FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 230687, December 05, 2018
ERLINDA S. IGOT, Petitioner, v. PIO VALENZONA, FRANCISCO VALENZONA NUÑEZ, KATHERINE* VALENZONA RAMIREZ, ALL REPRESENTED BY ARTURO VALENZONA THROUGH POWERS OF ATTORNEY, AND SPS. ARTURO AND AIDA VALENZONA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TIJAM, J.:
For resolution by the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision1 dated November 2, 2016 and Resolution2 dated February 16, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 08483 which reversed the Decision3 dated January 29, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palompon, Leyte in Civil Case No. R-PAL-13-0017-AC and reinstated the Decision4 dated October 22, 2012 of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). The MTC in the said Decision ordered the cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 02-31007-00107 in the name of Erlinda S. Igot (petitioner) and declared the Valenzonas (respondents) as the owners pro-indiviso of four-fifths (4/5) of Cadastral Lot No. 286, located at Taft Street, Ipil II, Poblacion, Palompon, Leyte, and petitioner as owner pro-indiviso of one-fifth (1/5) of the same.
North : Cannelino Delgado - 289; 287Spouses Valenzona's children were: (1) Esperanza Valenzona (deceased), represented by Francisco Valenzona, (2) Purificacion Valenzona Ramirez (deceased), represented by Katherine Valenzona Ramirez, (3) Pio Valenzona, (4) Agapito Valenzona (deceased), and (5) Rodulfo Valenzona (deceased), represented by Arturo Valenzona (collectively referred to as respondents).7
East : Leon Ginco - 325; 326
South : Anastacio London - 285
West : Taft St.6
Julian Valenzona was considered to have claimed the property in the concept of an owner, adverse, and notorious as against Elena Santome in 1974 when he caused, through his son, Agapito, the tax declaration of the property to be transferred in his name. The period of prescription should start from this year and should reach thirty years for the defendant to acquire the property as their possession of the property was not in good faith or supported by a just title.The dispositive portion of the Decision in Civil Case No. 418 dated February 29, 2000 reads:
The case was filed in October, 1998. The defendant has been in possession of the property for no more than twenty-four years in the concept of an owner as against Elena Santome or six years short of the period prescribed by law on acquisitive prescription.
Defendant Agapito cannot invoke good faith as successor-in-interest of Julian as it was he who principally caused the transfer of the tax declaration of the property to the name of his father without any document considered legal to convey real property.
x x x x11
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered in the following manner:The ruling of the MTC in Civil Case No. 418 was affirmed by the RTC and became final when Agapito failed to file an appeal therefrom.13
1. DECLARING the plaintiff to be the legal owner of the real property in question;
2. ORDERING the defendant to vacate the land in question and to turn over the possession thereof to the plaintiff;
3. ORDERING the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P10,000.00 as moral damages, P10,000.00 as attorney's fees, and to pay the costs of the proceedings.
SO ORDERED.12
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered in the following manner:Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (MR) was denied in an Order23 dated March 22, 2013.
1. ANNULING Tax Declaration No. 02-31007-00107 in the name of Erlinda Santome-Igot; and
2. DECLARING the plaintiffs as the owners pro-indiviso of four-fifths (4/5) of the land in question and the defendant Erlinda Santome-Igot as owner pro-indiviso of one-fifth (1/5) of the land in question.
No award of damages and costs.
SO ORDERED.22
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds merit on the appeal and the same is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the questioned Decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is rendered as follows:Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC in its Order dated May 12, 2014.27 Aggrieved, they elevated the case to the CA on appeal.
1. Declaring herein defendants-appellants Elena Santome, Erlinda Santome-Igot and their successors-in-interest as the LAWFUL OWNERS of the ENTIRE residential lot under Cadastral Lot No. 286 located at Taft Street, Ipil II, Poblacion, Palompon, Leyte which is the subject of this case;
2. Ordering herein plaintiffs-appellants spouses Arturo and Aida Valenzona to vacate the land in question;
3. Ordering herein plaintiffs-appellants spouses Arturo and Aida Valenzona to remove their house and other improvements thereon;
4. Ordering herein plaintiffs-appellants spouses Arturo and Aida Valenzona to pay herein defendants-appellants Elena Santome and Erlinda Santome-Igot rent at P800 per month from February 2003 until they vacate the premises;
5. Ordering herein plaintiffs-appellees to pay herein defendants-appellants attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000; and
6. Ordering herein plaintiffs-appellees to pay herein defendant-appellants the cost of the litigation.
SO ORDERED.26
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 29, 2014 of Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Palompon, Leyte in Appealed Civil Case No. R-PAL-13-0017-AC is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The 22 October 2012 Decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Palompon, Leyte in Civil Case No. 474 is REINSTATED.Petitioner's MR was denied by the CA m a Resolution29 dated February 16, 2017.
SO ORDERED.28
ISSUES I
WHETHER OR NOT THE FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN 1974, FROM GORGONIO SANTOME TO JULIAN VALENZONA, MADE BY JULIAN'S SON, AGAPITO VALENZONA, WOULD BENEFIT THE OTHER HEIRS OF JULIAN;II
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS IN CONCEPT OF AN OWNER;III
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS ARE REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST;IV
WHETHER OR NOT ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION OPERATES IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS;V
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER'S ACTION TO RECOVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION; ANDVI
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS GUILTY OF LACHES.Assignment of Errors I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, GRAVELY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT IT WAS JULIAN VALENZONA WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FRAUDULENT TRANSFER IN 1974, WHEN AT THAT TIME, JULIAN WAS ALREADY DEAD. IT WAS HIS SON, AGAPITO, WHO DID THE FRAUDULENT TRANSFER.II
THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT HEREIN RESPONDENT'S OCCUPATION AND POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS OPEN, ADVERSE, AND CONTINUOUS; AND THAT IT WAS IN THE CONCEPT OF AN OWNER;III
THE HONORABLE COURT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, ERRED IN DECLARING THAT HEREIN RESPONDENTS ARE REAL-PARTIES-IN-INTEREST IN CIVIL CASE NO. 418; AND THAT NOT BEING IMPLEADED THEREIN, THE DECISION, THOUGH FINAL AND EXECUTORY, DOES NOT BIND THEM;IV
IN RULING THAT ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION OPERATES IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENTS;V
IN DECLARING THAT HEREIN PETITIONER'S ACTION TO RECOVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION; THAT THEY ARE LIKEWISE GUILTY OF LACHES.30
True, the appealing party is legally required to indicate in his brief an assignment of errors, and only those assigned shall be considered by the appellate court in deciding the case. However, equally settled in jurisprudence is the exception to this general rule.We find that the CA could have properly discussed whether res judicata applies in the present case even though it was not explicitly raised in the respondents' assignment of errors. The same falls under the exception, as it is a matter not specifically assigned but raised in the trial court and is a matter of record, having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored. This is bolstered by the fact that the CA, in its recital of the factual antecedents of this case, took note of petitioner's contention that the decision in Civil Case No. 418 already put to rest the issue of ownership over the subject property.35 On the other hand, We also find that the issue of whether Civil Case No. 418 constitutes res judicata to the case at bar is a matter which is closely related to one of the assigned errors within the contemplation of Sec. 8, Rule 51 insofar as the present petition before this Court is concerned.
x x x x
Guided by the foregoing precepts, we have ruled in a number of cases that the appellate court is accorded a broad discretionary power to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not assigned. It is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they are not assigned as errors in the appeal. Inasmuch as the Court of Appeals may consider grounds other than those touched upon in the decision of the trial court and uphold the same on the basis of such other grounds, the Court of Appeals may, with no less authority, reverse the decision of the trial court on the basis of grounds other than those raised as errors on appeal. We have applied this rule, as a matter of exception, in the following instances:
(1) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(2) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within contemplation of law;
(3) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice;
(4) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored;
(5) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and
(6) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned, is dependent.34 (Citations omitted)
Res judicata embraces two concepts: (I) bar by prior judgment as enunciated in Rule 39, Section 47(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) conclusiveness of judgment in Rule 39, Section 47(c).It is not disputed that the decision in Civil Case No. 418 had already attained finality. Neither is the jurisdiction of the MTC of Palompon, Leyte over Civil Case No. 418 disputed, as it involved a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession of real property the assessed value of which does not exceed P20,000.00.38 It is also not disputed that both the present case and Civil Case No. 418 involved the same subject matter, which is the subject property.
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.
But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as conclusiveness of judgment. Stated differently, 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 t11erein 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.
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.
The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment 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 a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Should identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action be shown in the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect as a bar by prior judgment would apply. If as between the two cases, only identity of parties can be shown, but not identical causes of action, then res judicata as conclusiveness of judgment applies.37 (Citations omitted)
We also concur with the lower courts view that there is identity of parties in Civil Case No. 1800 I Civil Case No. K-111 and in the present case, Civil Case No. 3670. For purposes of res judicata, we have held that only substantial identity of parties is required and not absolute identity. 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 even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case. In other words, privity or a shared identity of interest is sufficient to invoke application of the principle of res judicata.In sum, the present action should have been dismissed by the MTC on the basis of res judicata. It should not have ruled that res judicata did not apply for the expedient reason that the respondents were not impleaded as parties in Civil Case No. 418, when case law does not even require absolute identity of parties but only substantial identity. On the other hand, the CA regrettably was silent on this point despite the fact that it had ample authority to consider whether res judicata applied even though it was not raised on appeal, considering that the decision in Civil Case No. 418 played a significant role in the rendition of its ruling.
In the present case, petitioners are suing for the title of the same lot and in the same capacity as did their brother Isaac Sendon in Civil Case No. 1800. Although strictly speaking, the petitioners here were not made parties to the prior case, Civil Case No. 1800, their alleged ownership of Lot No. 1113 is also predicated upon their perceived right as heirs of Segundina Nape married to Catalino Sendon. Their claim to ownership of Lot No. 1113 had been laid to rest in Civil Case No. K-111. Since the rights asserted by petitioners in this case are founded upon the same interests which Isaac Sendon and their predecessor had failed to vindicate in the previous cases, Civil Case No. 1800 and Civil Case No. K-111, the present petitioners are legally bound by the prior judgments. They should not be allowed in Civil Case No. 3670 to re-litigate the very same issues already passed upon and decided in the aforecited cases.46 (Citations omitted)
Now, nothing is more settled in the law than that when a final judgment becomes executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the Court rendering it or by the highest Court of the land. The only recognized exceptions are the correction of clerical errors or the making of so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and, of course, where the judgment is void. x x x48 (Citations omitted)This Court finds that none of the aforementioned exceptions apply to Civil Case No. 418.
To recall, it was herein defendant-appellee Erlinda who first lodged a complaint at the barangay against spouses Agapito [sic] and Aida. In her complaint, Erlinda wanted the spouses to vacate the premises on the strength of the favorable judgment her mother obtained in Civil Case No. 418. While the complaint was still pending consideration, the spouses filed a complaint against Erlinda in the very same forum involving the very same subject land. As the matter was not settled, herein plaintiffs-appellees filed a case against herein defendants-appellants in the RTC but the same was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The case was filed in the MTC of Palompon docketed as Civil Case No. 474 whose decision is now under review.We also affirm the award of reasonable rent of P800 per month reckoned from February 2003, the date of Elena's last demand to vacate. In addition, said amounts shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until full payment thereof, in accordance with the Court's pronouncement in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, et al.50
The act of herein plaintiffs-appellees in filing cases against herein defendants-appellants despite the favorable decision in Civil Case No. 418 constrained the latter to litigate in order to protect their interest. In so doing, herein defendants-appellants engaged the services of a lawyer to whom they paid P20,000 and incurred litigation expenses in the amount of P10,000.49
Endnotes:
* Katherine in other parts of the records.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, with Executive Justice Gabriel T. Ingles and Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, concurring. Rollo, pp. 42-58.
2 Id. at 75-76.
3 Penned by Executive Judge Mario O. Quinit. Id. at 97-112.
4 Penned by Judge Delia P. Noel-Bertulfo. Id. at 83-95.
5 Id. at 43-44.
6 Id. at 44.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 45-46.
9 Id. at 128-129
10 Id. at 130.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 131-132.
13 Id. at 133-138.
14 Id. at 45.
15 Id. at 45-46.
16 Id. at 46.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 89.
19 Id. at. 91-92.
20 Id. at 94.
21 Id.
22 Id. at 94-95.
23 Id. at 96.
24 Id. at 102.
25 Id. at 111.
26 Id. at 112.
27 Id. at 48.
28 Id. at 57-58.
29 . Id. at 75-76.
30 Id. at 19-20
31 Id. at 97-98.
32 Id. at 49.
33 332 Phil. 206 (1996).
34 Id. at 216-217.
35Rollo, p. 46.
36 665 Phil. 198 (2011).
37 Id. at 206-206.
38 The assessed value of the subject property in Civil Case No. 418 was P4,220, based on the Tax Declaration No. 6413 in the name of Gorgonio Santome. Sec. 33(3) of B.P. Blg. 129 provides:
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. - Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: x x x x (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs. x x x x.
39Rollo, p. 126.
40SSC v. Rizal Poultry and Liveslock Ass'n., Inc., supra, at 207, citing Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 409 Phil. 717, 731 (2001).
41 Id. citing Santos v. Heirs of Dominga Lustre, 583 Phil. 118, 127 (2008).
42Carlet v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 99, 109 (1997), citing Javier v. Veridiano II, 307 Phil. 583 (1994).
43Rollo, p. 51.
44Carlet v. Court q(Appeals, supra, at 110, citing Nabus v. CA, 271 Phil. 768, 782 (1991).
45 415 Phil. 376 (2001).
46 Id. at 384-385.
47 272-A Phil. 114 (1991).
48 Id. at 120-121.
49Rollo, p. 111.
50 716 Phil. 267 (2013).