THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 184237, September 21, 2016
HENRY H. TENG, Petitioner, v. LAWRENCE C. TING, EDMUND TING AND ANTHONY TING, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
Assailed in this Petition for Review is the 2 May 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 100224. The appellate court had affirmed two Orders2 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 21 directing the exclusion of certain properties allegedly belonging to respondents.
Teng Ching Lay died intestate in 1989, leaving as heirs, her child from her first marriage, Arsenio Ting (Arsenio) and from the second marriage, petitioner Henry Teng and Anna Teng. Arsenio married Germana Chua and bore three (3) sons, respondents Lawrence, Edmund and Anthony Ting. Arsenio predeceased his father.
In the intestate proceedings for the settlement of Arsenio's estate in 1975, then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City approved the project of partition which included, among others, a residential property located at Dr. A. Vasquez Street in Malate, Manila (Malate property), which was adjudicated in favor of respondents.
The subject property became the subject of a case dispute in Hko Ah Pao v. Ting, later docketed as G.R. No. 153476.3 Petitioner claimed that said property is owned by Teng Ching Lay and the latter merely entrusted the same to Arsenio. Eventually, on 27 September 2006, this Court had ruled that Arsenio owned the subject property.
Meanwhile on 27 April 1992, petitioner filed a verified petition for the settlement of the estate of Teng Ching Lay with the RTC of Manila. Petitioner was appointed as administrator of the estate in 1999.
In a Manifestation4 dated 17 March 2005, petitioner submitted the Estate's Inventory as of 31 December 2004 and its Statement of Income and Expenses for the period 30 January 1989 to 31 December 2004.5 The inventory included the Malate property and other properties entrusted to Arsenio such as personal properties in the form of investments, cash and equipment, and other real properties in Butuan City.
Alleging that the properties belonging to Arsenio are included in the inventory, respondents filed their Motion for Exclusion of Properties owned by Arsenio Ting and his Heirs. These properties included the Malate properties and the properties were described as "Add: Other properties entrusted to Arsenio Ting."6 Petitioner opposed the exclusion arguing that these properties were held by Arsenio in trust for Teng Ching Lay because of the constitutional prohibition against Teng Ching Lay, an alien who cannot own lands in the Philippines. Respondents stressed that the properties of Arsenio being claimed for the estate of Teng Ching Lay were acquired by them through inheritance from their father Arsenio whose estate was judicially settled in 1975.
In an Order7 dated 12 Mach 2007, the trial court, through Judge Amor A. Reyes, granted the Motion for Exclusion. The dispositive portion of the Order reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Exclusion of Properties owned by Arsenio Ting is hereby GRANTED. The properties included in the inventory which as early as October 23, 1975 had already been partitioned among the heirs of Arsenio Ting entitled In the matter of the Intestate Estate of Arsenio O. Ting.8chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryThe trial court found that the following properties had already been the subject of a judicial partition in the intestate proceedings for Arsenio:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
1. Residential lot covered by TCT No. 134412 located at 1723 A. Vasquez St. Malate, Manila;The trial court based its finding on the following: 1) Order dated 23 October 1975 of the then CFI of Agusan Del Norte and Butuan City; 2) the Project of Partiion dated 1975; 3) the complete Inventory and appraisal of Real Properties of the Estate under Administration; and 4) other documents relative to the judicial settlement of Estate of Arsenio Ting that does not form part of the estate of Teng Ching Lay entitled "In the matter of Intestate Estate of Arsenio Ting Sp. Proc. No. 384."10chanrobleslaw
2. Residential lot located at Maug, Butuan City covered by T.D. NR-03041-0291 in favor of deceased Teng Ching Lay and Jacinto Chua consisting of 18,989 sq. m. (50%) (no TCT available). Tax Declaration only P474,675.00;
3. Industrial lot located at Maug, Butuan City, covered by T.D. No. NR-03-041-029 in favor of Teng Ching Lay and Jacinto Chua consisting of 26,826 sq. m. (50%) (no TCT available). Tax Declaration only P1,951,875.00; and cralawlawlibrary
4. And those properties included in the Inventory as of December 31, 2004 filed by the Administrator with the Statement "Add: other properties entrusted to Arsenio Ting."9chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby partially GRANTED. What remains the property of the estate are items 2 and 3 namely[:]Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.1) Residential lot located at Maug, Butuan City covered by T.D. NR-03041-0291 in favor of deceased Teng Ching Lay and Jacinto Chua consisting of 18,989 sq. m. (50%) (no TCT available). Tax Declaration only P474,675.00;Residential lot covered by TCT No. 134417 located at 1723 A. Vasquez St., Malate, Manila and the properly included in the Inventory of December 31, 2004 filed by the Administrator with statement; Add other properties entrusted to Arsenion Ting should be excluded in the estate.
2) Industrial lot located at Maug, Butuan City, covered by T.D. No. NR-03-041-029 in favor of Teng Ching Lay and Jacinto Chua consisting of 26,826 sq. m. (50%) (no TCT available). Tax Declaration only P1,951,875.00.
The petitioner's allegation that the properties entrusted to Arsenio Ting are advanced legitime, should be ventilated in another forum.12 (Emphasis supplied)
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:and the second is conclusiveness of judgment under Rule 39, Section 47(c), thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryx 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; x x x
(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.Pertinent to our case is the second concept, i.e. conclusiveness of judgment.
It bears stressing that in the case of Hko Ah Pao, Henry Teng and Anna Teng v. Laurence Ting, Anthony Ting and Edmund Ting with herein petitioner and private respondents as among the parties therein, involving the same property located at 1723 Vasquez St., Malate, Manila, then covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 63991 in the name of the late Arsenio, which was subsequently cancelled and in lieu thereof TCT No. 134412 was issued in the name of herein private respondents on 03 July 1979, the Supreme Court held that, "(t)he evidence on record supports the assailed findings and conclusions specifically with regard to the ownership of the property in question that is reflected in the Torrens title which was issued in the name of Arsenio pursuant to the deed of sale." x x x "Consequently, since petitioners failed to prove that Teng Ching Lay was the real owner of the property involved therein, their proposition that a constructive trust exists must likewise fail."19chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryIn the instant case, petitioner's assertion that the issue of advanced legitime should be ventilated in another forum touches upon the issue of ownership. To consider the disputed property as part of the legitime presupposes that the testator owns the property. Disingenuously, petitioner is seeking to revive the already settled issue of provisional ownership which has been settled in Hko Ah Pao. It is clear that there is identity of parties and subject matter in the two cases.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 26-42; Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Augustin S. Dizon concurring.
2 Id. at 74-76 and 83-84.
3 534 Phil. 679 (2006).
4Rollo, pp. 52-54.
5 Id. at 55-59.
6 Id. at 56-58.
7 Id. at 74-76.
8 Id. at 76.
9 Id. at 75.
10 Id. at 75-76.
11 Id. at 83-84.
12 Id. at 84.
13 Article 886 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
14Lachenal v. Salas, 163 Phil. 252, 257 (1976) citing Garcia v. Garcia, 67 Phil. 353, 357 (1939); Guinguing v. Abuton, 48 Phil. 144, 147-148 (1925); Junquera v. Borromeo, 125 Phil. 1059, 1071 (1967), Borromeo v. Canonoy, 125 Phil. 1089, 1092-1093 (1967), citing Junquera v. Borromeo, 125 Phil. 1059, 1071 (1967).
15Chu v. Cunanan, 673 Phil. 12, 22-23 (2011).
16Degayo v. Magbanua-Dinglasan, G.R. Nos. 173148, 6 April 2015, 755 SCRA 1, 12.
17 Id. at 12-13.
18Layos v. Fil-Estate Golf and Dev't., Inc., 583 Phil. 72, 106 (2008).
19Rollo, p. 39.