Case Digest: HEIRS OF EMILIO R. DOMINGO, et al. v. HEIRS OF CLARITA D. MARTIN, et al.

HEIRS OF EMILIO R. DOMINGO, et al. v. HEIRS OF CLARITA D. MARTIN, et al.

508 SCRA 563 (2006)

A judgment is conclusive as to the facts admitted by the pleadings or assumed by the decision, where they were essential to the judgment, and were such that the judgment could not legally have been rendered without them.

Intestate proceedings were filed before the then Court of First Instance of Davao City involving the parcel of land owned by the late spouses Emilio Domingo (Domingo) and Felicidad Cornejo (Cornejo), whose family were killed during World War II.

The said property was subdivided, the first half was awarded to Mario Domingo, et al., heirs of Domingo (Domingo heirs), and the other half, Lot 1769-A, was said to be awarded to the heirs of Cornejo (Cornejo heirs), the former‘s wife. The heirs of Emilio Domingo‘s siblings, represented by Emilio Bernabe (Bernabe), claim that the Cornejos‘ share was sold to them in a transaction represented by Arturo Domingo. They filed a complaint “for judicial settlement of estate with damages and attorney‘s fees,” before the Regional Trial Court against the heirs-children of Enrique and Clarita Martin who claimed that the same share was sold to their parents by the heirs of Felicidad Cornejo.

The RTC held in favor of the Domingo heirs. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the trial court‘s decision upon a finding that the Domingo heirs failed to establish their claim to the share of the property ivolved. The Domingos‘ Motion for Reconsideration before the CA was denied.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the claim of ownership was established by preponderance of evidence

HELD:

Domingo heirs failed to prove their claim to Lot 1769-A by preponderance of evidence. Domingo heirs‘ evidence of receipt of payment presented to show that Arturo Domingo paid the purchase price of a “lupa sa Lapanday sapagkat iyon ay mana rin namin” could refer to any parcel of land in Lapanday. Domingo heirs‘ claim, without more, that “lupa sa Lapanday” was understood to refer to the lot covered by Lot 1769-A does not persuade.

While the decision in Misc. Case No. 4100 does not constitute res judicata to the present case, there being no identity in causes of action, it is settled that “a judgment is conclusive as to the facts admitted by the pleadings or assumed by the decision, where they were essential to the judgment, and were such that the judgment could not legally have been rendered without them.” The finding in Misc. Case No. 4100 was essential to the judgment since a petition for reconstitution may be filed only by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person who has an interest in the property.

Martin heirs have proved their predecessors‘ title by presenting the decision in the intestate estate proceedings and the Subdivision Plan, both of which identify Lot No. 1769-A as the portion allotted to the Cornejo heirs.

In fine, Martin heirs have proven their claim by a preponderance of evidence.