Manila: 3&epublic of Tbe Llbilippine% $upteme !court
Manila: 3&epublic of Tbe Llbilippine% $upteme !court
Manila: 3&epublic of Tbe Llbilippine% $upteme !court
manila
DECISION
GESMUNDO, C.J.:
* Designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Rodi! V. Zalameda per raffle dated September
13, 2022.
Rollo, pp. 9-32.
2
Id. at 34-45; penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco and concurred in by Associate Justices
Magdangal M. De Leon and Rodi! V. Zalameda (now a Member of the Court).
3
Id. at 47-48; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate
Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Ronalda Roberto B. Martin.
4
Id. at 96-108; penned by Presiding Judge Marie Claire Victoria Mabutas-Sordan.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
City, Branch 95 (RTC Antipolo), in Civil Case No. 08-8406, granting the
dismissal of the Complaint5 for annulment of sale and cancellation of titles on
the ground of litis pendentia. The CA ordered that the case be remanded to
RTC Antipolo for further proceedings.
The Antecedents
Rene Manuel R. Jose (petitioner) and Luis Mario Jose (Luis) are the
sons of spouses Domingo Jose (Domingo) and Emilia Jose (Emilia). 6
The Antipolo property was later subdivided into three lots, hence, TCT
No. N-50023, which was registered in Cynthia's name, was cancelled. In lieu
thereof, three titles were issued on January 28, 2004, to wit: TCT No. R-19951
covering 109,234 sq. m., in TIDCORP's name; (ii) TCT No. R-19952
covering 104,081 sq. m.; and (iii) TCT No. R-19953 covering 19,627 sq. m.
The last two were issued in the name of Cynthia married to petitioner. 8
5
Records, pp. 1-4.
6
Rollo, p. 137.
7 Id. at 137-138.
' Id. at 36 and 121.
9 Id. at 123. The Deed of Revocation pertinently provides:
On this 13 th day of June 2005, we are revoking the following real estates that were conveyed
and transfen-ed including the two (2) real estate that purportedly showed [sic] as a sale to
Cynthia Cuyegkeng Jose and Rene R. Jose. Those real properties were as follows:
Decision 3 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
1, 2005, petitioner and Cynthia filed a Complaint for a sum of money and
damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment 10
against Domingo before the RTC of Manila, Branch 19 (RTC Manila). The
case was docketed as Civil Case No. 05-11400 11 (collection case). 12 Upon
Domingo's death on December 24, 2005, Luis, who is the brother of
petitioner, became the substitute defendant. 13
In said collection case, Luis reiterated the claim that his parents are the
true owners of the Antipolo property and the sale to Cynthia was simulated,
and hence, void. He explained that the property was previously registered in
the names of Domingo and Emilia under TCT No. 56762. 14
On February 13, 2008, while the collection case was pending, Luis, on
behalf of his parents, filed before the RTC Antipolo the Complaint for
J. The Antipolo property (Brgy. lnarawan property). As you well know, the Antipolo property
was conveyed purportedly to your wife, Cynthia Cuyegkeng spouse of Rene R. Jose as an
alternative to save the Antipolo property from Philippine Guarantee's (now TIDCORP) from
being included in our debt restructuring. We had informed you of our action that we will convey
to your wife to save our twenty-four (24) hectares property. As you had known and we planned
to give Philippine Guarantee (now TIDCORP) 10.9 hectares to be taken from the twenty-four
hectares as Dacion En Pago to settle all our obligations and save the company from further
financial burden. x x x
All these (3) properties rightfully belong to us xx x. We learned that you are in the process
of ceasing the properties [sic] from us in spite of our verbal agreement, trust and confidence
that we will use your names only to hide all these properties from creditors.
10
Id. at 109-1 I 9.
11 Seep. 120; but was inadvertently referred to as Civil Case No. 05-11400 in the June 25, 2018 Decision
of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 107444, p. 36.
12
Id. at 36.
13
Id. at 121.
14
Id. at 121-122.
15
Id. at 122-123.
16 Id. at 123.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
17
Id. at 96.
18 Id. at 120-134. Penned by Presiding Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar. Thejallo reads thus:
WHEREFORE, after due consideration, this Court hereby rules as follows:
1. It directs the estate of the late Domingo Jose and Emilia Jose to pay the plaintiff-spouses
Rene Jose and Cynthia Cuyegkeng the sum of [1']53,300,000.00 as adequate
compensation for the I 09,234 square meters of property ceded to TIDCORP in payment
for the indebtedness incurred by Domingo Jose from TIDCORP during his lifetime; and
2. It directs the estate of the late Domingo and Emilia Jose to pay plaintiff-spouses interests
on the foregoing amount at the rate of 6% per annum to be reckoned from 0 1 December
2005, the date ofjudicial demand until the finality of this Decision. If, after this Decision
has become final and executory, the foregoing sums should remain unpaid, the same shall
again be subject to interests at the rate of 6% per annum, until such time that the foregoing
money judgment should have been fully paid[.]
19
Id. at 124.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
20
Id. at 127-128.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
From the foregoing, it would appear that three months after the sale
of the property to the plaintiff-spouses [Rene and Cynthia] on OI November
1978, Domingo's indebtedness to TIDCORP was already discharged, as
evidenced by the cancellation, on 31 January 1979 of tile annotation of the
mortgage in favour of TIDCORP at the back of TCT No. 56762. In the
absence of any evidence, it cannot be assumed that this indebtedness to
TIDCORP for which the Antipolo property was made the collateral and
which was discharged in 1979 was the same indebtedness for which
Domingo was made a defendant before the Makati court in 1996, or some
seventeen (I 7) years later. Considering the length of time, a total interval of
17 years, the court can only presume that these were separate indebtedness
to TIDCORP. In 1979, TIDCORP could not have allowed the mortgage
annotated at the back of its debtor's title to be cancelled; for certainly, no
creditor in its right mind would consent to such cancellation if it was indeed,
not yet paid. The length of time - a total of ( I 7) years from the time of the
discharge of the mortgage to TIDCORP to the time when TIDCORP filed a
case for collection of sum of money gives ground for one to consider that
two separate debts were involved, i.e., that the debt which was extant at the
time of the sale to the plaintiff-spouses in I 978 was not the same debt for
which Domingo was sued 17 years later. 21
xxxx
Suffice it to state that since 1978, the title to the property has always
been in the names of the plaintiff-spouses and whatever intention or
intentions of the parties were in 1978, the same has been rendered
irrelevant when faced with the [indefeasibility] of Torrens Title. Torrens
Title is binding to the whole world; with more reason, it is binding to the
parties to the transaction x x x.
With this court having ruled that the 1978 sale of the Antipolo
property to Cynthia Cuyegkeng married to Rene Manuel Jose was a .
perfectly valid and enforceable sale, it now proceeds to determine whether
the plaintiff-spouses should be compensated for the portion ceded to
TIDCORP. Undisputedly, Cynthia Cuyegkeng and Rene Manuel Jose had
paid Domingo's loan using a portion of their property.xx x
xxxx
Notably, the RTC Manila also anchored its ruling on the indefeasibility
of the Torrens title registered in Cynthia's name. It further stated that while
no copy of the 1978 Deed of Sale was presented in court, there was no dispute
that a contract of sale was indeed executed by Domingo and Emilia in favor
of Cynthia. 23 After reviewing the case records, the RTC Manila held that the
21 Id. at 128.
22 Id. at 132.
23 Id. at 124.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
In an Order dated July 16, 2015, the RTC Antipolo granted petitioner's
motion to dismiss the complaint for annulment of sale and cancellation ofTCT
Nos. R-19952 and R-19953, thefallo of which reads:
SO ORDERED. 28
24 Id. at 132-133.
25 Id. at IO0-J0I.
26
Id.at!0I.
27
28
Id. at 105. I
~
Id. at I 08.
29
Id. at l 06.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
"the test of identity of causes of action lies not in the form of an action but on
whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and the
present causes of action." 30 It noted that the underlying principle of litis
pendentia is the theory that a party is not allowed to vex another more than
once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action. This
theory is founded on the public policy that the same subject matter should not
be the subject of controversy in courts more than once, in order that possible
conflicting judgments may be avoided. 31
In its assailed June 25, 2018 Decision, the CA reversed the RTC
Antipolo' s ruling and remanded the case for further proceeding. It found that
there was no litis pendentia because the cases involved different causes of
action and parties. 35 Thefallo of the said Decision reads:
SO ORDERED. 36
As regards the variance in the causes of action, the CA held that while
the validity of the 1978 sale (i.e., whether the deed of sale by Domingo and
Emilia in favor of Cynthia was simulated) was passed upon by the RTC
Manila in the collection case, such ruling was not conclusive. It found the
situation akin to an ejectment case in which the issue of ownership may be
30
Id. at 108.
31
Id. at 106.
32 Id. at 136-151; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate
Justices Fiorito S. MacaJino and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguil!es.
33 Jd. at 58-59. Resolution dated December 4, 2017.
34 Id. at 60-61. Resolution dated March 5, 2018.
35 Id. at 42-45.
36 Id.at45.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
provisionally ruled upon only for the purpose of determining who is entitled
to possession de facto. 37
The CA also emphasized that Civil Case No. 05-114000 was only for
collection of a sum of money based on Domingo's alleged failure to pay
petitioner the fair market value of the property conveyed to TIDCORP, while
Civil Case No. 08-8406 is precisely for the annulment of the supposed
simulated 1978 sale between Domingo and Cynthia. 38
The Petition
Petitioner filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari against the heirs
of Luis (respondents), 42 raising the following errors:
37 Id. at 43-44.
38 Id.
39
Id. at 44.
,o Id.
41 Id. at 50-57.
42 Id. at 12. In his petition, petitioner informed the Court that Luis had passed away. Hence, petitioner listed
as Luis' heirs (i.e., wife and children) as respondents.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
I.
IL
In his petition, petitioner argues that the CA erred in ruling that litis
pendentia is not existent, and thus, he prays that the RTC Antipolo's dismissal
of the complaint be reinstated. He avers that the trial before the RTC Manila
revolved upon the same issue raised before the RTC Antipolo - whether the
sale from Domingo to Cynthia was simulated. Pieces of evidence were
presented· before the RTC Manila in support of the parties' respective
allegations, and based thereon, the RTC Manila concluded that the sale was
valid. Hence, the same issue should no longer be relitigated. 45
43
Id. at 18.
44
Id. at 60-6 l.
45 Id. at 27-28.
46 Id. at 28.
47
Id. at I79-!91.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
em~~asize t~at the main issue in the collection case is whether Domingo and
Em1ha are liable to pay a sum of money to petitioner and Cynthia. The RTC
Manila's ruling on the issue of ownership was only done to resolve the main
issue, and as such, it was not conclusive on the title of the property even if the
issue was heard in a full-blown trial. 48
Litis pendentia
48
Id. at 182-184.
49
Id. at 207-214.
50
ld.at210-2ll.
51
Dy v. Yu, 763 Phil. 491, 511-512 (2015).
52
See Yap v. Chua, 687 Phil. 392,400 (2012).
53
Dy v. Yu, supra at 5 I 2, citing Spouses Marasigan v. Chevron, Phils., Inc., 681 Phil. 503, 5 I 5 (2012).
54 City of Makati v. Municipality ofTaguig, 578 Phil. 773, 783 (2008).
Decision 12 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
Hornbook is the rule that identity of causes of action does not mean
absolute identity; otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res
55
673 Phil. 12 (2011).
56 Id. at 24.
57 City of Caloocan v. Court ofAppeals, 522 Phil. 592, 603 (2006); see also Dy v. Yu, supra at 512 stating
that "only substantial, and not absolute, identity of parties is required for litis pendentia to lie."
58 See Dy v. Yu, id. at 513; citing Benedicto v. Lacson, 634 Phil. 154, 176 (2010); See also Spouses
Marasigan v. Chevron Phils., Inc., supra at 517.
59 Benedicto v. Lacson, supra at 176.
60
Supra.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
judicata by changing the form of the action or the relief sought. The test to
determine whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether
the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity
in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts
or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same
and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action. Hence, ~
party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting a different method
of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the
same cause of action shall not be twice litigated between the same parties
or their privies. Among the several tests resorted to in ascertaining whether
two suits relate to a single or common cause of action are: (1) whether the
same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second causes
of action; and (2) whether the defenses in one case may be used to
substantiate the complaint in the other. 61
In this case, although the form of the two actions differ - one is for
collection of a sum of money while the other is for annulment of sale and
cancellation of titles - the rights asserted by the parties are anchored on their
respective alleged ownership over the property. In the collection case,
petitioner and Cynthia claim that they are entitled to be paid for the value of
the property ceded to TIDCORP based on their prior ownership over it as
evidenced by TCT No. N-50023 registered in Cynthia's name. In contrast,
Luis avers that his parents need not pay for such value as they are the true
owners thereof. In the annulment case, Luis seeks the cancellation of the
remaining titles issued in Cyntha's name (i.e., TCT Nos. R-19952 and R-
19953) based on the same claim that his parents are the true owners of the
property.
61 Id. at 40 I.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
On appeal by Luis, one of the errors that he raised before the CA in the
collection case was the finding that the sale was not simulated. 64 In affirming
the RTC's ruling, the CA exhaustively discussed its reasons for finding that
the sale was valid in its Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. I 04283, viz.:
62
Rollo, p. 124.
63 Id. at 132. The RTC cited Article 1236 of the Civil Code as basis in ruling that the spouses are entitled
to payment. The provision states that "[ w ]hoever pays for another may demand fi-om the debtor what he
has paid, except ifhe paid without the knowledge and the will of the debtor, he can recover only insofar
as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor."
64 Id. at 142. The second assigned error before the CA was as follows:
The court a quo gravely erred in ignoring relevant facts and circumstances which
would lead to the conclusion that the sale by Domingo lose to Cynthia Cuyegkeng,
married to Manuel Jose, was merely simulated.
Corollarily, the court a quo gravely erred in its refusal to appreciate relevant
facts and circumstances indicating red flags as identified by the Supreme Court
that would point to a simulated contract.
The court a quo gravely erred in rendering judgment in favor of plaintiffs
considering that the burden of proving the existence or non-existence of the
simulated sale was shifted to the plaintiffs-appel\ees.
Decision 15 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
65
Id. at 146-147.
66
Id. at 58-59.
67
Id. at 60-6 I.
68
Id. at 28.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
In other words, both the collection case and the annulment case are
anchored on the same issue - whether Cynthia is the true owner of the subject
property pursuant to a sale between her and Domingo. If Cynthia is the true
owner, then Domingo, as substituted by Luis, is liable to pay the sum of
money to Cynthia and petitioner; if Cynthia is not the true owner, then the
certificate of title in her favor is void. As these two cases essentially
contemplate the same issue, there exists litis pendentia.
To reiterate, the issue of validity of the sale had been subjected to a full-
blown trial before the RTC Manila, and affirmed all the way to the Court. To
the Court's mind, allowing the RTC Antipolo to proceed with the annulment
case will certainly entail reexamining the same evidence and relitigating the
same issue to the detriment of the judicial system. It would not serve the
orderly administration of justice and would run counter to the goal of avoiding
multiplicity of suits.
The Court acknowledges the settled rule in this jurisdiction that the
issue as to whether a certificate of title was procured by fraud can only be
raised in an action expressly instituted for the purpose. 69 This finds basis in
Section 48 of the Property Registration Decree70 (PRD) which states that a
certificate of title shall not be subject to a collateral attack and cannot be
altered, modified or cancelled, except in a direct proceeding. 71 The rationale
for prohibiting collateral attacks has been explained in this wise:
708 Phil. 24, 29(2013); Arangote v. Maglunob, 599 Phil. 91, 110-111 (2009), citing Leyson v. Bontuyan,
492 Phil. 238, 257 (2005).).
12 Garcia v. Esclito, G.R. No. 207210, March 21, 2022.
73 Id.; citing Vicente v. Avera, 596 Phil. 693, 701 (2009). See also Spouses Zaragoza v. Court of Appeals,
395 Phil. 516, 525-526 (2000).
74 See Leyson v. Bontuyan, supra at 257; See also Filipinas Eslon Manufacturing Corp v. Heirs of Llanes,
850 Phil. 591, 606-607 (2019) and Gunta/ilib v. Dela Cruz, 789 Phil. 287, 304-305 (2016). In Guntalilib,
the Court stated that "an action for annulment of title is the more appropriate remedy to seek the
cancellation ofa certificate of title" and that "underlying objectives or reliefs sought in both the quieting-
of-title and the annulment-of-title cases are essentially the same - adjudication of the ownership of the
disputed lot and nullification of one of the two certificates oftitle."
75 Man/an v. Beltran, G.R. No. 222530, October 16, 2019, 924 SCRA 619, 635.
Decision 18 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
76 See RULES OF COURT, Rule 6, Sec. 7; See also Bayer Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 394 Phil.
777, 784-785 (2000); Spouses Meliton v. Court of Appeals, 290-A Phil. 257,264 (1992).
77 See RULES OF COURT, Rule 6, Sec. 7; See also Bayer Philippines, Inc. v. Court ofAppeals, supra at 785.
78 See Spouses Meliton v. Court ofAppeals, supra at 266-267.
Decision 19 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
arise out of, or is necessarily connected with, the same series of transaction
from the cause of action for collection of a sum of money.
In this case, the records show that Luis did not file any counterclaim in
the collection case regarding the validity of the sale and ownership of the
subject property. Instead, he only raised such issues as affirmative defenses in
his answer, claiming that his parents were the true owners of the Antipolo
property in the collection case. Indeed, he did not include a counterclaim in
his answer praying for its reconveyance nor the annulment of the resulting
titles that were issued in Cynthia's name. 79
For these reasons, Luis' claim to recover ownership over the Antipolo
property and the annulment of the Cynthia's title is deemed waived. Pursuant
to Sec. 7, Rule 6 of the Rules, Luis' failure to set up before the RTC Manila a
compulsory counterclaim to question the validity of the sale to Cynthia and
the resulting certificates of title bars him from instituting a separate action in
the RTC Antipolo.
79
See RULES OF COURT, Rule 6, Sec. 7 as amended in 2019 which states that a "compulsory counterclaim
not raised in the same action is barred, unless otherwise allowed by these Rules."
80
See Heirs ofSotto v. Palicte, 726 Phil. 651, 653-654 (2014).
•
degrades the administration of justice and adds to the already congested court
dockets. 81 To the Court's mind, allowing a party to file a separate action to
question the validity of title when the same issue is already presented in a
pending case, which could have been filed as a compulsory counterclaim in
the such case, opens avenues for forum shopping.
SO ORDERED.
.GESMUNDO
WE CONCUR:
~~ n
Associate Justice
o
ROSARIO
~41~
J~!~ASP.MARQUEZ
Associate Justice
81 Id. at 654.
Decision 21 G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
CERTIFICATION