G.R. No. 181369, June 22, 2016
TALA REALTY SERVICES CORP., INC., PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, REMEDIOS A. DUPASQUIER, DOLLY LIM, RUBENCITO M. DEL MUNDO AND ELIZABETH H. PALMA, Petitioners, v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS & MORTGAGE BANK, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
In G.R. No. 1883021 (2012) and the consolidated cases of G.R. Nos. 130088, 131469, 155171, 155201 and 1666082 (2009), we applied the rule of stare decisis to deny Banco Filipino's claims for reconveyance of various real properties based on a trust agreement that we previously declared void in G.R. No. 1375333 (2002). This case raises the question of whether Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank's (Banco Filipino) complaint for reconveyance in the proceedings below is likewise precluded by stare decisis and conclusiveness of judgment.
The Bank alleges that the sale and twenty-year lease of the disputed property were part of a larger implied trust "warehousing agreement." Concomitant with this Court's factual finding that the 20-year contract governs the relations between the parties, we find the Bank's allegation of circumstances surrounding its execution worthy of credence; the Bank and Tala entered into contracts of sale and lease back of the disputed property and created an implied trust "warehousing agreement" for the reconveyance of the property. In the eyes of the law, however, this implied trust is inexistent and void for being contrary to law.In both cases, we applied the time-honored principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere, which literally means "to adhere to precedents, and not to unsettle things which are established," to settle the issue of whether Banco Filipino can recover the properties subject of the void trust agreement. The rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to re-litigate the same issue where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court.33 Thus, the Court's ruling in G.R. No. 13753334 regarding the nullity of the trust agreement—the very same agreement which Banco Filipino seeks to enforce in the proceedings a quo—applies with full force to the present case. Consequently, Banco Filipino's action for reconveyance of the Sta. Cruz property based on the void trust agreement cannot prosper and must be dismissed for lack of cause of action.
x x x
An implied trust could not have been formed between the Bank and Tala as this Court has held that "where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty of the fraud." x x x
x x x [T]he Bank cannot use the defense of nor seek enforcement of its alleged implied trust with Tala since its purpose was contrary to law. As admitted by the Bank, it "warehoused" its branch site holdings to Tala to enable it to pursue its expansion program and purchase new branch sites including its main branch in Makati, and at the same time avoid the real property holdings limit under Sections 25(a) and 34 of the General Banking Act which it had already reached. x x x
Clearly, the Bank was well aware of the limitations on its real estate holdings under the General Banking Act and that its "warehousing agreement" with Tala was a scheme to circumvent the limitation. Thus, the Bank opted not to put the agreement in writing and call a spade a spade, but instead phrased its right to reconveyance of the subject property at any time as a "first preference to buy" at the "same transfer price." This arrangement which the Bank claims to be an implied trust is contrary to law. Thus, while we find the sale and lease of the subject property genuine and binding upon the parties, we cannot enforce the implied trust even assuming the parties intended to create it. In the words of the Court in the Ramos case, "the courts will not assist the payor in achieving his improper purpose by enforcing a resultant trust for him in accordance with the 'clean hands' doctrine." The Bank cannot thus demand reconveyance of the property based on its alleged implied trust relationship with Tala.
x x x
The Bank and Tala are in part delicto, thus, no affirmative relief should be given to one against the other. The Bank should not be allowed to dispute the sale of its lands to Tala nor should Tala be allowed to further collect rent from the Bank. The clean hands doctrine will not allow the creation or the use of a juridical relation such as a trust to subvert, directly or indirectly, the law. Neither the Bank nor Tala came to court with clean hands; neither will obtain relief from the court as one who seeks equity and justice must come to court with clean hands.32 (Citations omitted; emphases supplied.)
x x x It will not do to decide the same question one way between one set of litigants and the opposite way between another. "If a group of cases involves the same point, the parties expect the same decision. It would be a gross injustice to decide alternate cases on opposite principles. If a case was decided against me yesterday when I was defendant, I shall look for the same judgment today if I am plaintiff. To decide differently would raise a feeling of resentment and wrong in my breast; it would be an infringement, material and moral, of my rights." x x x Adherence to precedent must then be the rule rather than the exception if litigants are to have faith in the even-handed administration of justice in the courts.38 (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 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:Conclusiveness of judgment is a species of res judicata and it applies where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but there is no identity of causes of action.40 Any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein, and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same.41 Thus, if a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties or their privies will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit. Identity of cause of action is not required but merely identity of issue.42chanrobleslaw
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. (Emphasis supplied.)
1Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, June 27, 2012, 675 SCRA 339.
2Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Court of Appeals, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 63.
3Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, November 22, 2002, 392 SCRA 506.
4Rollo, pp. 100-115.
5Id. at 20-22.
6Id. at 105-109.
7Id. at 104-105. See Republic Act No. 337, Sections 25 (a) and 34 (now Section 51 of R.A. No. 8791 or the General Banking Law of 2000).
8Id. at 109.
9Id. at 401-416.
10Id. at 417.
11Id. at 461-463.
12Supra note 3.
13Rollo, pp. 461-463.
14Id. at 72-83. Penned by J. Guevara-Salonga, with whom Roxas and Garcia JJ. concurred.
15Id. at 81-82.
16Id. at 82-83.
18Supra note 2.
19Supra note 1.
20Rollo, pp. 567-601.
21Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, Resolution, November 22, 2000, cited in Ty v. Banco Filipino & Mortgage Bank, Resolution, G.R. No. 144705, June 5, 2006.
22Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, Resolution November 19, 2001.
23Ty v. Banco Filipino & Mortgage Bank, Resolution, G.R. No. 144705, June 5, 2006.
24Tala Realty Services Corporation v. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, Resolution, June 8, 2005 cited in Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, supra.
25cralawred Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, November 15, 2005, 475 SCRA 65.
26Supra note 3.
27Supra note 1.
28Supra note 2.
29Supra note 1.
30Supra note 2.
31Supra note 3.
32Supra note 3 at 533-540.
33Chinese Young Men's Christian Association of the Philippine Islands v. Remington Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 159422, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 180, 197-198; Pepsi Cola Products (Phils.), Inc. v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 150394, June 26, 2007, 525 SCRA 527, 534.
34Supra note 3.
35Supra note 3.
36Supra note 1.
37Supra note 2.
38 Cardozo, B. N., THE NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, pp. 33-34.
39Tan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142401, August 20, 2001, 363 SCRA 444, 450.
40Social Security Commission v. Rizal Poultry and Livestock Association, Inc., G.R. No. 167050, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 50, 57.
41Layos v. Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc., G.R. No. 150470, August 6, 2008, 561 SCRA 75, 105-106 citing Oropeza Marketing Corporation v. Allied Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 129788, December 3, 2002, 393 SCRA 278, 287.
42Layos v. Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc., supra at 104 citing Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, G.R. Nos. 76265 & 83280, March 11, 1994, 231 SCRA 88.
43Tan v. Court of Appeals, supra.
44Supra note 21.
45Supra note 22.
46Supra note 23.
47Supra note 24.
48Supra note 25.
49 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 missed 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.
50Layos v. Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc., supra at 105.