FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 204041. October 6, 2021.]
ROBERTO T. VILLANUEVA, INC., petitioner,vs.PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, GREENFIELDS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF METRO MANILA, DISTRICT IV, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 204041 (Roberto T. Villanueva, Inc. v. Philippine Bank of Communications, Greenfields Holdings Corporation, and the Register of Deeds of Metro Manila, District IV). — On May 17, 1977, Roberto T. Villanueva, Inc. (RTVI) executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage in favor of Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCOM) over a 1,983-square meter parcel of land situated in Forbes Park, Makati City and registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. S-48859. In 1989, the parties amended the mortgage contract to cover additional credit accommodations. However, RTVI failed to pay its loan obligations despite demand. This prompted PBCOM to apply for extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage. 1 At the public auction sale, Greenfields Holdings Corporation (GHC) emerged as the highest bidder. On June 11, 2003, GHC was issued a Certificate of Sale. Later, GHC caused the cancellation of TCT No. S-48859 and the registration of the property in its name under TCT No. 219204. On August 29, 2003, GHC filed an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 57 (RTC), docketed as LRC Case No. M-4441. On September 23, 2003, the RTC granted the petition, 2 to wit:
WHEREFORE, let a writ of possession issue in favor of petitioner Greenfields Holdings, Inc. commanding the Sheriff designated by this Court to install petitioner in actual possession of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 219204 located in Makati City together with all improvements existing thereon and to eject said respondent, borrowers and all persons presently staying therein and claiming rights under them.
SO ORDERED. 3
Aggrieved, RTVI filed a motion for reconsideration. In response, GHC moved to expunge the motion and argued that it had become the owner of the property. On November 18, 2003, the RTC denied RTVI's motion for reconsideration. 4 Dissatisfied, RTVI elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) through a petition for certiorari docketed as CA G.R. No. 81490. 5 RTVI averred that the writ of possession was void since the notices relating to the foreclosure were sent to its old address; the notices were not posted at the stipulated place; the foreclosure sale was conducted in Makati City instead of Pasig City; and it was deprived of its right of redemption. On March 22, 2005, the CA dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 81490, 6 absent showing that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion. Moreover, the CA explained that the writ of possession was issued after the conduct of a valid and regular foreclosure proceedings, thus:
It is settled that in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, personal notice to the mortgagor is not necessary as publication of notice in newspaper is more than sufficient compliance. The principal object of a notice of sale in a foreclosure of mortgage is not so much to notify the mortgagor as to inform the public generally of the nature and condition of the property to be sold, and of the time, place and terms of the sale. Hence, the notices that were sent by the Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff to petitioner's former address at 3/F SGV Building, Ayala Ave., Makati City instead of the address stated in the five Promissory Notes which is at Rm. 302, 3/F Narra Bldg., 2276 Pasong Tamo Ext., Makati City did not invalidate the foreclosure sale.
As regards the posting of notices and the holding of the foreclosure sale in Makati instead of "Pasig, Rizal," it bears noting that Pasig is no longer part of Rizal having been transformed into a city on December 8, 1994 by virtue of RA 7829. As the subject properly lies in Forbes Park, Makati City (once also part of Pasig), it was only proper as well as convenient to conduct the sale in Makati City.
xxx xxx xxx
Petitioner argues that it had one year from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale to redeem the property. This argument is untenable being contrary to Section 47 of RA 8791 which provides:
Section 47. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage. —
xxx xxx xxx
Notwithstanding Act 3135, juridical persons whose property is being sold pursuant to an extrajudicial foreclosure, shall have the right to redeem the property in accordance with this provision until, but not after, the registration of the certificate of the foreclosure sale with the applicable Register of Deeds which in no case shall be more than three (3) months after foreclosure, whichever is earlier. Owners of property that has been sold in a foreclosure sale prior to the effectivity of this Act shall retain their redemption rights until their expiration.
Pursuant thereto, petitioner corporation lost its right of redemption upon the registration of the Certificate of Sale with the Register of Deeds of Makati City on June 12, 2003. Finally, petitioner cannot claim that it was deprived of its right of redemption as redemption is inconsistent with the claim of invalidity of the sale. Redemption is an implied admission of the regularity of the sale and estops the petitioner from later impugning its validity on that ground.
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition is DISMISSED and the assailed Orders dated September 23, 2003 and November 18, 2003 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 7 (Citations omitted.)
Undaunted, RTVI filed a Petition for Review on certiorari to this Court docketed as G.R. No. 171798. 8 In a Resolution dated June 28, 2006, the Court denied the petition for lack of merit. RTVI sought reconsideration. 9 On September 6, 2006, the Court denied RTVI's motion with finality. Meanwhile, RTVI filed a Complaint 10 against PBCOM, GHC and the Register of Deeds of Makati to annul the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings before the RTC of Makati City Branch 147 docketed as Civil Case No. 03-1282. RTVI maintained that irregularities in the notices, posting, and publication requirements crept the foreclosure proceedings. On the other hand, PBCOM moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata considering that the validity of the foreclosure proceedings was already decided in CA-G.R. SP No. 81490 which the Supreme Court affirmed with finality. 11 On February 16, 2007, the RTC dismissed the complaint, 12 thus:
The CA found no merit in the Petition and affirmed the assailed Orders of the RTC. That Decision of the RTC became final after the denial with finality by the SC of the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of the SC denying the Petition for Review on [Certiorari] of the said CA's Decision. The CA's Decision was an adjudication on the merits as it was arrived at after a consideration of the documents on record and the evidence presented before the trial court.
Notably, the aforesaid issues raised and resolved in the CA Decision are the very issues now raised in the instant action for annulment of the same extra-judicial foreclosure that led to the issuance of a writ of possession, the propriety or legality of which was upheld by the CA.
A final judgment on the merits is conclusive as to the matter put in issue and accordingly determined by the Court, when they are raised again in a subsequent litigation between the same parties even though it is irregular or erroneous. Hence, whether the CA's Decision is right or wrong, is of no importance herein. As long as the judgment in that case had become final, the issues that were litigated therein cannot be re-opened by the parties in the subsequent action x x x.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Dismiss is granted and this case is accordingly ordered DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. 13
Undeterred, RTVI appealed to the CA docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 89315. On May 11, 2012, the CA denied the appeal 14 and held that there exists res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment. The issues resolved in CA-G.R. SP No. 81490 were the very same matters raised in the action to annul the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings in Civil Case No. 03-1282, thus:
Further, it has been held that in order that a judgment in one action can be conclusive as to a particular matter in another action between the same parties and their privies, it is essential that the issues be identical. As aptly ruled by the court a quo, the issues raised and resolved in CA G.R. SP No. 81490 were the very same issues raised in the action for annulment of extrajudicial foreclosure in Civil Case No. 03-1282. These issues which ultimately pertained to the legality of the foreclosure proceedings were, in fact, finally laid to rest by the Supreme Court in its Resolution dated September 6, 2006.
We must remember that the doctrine of res judicata is a rule which pervades every well-regulated system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of the common law, namely: (1) public policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation — republicae ul sit litium, and (2) the hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same cause — nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa. Hence, matters settled by the Court's final judgment should not be litigated upon or invoked again. Relitigation of issues already settled merely burdens the Courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion, and wastes valuable time and energy that could be devoted to worthier cases.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. Consequently, the assailed decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.15 (Citations omitted.)
RTVI sought reconsideration but was denied. 16
Hence, this recourse. RTVI insists that there is no res judicata since the parties in Civil Case No. 03-1282 and CA-G.R. SP No. 81490 are different. Specifically, PBCOM was not impleaded in CA-G.R. SP No. 81490. Also, the causes of action are distinct because Civil Case No. 03-1282 is a complaint for annulment of foreclosure proceedings, while CA-G.R. SP No. 81490 is a special civil action for certiorari assailing the RTC's issuance of the writ of possession. On the other hand, PBCOM maintains that it was RTVI which raised in CA-G.R. SP No. 81490 the alleged irregularities in the foreclosure proceedings. As such, RTVI cannot now refute the final ruling on this matter. Moreover, there is substantial identity of parties since PBCOM and GHC share identical interests. 17
The petition is unmeritorious.
Res judicata rests on the fundamental principle that parties must not be permitted to litigate the same issues more than once. 18 This is dictated by the public policy that there should be an end to litigation by the same parties over a matter adjudged. 19 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. In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action. On the other hand, "conclusiveness of judgment" finds application when there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, and a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The fact or question settled by final judgment or order binds the parties to that action, and continues to bind them while the judgment or order, remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a timely motion or petition; the conclusively-settled fact or question cannot again be litigated in any future or other action between the same parties or their privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of action. 20 In this case, all the requisites of res judicata under the concept of "conclusiveness of judgment" are present. There is substantial 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." 21 Differently stated, the requirement is substantial, not absolute, identity of parties. There is substantial identity of parties when there is community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case, albeit, the latter may not have been impleaded in the first case. 22 Here, there is privity between PBCOM and GHC because of their shared interest over the real property and the validity of the foreclosure proceedings. In Civil Case No. 03-1282 and CA-G.R. SP No. 81490, RTVI sought to nullify the foreclosure proceedings which would adversely affect both PBCOM and GHC. As the CA aptly observed, the identity of interest between PBCOM and GHC satisfied the requisite of substantial identity of parties. The application of the principle of res judicata may not be evaded by the mere expedient of including or eliminating a party to either the first or second action. 23
There is also identity of issues. Admittedly, the cause of action in Civil Case No. 03-1282 may be different from CA-G.R. SP No. 81490. Nevertheless, the questions concerning the regularity of the foreclosure proceedings, which is the very issue in Civil Case No. 03-1282, were already judicially passed upon in CA-G.R. SP No. 81490. To be sure, in CA-G.R. SP No. 81490, the CA gave a full discussion on the legality of the foreclosure proceedings in deciding that the RTC Branch 57 did not commit grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the writ of possession. The CA threshed out the issues that RTVI raised in Civil Case No. 03-1282 regarding the alleged irregularities in the notices, posting, and publication requirements. In fact, the Supreme Court even affirmed the CA's findings which ultimately pertained to the legality of the foreclosure proceedings. Corollarily, the RTC and the CA did not err in dismissing RTVI's complaint in Civil Case No. 03-1282, which was grounded upon the regularity and validity of the foreclosure proceedings. At any rate, the RTC in Civil Case No. 03-1282 cannot render a judgment contrary to the findings in CA-G.R. SP No. 81490 which the Supreme Court affirmed with finality. On this point, the Court reiterates 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 is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated May 11, 2012 in CA-G.R. CV No. 89315 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 12.
2. Id. at 13.
3. Id. at 172.
4. Id. at 138-140.
5. Id. at 147-167.
6. Id. at 171-184. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Portia Alino-Hormachuelos, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Vicente Q. Roxas.
7. Id. at 179-183.
8. Id. at 188-230.
9. Id. at 237-258.
10. Id. at 141-146.
11. Id. at 41-42.
12. Id. at 52-55.
13. Id. at 53-54.
14. Id. at 37-48. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Brusales, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Manuel M. Barrios.
15. Id. at 47-48.
16. Id. at 50-51.
17. Id. at 108-109.
18. Kao v. CA, 217 Phil. 289, 293 (1984); and Sarabia Leido v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 111 Phil. 1081, 1086-1087 (1961).
19. Fernandez v. Sebido, 70 Phil. 151, 154-155 (1940).
20. Degayo v. Magbanua-Dinglasan, 757 Phil. 376, 384-386 (2015).
21. Diaz v. Valenciano, 822 Phil. 291, 307-308 (2017).
22. SSS v. Rizal Poultry & Livestock Ass'n., Inc., 665 Phil. 198, 207 (2011). See also Cruz v. Court of Appeals, (Second Division), 517 Phil. 572, 584 (2006).
23. Rollo, p. 46.