CABREZA, JR., BJD HOLDINGS CORP., represented by ATTY. MANUEL DULAY V. ROBLES CABREZA
G.R. No. 181962, [January 16, 2012]
DOCTRINE:
The Ruling of the RTC regarding the sale of theconjugal dwelling (family home) is final and cannot be impugned.
FACTS:
The Regional Trial Court of Pasig Branch 70 (RTCBr. 70) in JDRC Case No. 3705 declared void ab initio the marriage between Ceferino Cabreza, Jr. (Ceferino) and Amparo Cabreza (Amparo) and ordered the dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership in accordance with Article 129 of the Family Code. Ceferino moved that their only conjugal property, the conjugal home, be sold and the proceeds distributed as mandated by law. RTC Br. 70 granted his Motion in a 26 May 2003 Order which became final. Ceferino, for himself and on behalf of Amparo, he executed the Deed of Sale in favor of BJD Holdings Corporation. He then filed a Motion for Writ of Possession and to Divide the Purchase Price, which RTC Pasig Branch 70 granted in its 12 May 2004 Order. In response to RTC Br. 70’s issuance of a Writ of Possession, followed by a 30 June 2004 Notice to Vacate, Amparo filed a Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate, arguing that (1) the parties had another conjugal lot apart from the conjugal dwelling; and (2) under Article 129 of the Family Code, the conjugal dwelling should be adjudicated to her as the spouse, with whom four of the five Cabreza children were staying. Amparo filed with the Pasig RTC, Branch 67 (RTC Br. 67) a Complaint (docketed as Civil Case No. 70269) to annul the Deed of Absolute Sale for being void due to lack of her consent thereto. RTC Br. 67 dismissed the Complaint with prejudice, on the basis of litis pendentia and forum shopping.
ISSUES/HELD:
1. Whether the complaint should be dismissed on the basis of litis pendentia? – YES.
2. Whether the decision of the RTC with regard to the sale of the conjugal dwelling is final and cannot be impugned in another case? – YES.
RATIO:
1. The following requisites must be present for the proper invocation of litis pendentia as a ground for dismissing an action:
A. Identity of parties or representation in both cases;
B. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts and the same basis; and
C. Identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. Regarding the first requisite, there is no dispute that the two cases have substantially the same parties.
Anent the second requisite, the CA correctly noted that to determine whether there is identity of the rights asserted and reliefs prayed for grounded on the same facts and bases, the following tests may be utilized: (1) whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and the second causes of action; or (2) whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other.
There is substantial identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for between the two cases. RTC Br. 70 issued an Order dated 2 October 2003, which granted authority to Ceferino to sign the Deed of Sale on Amparo’s behalf. This same Order also contained, in its dispositive portion, a directive that “(a)fter the sale of the subject property shall have been consummated, all the occupants thereof shall vacate and clear the same to enable the buyer to take complete possession and control of the property.” Thus, using the first test, the same evidence – the 2 October 2003 Order of RTC Br. 70 – would defeat both Amparo’s Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Sale and her Petition impugning the Writ of Possession.
Accordingly, using the second test, the same defense (i.e., the 2 October 2003 Order of RTC Br. 70) will defeat both the Complaint to nullify the Deed of Sale and the Petition to impugn the Writ of Possession. In fact, the subsequent Writ of Possession issued by RTC Br. 70 was the logical consequence of, and merely gave effect to, the Deed of Sale which it had previously approved.
As to the last requisite, a final judgment on the merits by a court that has jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject matter in the Petition to nullify the Writ of Possession would have barred subsequent judgment on the Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Sale based on the principle of res judicata
2. The Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Sale cannot prosper, because, like the Petition to nullify the Writ of Possession, it effectively seeks the modification of an already final Order of RTC Br. 70. In view of this Court’s consistent ruling that Amparo cannot be allowed to impugn the already final Order of RTC Br. 70 directing the sale of the conjugal dwelling.
