pending case, i.e., Civil Case No. 4158-L filed by Moralde against Spouses Lim.
Litis pendentia literally means "a pending suit"; and, as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, it refers to a situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious. "Further, the identity should be such that any judgment that may be rendered in one case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other." 3
The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and the relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.
Guided by the foregoing, the Court agrees with the judgment of the CA that none of the requisites of litis pendentia are herein present, viz.:
First, there is no identity of parties. [CHDCI] and [Unchuan] x x x are total strangers to Civil Case No. 4158-L. Only [Moralde] is the party common to both cases, but in different capacities, i.e., plaintiff in Civil Case No. 4158-L and defendant in [Civil Case No. R-LLP-13-06795-CV]. CAIHTE
Second, there is no identity of all the rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. While it may be true that there is a common relief prayed for by [CHDCI] and [Moralde], i.e., the declaration of nullity of the Absolute Deed of Sale dated March 21, 1979 x x x, there are two (2) other distinct reliefs prayed for by CHDCI which are inconsistent with [Moralde's] position, namely: 1) the declaration of nullity of the Deed of Assignment dated 14 April 2010 executed by [Moralde] in favor of [Unchuan]; and 2) the reimbursement by [Moralde] of the total purchase price x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
Although both cases were based on the same set of facts, the pieces of evidence that have to be presented in Civil Case No. 4158-L are different from those for Civil Case No. R-LLP-13-06795-CV.
Finally, the identity of the two cases is not such that the judgment in Civil Case No. 4158-L, regardless of which party is successful, will amount to res judicata in Civil Case No. R-LLP-13-06795-CV. The judgment in Civil Case No. 4158-L will only dispose of the validity of the purported sale between [Moralde] and Spouses Lim. The Trial Court cannot similarly rule on the validity of the Deed of Assignment x x x; or the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by [CHDCI] and [Moraldes].
The Court finds the aforesaid conclusions of the CA to be well taken and in accord with established jurisprudence. Thus, there is no cogent reason to disturb the same, much less reverse it.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed Decision and Resolution dated June 16, 2017 and March 8, 2018, respectively, in CA G.R. CV No. 05410.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018. aScITE
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Pablito A. Perez.
2. Deceased; represented by their heirs, petitioners herein.
3.Dotmatrix Trading, et al. v. Rommel B. Legaspi, etc., 619 Phil. 421, 427 (2009).