10. That as one of the co-heirs of the undivided portion of the questioned lot 1138-A, [herein respondent] is legally entitled to redeem the said property from the [herein petitioners] for the price the said [petitioners] have paid her co-heirs as appearing in the Deed of Sale with Declaration of Heirship, Annex "B."4
1. Declaring the [herein respondent] as one of the legitimate children and legal heirs of the late Francisco Entierro and is legally entitled to inherit and share in Lot No. 1138-A of Himamaylan, which the latter had left behind upon his demise on March 7, 1979;
2. Declaring the annulment of the Deed of Sale with Declaration of Heirship, Annex "B", because [respondent] was unduly preterited therein, as one of the children and heirs of the late Francisco Entierro and consequently, the said document should be ordered cancelled insofar as [respondent's] legal share and participation over the said Lot 1138-A is concerned;
3. Ordering the [respondent] legally entitled to redeem from the [herein petitioners] the subject Lot 1138-A for the redemption price of P52,000.00 as one of the co-heirs and co-owners proindiviso of the said property at the time, the same was sold and conveyed in favor of the [petitioners] on May 15, 1985, as shown in Annex "B" hereof;
4. Ordering the [petitioners] to account to the [respondent] her share in the produce of the land in question with respect to her legal share on said property is concerned from May 15, 1985, up to the time, that [respondent's] legal share and participation therefrom, shall have been ordered delivered to her;
5. Ordering the [petitioners] to pay the [respondent] the sum of P50,000.00 by way of attorney's fee and to pay the costs of this suit;
6. [Respondent] further prays for such other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.5
The other heirs have no right to sell the share belonging to the [herein respondent]. Although this fact is known to the [herein petitioners], the [respondent's] share was included in the Deed of Sale by selling the entire Lot No. 1138-A. The [petitioners], knowing that [respondent] Sony Entierro Brar was preterited during the settlement and disposition of the subject Lot No. 1138-A, was in bad faith when he caused for the registration of the entire lot in his name. Knowing that there was a flaw in his title, an implied trust was created with respect to that of the share belonging to respondent Sony Entierro Brar.6
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises and considerations, the Court hereby renders judgment declaring the annulment of the Deed of Sale with Declaration of heirship dated May 15, 1985 adjudicating ownership of Lot No. 1138-A in the name of [herein respondent] Sony Entierro Brar being one of the legitimate heirs of spouses Francisco Entierro and Basilia Tabile one eleventh (1/11) share and ten eleventh (10/11) share in the name of [herein petitioner] Tobias Selga married to Ceferina Garancho and further orders the following:
1. For the relocation survey of Lot No. 1138-A to establish the definite location of the respective share of the parties, the expenses to be borne by them proportionately to their share;
2. The Register of Deeds of the Province of Negros Occidental is hereby directed to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-134408 and in lieu thereof issue a new transfer certificate of title in the name of Tobias Selga consisting of an area of Thirty[-]Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy[-]Eight (37,778) square meters and another new transfer certificate of title in the name of Sony Entierro Brar consisting of an area of One Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety[-]Nine (1,799) square meters upon submission of an approved subdivision plan;
3. For the [petitioners] to account to [respondent] her share in the produce of the land from May 15, 1985 up to the time that [respondent's] possession of her share of Lot No. 1138-A is restored to her; and, finally,
4. For the [petitioners] to pay [respondent] the sum of P50,000.00 as attorney's fee and to pay the costs of suit.7
Please be informed that your claim re redemption is devoid of complete merit.
It must be remembered that in your complaint, you pleaded redemption as one of your causes of action and even specifically sought the same as a prayer in your complaint. However, on the basis of the decision of the Regional Trial Court, dated May 8, 1996, the court did not see fit to grant you the right of redemption.
It is the considered view of the undersigned that in line with established jurisprudence, you cannot now or in the future, exercise this right.8
The primary issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the present action is barred by res judicata in view of the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 276 involving the same parties herein. Although the prior case was entitled annulment of sale with damages, yet, the averments in the complaint and the reliefs sought for included the legal redemption of Lot 1138-A, which is the subject of the present action, particularly paragraph 10 of the complaint and paragraph 3 of the prayer therein which were earlier quoted. The elements of res judicata are (1) the judgment bring 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 based on a judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action as between the prior and the subsequent actions. Clearly, these elements are present. It is an elementary rule that the nature of a cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause of action. There is, therefore, identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action between the two (2) cases.
Since the decision in Civil Case No. 276 was silent on the issue of legal redemption, it can be inferred therefrom that the court did not see it fit to grant the same. Plaintiff should have moved for the reconsideration thereof or should have appealed to the Court of Appeals raising this particular issue. It did not do so. Thus, the decision had become final and executory.
The filing of the present action constitutes forum shopping. "The filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment amounts to forum shopping. Only when the successive filing of the suits as part of an appeal, or a special civil action, will there be no forum shopping because the party no longer availed of different fora but, rather, through a review of a lower tribunal's decision or order." (Quinsay v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 127058, Aug. 31, 2000.)10
As a rule, co-heir/s or co-owner/s of undivided property are required to notify in writing the other co-heir/s or co-owner/s of the actual sale of the former's share in the co-ownership. And, within one (1) month or 30 days from the said notice, a co-heir or co-owner who wish to redeem such property must make a claim for the reconveyance of the same by either consignation in court or offer to repurchase by tendering the vendor payment of the redemption money.
A thorough perusal of the records as well as the documentary evidences presented by both parties reveal that no written notice was given by the heirs of Francisco Entierro to [herein respondent] regarding the sale of Lot No. 1138-A, because, [respondent] was preterited or omitted in the inheritance during the settlement and disposition of the subject lot. She was initially not considered nor included as heir of Francisco Entierro not until she was judicially declared one. However, despite the absence of a written notice, [respondent], in her complaint in Civil Case No. 276, impleaded therein her claim to redeem Lot No. 1138-A sold by her co-heirs to [herein petitioners]. Hence, by such act, [respondent] had effectively enforced her right.11
What had became final and conclusive in Civil Case No. 276 is only with respect to the filiation of [herein respondent] and [her] right to inherit, but not as to [respondent's] right to redeem the property sold by her co-heirs.
We disagree with the court a quo's holding which provides, to wit: "Since the decision in Civil Case No. 276 was silent on the issue of legal redemption, it can be inferred therefrom that the court did not see it fit to grant the same."
Right of legal redemption is a statutory right provided by law - as long as the redemptioner possesses all the essential requisites and comply with the requirements, such right need not be judicially declared in order for it to be enforced. The role of the court is only to ascertain whether the essential requisites and requirements are properly complied with. As the right of redemption is inherent to every co-heir or co-owner, denial of the said right must be explicitly and expressly provided and justified by the court and not by mere silence only. Silence of the decision in Civil Case No. 276 on the issue of [respondent's] right of redemption does not mean that the same was denied. Only the issues of filiation and the validity of the Deed of Sale with Declaration of Heirship were judicially determined by the lower court on the said case. Hence, in the instant case, this Court may rule upon the issue of redemption.12
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, Branch 56 dated July 27, 2001 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is hereby ENTERED by recognizing [herein respondent's] legal right to redeem Lot No. 1138-A of Himamaylan Cadastre, Negros Occidental from [herein petitioners].
[Respondent] is hereby given thirty (30) days from the finality of this Decision within which to exercise his right of redemption over Lot No. 1138-A by reimbursing [petitioners] the price of the sale in the amount of P120,000.00 plus the total value of the improvements, if any, on the subject lot based on the current fair market value.
Failure of [respondent] to redeem the property within the period herein provided shall vest [petitioners] absolute right over subject property.13
SEC. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. - The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:
x x x x
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; and
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.
(a) finality of the former judgment;
(b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
(c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and
(d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.18
Art. 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor.
x x x x
Art. 1620. A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners or of any of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable one.
Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the right of redemption, they may only do so in proportion to the share they may respectively have in the thing owned in common.
No other procedural law principle is indeed more settled than that once a judgment becomes final, it is no longer subject to change, revision, amendment or reversal, except only for correction of clerical errors, or the making of nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, or where the judgment itself is void. The underlying reason for the rule is two-fold: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus make orderly the discharge of judicial business, and (2) to put judicial controversies to an end, at the risk of occasional errors, inasmuch as controversies cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely and the rights and obligation of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time. As the Court declared in Yau v. Silverio:Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party be, not through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.
Indeed, just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case by the execution and satisfaction of the judgment. Any attempt to thwart this rigid rule and deny the prevailing litigant his right to savor the fruit of his victory must immediately be struck down. Thus, in Heirs of Wenceslao Samper v. Reciproco-Noble, we had occasion to emphasize the significance of this rule, to wit:It is an important fundamental principle in our Judicial system that every litigation must come to an end x x x Access to the courts is guaranteed. But there must be a limit thereto. Once a litigant's rights have been adjudicated in a valid final judgment of a competent court, he should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for another try. The prevailing party should not be harassed by subsequent suits. For, if endless litigations were to be encouraged, then unscrupulous litigants will multiply in number to the detriment of the administration of justice.24
Endnotes:
* Per Special Order No. 1080 dated September 13, 2011.
1 Rollo, pp. 22-30; penned by Associate Justice Arsenio J. Magpale with Associate Justices Vicente L. Yap and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring.
2 Id. at 31-32.
3 CA rollo, pp. 36-39.
4 Records, p. 28.
5 Id. at 28-29.
6 Id. at 13.
7 Id. at 13-14.
8 Id. at 69.
9 Id. at 20-25.
10 CA rollo, pp. 37-39.
11 Rollo, p. 26.
12 Id. at 28-29.
13 Id. at 29.
14 Pentacapital Investment Corp. v. Mahinay, G.R. No. 171736, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 284, 307.
15 La Campana Development Corp. v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 146157, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 137, 158-159.
16 Co v. People, G.R. No. 160265, July 13, 2009, 592 SCRA 381, 393.
17 Gamboa v. Court of Appeals, 194 Phil. 624, 642-643 (1981).
18 Del Rosario v. Far East Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 150134, October 31, 2007, 537 SCRA 571, 584.
19 Dayot v. Shell Chemical Company (Phils.), Inc., G.R. No. 156542, June 26, 2007, 525 SCRA 535, 546.
20 Rollo, pp. 55-57.
21 400 Phil. 542, 550 (2000).
22 425 Phil. 65, 83 (2002).
23 G.R. Nos. 165697 and 166481, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 149.
24 Id. at 159-160.