EN BANC.
.
JOSE V. DELA RAMA,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
135394
April 29, 2003
-versus-
HON. FRANCISCO G.
MENDIOLA, JUDGE,RTC
PASAY CITY,
THE COURT OF APPEALSAND
TITAN
CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
This is a Petition
for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing
the
Orders[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 115, in Civil Case
No.
97-0734 which denied petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion For
Direct
Contempt based on Forum Shopping, as well as his Motion for
Reconsideration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On December 1, 1978,
petitioner sold to the government on expropriation a parcel of land
consisting
of 1,225 square meters, which was part of Lot 831-A, covered by
Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 22066, for use in the construction of the EDSA
Extension Project. The sale was subject to the reconveyance to
petitioner
of any unused portion of the property after the project is completed.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 17, 1988, petitioner
entered into a "Contract to Sell", whereby he undertook to sell to
respondent
Titan Construction Corporation a parcel of land adjacent to the one
expropriated.[3]
Subsequently, petitioner failed to comply with his obligations under
the
"Contract to Sell"; thus respondent filed a complaint for
rescission/annulment
of contract with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 116,
which
was docketed as Civil Case No. 6020. The parties entered into a
compromise
agreement and, on May 19, 1989, the trial court rendered judgment
approving
the parties’ compromise agreement. The pertinent portion of the
judgment
reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1.
That the parties shall execute a deed of absolute sale over the subject
property, including the improvements thereon in the total amount of TWO
MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P2,500,000.00);chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2.
That relative to the parcel of land sold to the government, a separate
agreement is likewise to be executed by the parties;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3.
That Atty. and Mrs. Dela Rama will be given a period of 60 days from
the
signing of this document to fully vacate the premises sold;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4.
That failure on their part to vacate within the said period, an
ex-parte
ejectment writ of execution shall issue;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5.
That the written agreement relative to the lease of houses in said
premises
shall be respected.[4]
Pursuant to the
compromise
judgment, petitioner executed a deed of absolute sale of the subject
property
in favor of respondent. Likewise, he executed an Agreement to
Sell
and Buy, stating, among others:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1.
That in the event the Republic of the Philippines will return to the
vendors
(Jose Dela Rama and Esperanza Belmonte) the area sold which is 1,224
sq.
ms. or any portion therein, the Vendee (Titan Construction Corporation)
is given the exclusive option to buy any area returned at P2,000.00 per
square meter.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2.
That in consideration of said exclusive option granted to the said
Vendee
by the Vendors, the Vendee upon registration of this instrument at the
back of T.C.T. No. 22066 shall pay P200,000.00 to the Vendors.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After the execution of
the Agreement to Sell and Buy, respondent paid petitioner the amount of
P200,000.00, for which the latter issued a receipt which contained the
inscription: "amount is not refundable & not deductible from the
agreed
price."[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Meanwhile, petitioner
sought the reconveyance of the unused portion of the property from the
government. On December 4, 1996, the Office of the President
executed
the corresponding Deed of Reconveyance in favor of petitioner over 303
square meters of unused land.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 3, 1997,
respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch
110,
a Petition for Declaratory Relief, Prohibition, Mandamus and
Preliminary
Injunction with Prayer for Restraining Order,[8]
which was docketed as Civil Case No. 97-1275. It prayed that the
Deed of Reconveyance be declared void on the grounds that the same
violated
its right of preemption under Article 1622 of the Civil Code; and that
no public bidding was conducted, resulting in a denial of respondent’s
right to bid considering that petitioners had waived any and all rights
over the land by virtue of their Deed of Agreement to Sell and
Buy.
Respondent also prayed that the Office of the President be ordered to
give
due course to its application to purchase the subject land. The
trial
court dismissed the case for lack of merit on March 5, 1997.[9]
Thus, respondent instituted a petition for certiorari before this Court
on March 24, 1997 which, however, was referred to the Court of Appeals,
where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 44094.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 4, 1997, respondent
filed an action for specific performance based on the compromise
judgment
with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, which was docketed as
Civil
Case No. 97-0734.[11]
Petitioner thus filed with the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No.
44094,
a Motion for Direct Contempt and to Dismiss based on Forum Shopping.[12]
He also filed a similar motion with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay
City
in Civil Case No. 97-0734.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On July 18, 1997, respondent
filed a motion to withdraw the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 44094,[14]
which the Court of Appeals, in its Resolution dated December 10, 1997,
granted. Thus, the case was dismissed with finality.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Meanwhile, the Regional
Trial Court of Pasay City denied the motion to dismiss and for direct
contempt
based on forum shopping filed by petitioner. It held that the
alleged
violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 04-94 was cured when CA-G.R. SP
No. 44094 was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. Moreover,
petitioner
failed to show that the two cases have the same causes of action.[16]
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence the instant petition
based on the sole assigned error:
THE RESPONDENT COURT
OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT RESOLVING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR DIRECT CONTEMPT BASED ON FORUM SHOPPING AND,
BY REASON OF THAT SERIOUS ABUSE OF DISCRETION, IT SANCTIONED THE
CONTINUANCE
OF SAID ACTION BEFORE THE RESPONDENT RTC WHICH ITSELF GRAVELY AND
SERIOUSLY
ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
REFUSING
TO DISMISS THE CASE BASED ON AUTER ACTION PENDANT AND RES JUDICATA, AND
TO PUNISH FOR DIRECT CONTEMPT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND ITS LAWYERS
BASED
ON FORUM SHOPPING.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The decisive issue posed
by petitioner is whether or not the specific performance case (Civil
Case
No. 97-0734) is barred by the petition for declaratory relief case
(Civil
Case No 96-1725 and CA-G.R. SP No. 44094) on the ground of res
judicata.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There is res judicata
where the following four essential conditions concur, viz: (1) there
must
be a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it must have
jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment or
order
on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the two cases, identity
of
parties, subject matter and causes of action.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Reviewing the records
of the case, there is no question that all the first three elements of
res judicata are present. The declaratory relief case, which was
elevated by way of a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals,
has
been dismissed with finality. The decision was rendered by a
court
of competent jurisdiction and the case was resolved on its merits.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As regards the fourth
condition, it is clear that there is identity of parties in the two
cases.
The declaratory relief case was filed by respondent Titan against
Executive
Secretary Ruben D. Torres, DPWH Secretary Gregorio R. Vigilar, the
Register
of Deed of Pasay City, petitioner Jose V. Dela Rama and Esperanza
Belmonte
(deceased). On the other hand, the specific performance case was
filed by respondent Titan against petitioner Dela Rama and the heirs of
Esperanza Belmonte. Although the public respondents in the
declaratory
relief case were not impleaded in the specific performance case, only a
substantial identity is necessary to warrant the application of res
judicata.[20]
The addition or elimination of some parties does not alter the
situation.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The subject matters
and causes of action of the two cases are likewise identical. A
subject
matter is the item with respect to which the controversy has arisen, or
concerning which the wrong has been done, and it is ordinarily the
right,
the thing, or the contract under dispute. In the case at bar,
both
the first and second actions involve the same real property. A
cause
of action, broadly defined, is an act or omission of one party in
violation
of the legal right of the other.[22]
Its elements are the following: (1) the legal right of plaintiff; (2)
the
correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of
the defendant in violation of said legal right.[23]
Causes of action are identical when there is an identity in the facts
essential
to the maintenance of the two actions, or where the same evidence will
sustain both actions. If the same facts or evidence can sustain
either,
the two actions are considered the same, so that the judgment in one is
a bar to the other.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is true that the
first case was a special civil action for declaratory relief while the
second case was a civil action for specific performance. However,
the difference in form and nature of the two actions is
immaterial.
The philosophy behind the rule on res judicata prohibits the parties
from
litigating the same issue more than once.[25]
The issue involved in the declaratory relief case was whether
respondent
has rights over the property which was reconveyed to petitioner
considering
that he waived all his rights by executing the Agreement to Sell and
Buy.
In the specific performance case, the issue involved was the same, that
is, whether respondent was entitled to the property reconveyed when the
petitioner failed to comply with the terms of their agreement embodied
in the same Agreement to Sell and Buy. Respondent’s alleged right
in both cases depends on one and the same instrument, the Agreement to
Sell and Buy. Clearly, respondent’s ultimate objective in
instituting
the two actions was to have the property reconveyed in its favor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When material facts
or questions in issue in a former action were conclusively settled by a
judgment rendered therein, such facts or questions constitute res
judicata
and may not be again litigated in a subsequent action between the same
parties or their privies regardless of the form of the latter.
This
is the essence of res judicata or bar by prior judgment. The
parties
are bound not only as regards every matter offered and received to
sustain
or defeat their claims or demand but as to any other admissible matter
which might have been offered for that purpose and of all other matters
that could have been adjudged in that case.[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Assuming res judicata
finds no application in the instant case, the action for specific
performance
must nonetheless be dismissed. The Agreement to Sell and Buy,
being
one of the prestations of the compromise agreement which was judicially
confirmed and had long become final and executory, cannot be enforced
in
a separate action. In the case of Jose Dela Rama v. Hon. Aurora
P.
Navarrete-Recina,[27]
where petitioner assailed the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale
executed
pursuant to the compromise agreement, we held that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, the Deed of
Absolute Sale being impugned by the petitioners is but an offshoot of
the
compromise agreement entered into, with judicial confirmation, by the
parties
themselves. Thus, as observed by the respondent court, any
further
prestations left undone, with regard to the provisions of the
compromise
judgment, should be the subject of proceedings on execution, and not a
separate action.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the earlier case
of Arkoncel v. Lagamon,[28]
we held:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The rule is
that a judgment rendered in accordance with a compromise agreement is
immediately
executory unless a motion is filed to set aside the agreement on the
ground
of fraud, mistake or duress in which case an appeal may be taken
against
the order denying the motion. It then becomes ministerial for the
lower court to order the execution of its final executory judgment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Even more than a
contract
which may be enforced by ordinary action for specific performance, the
compromise agreement is part and parcel of the judgment, and may
therefore
be enforced as such by a writ of execution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, when the terms
of an amicable settlement are violated, as in the case at bar, the
remedy
of the aggrieved party is to move for its execution.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The principle of res
judicata requires that stability be accorded to judgments.
Controversies
once decided on the merits shall remain in repose for there should be
an
end to litigation which, without the doctrine, would be endless.[29]
Given the circumstances in this case, we find that the trial court
committed
grave abuse of discretion when it denied the motion to dismiss filed by
petitioners.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. The Order of the Regional
Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 115 in Civil Case No. 97-0734,
denying
petitioner’s "Motion to Dismiss Complaint and For Direct Contempt Based
on Forum Shopping," as well as the Order denying petitioner’s "Motion
for
Reconsideration," are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial
Court of Pasay City, Branch 115, is ordered to DISMISS Civil Case No.
97-0734
on the ground of res judicata. Costs against private respondents.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr.,
C.J.,
(Chairman)
, Vitug, Carpio, and
Azcuna,
JJ.
, concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 146 & 155.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id., p. 40.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., pp. 175-177.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., p. 174.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., p. 178.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., p. 240.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., pp. 53-59.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id., pp. 60-73.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id., pp. 78-83.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id., pp. 84-110.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id., pp. 166-173.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id., pp. 130-138.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id., pp. 142-145.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id., pp. 139-140.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Id., p. 141.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Id., pp. 146-146.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id., p. 155.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id., p. 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Serrano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122930, February 6, 2002.
[20]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
University Physicians Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 381 Phil. 54,
67 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Bachrach Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 483, 491 [1998].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Avisado v. Rumbaua, G.R. No. 137306, 12 March 2001, 354 SCRA 245, 256.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Stilianopulos v. City of Legaspi, G.R. No. 133913, 12 October 1999, 316
SCRA 523, 541.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Id., p. 542.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Carlet v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 99, 111 [1997].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
G.R. No. 116456, 19 August 1996, Unsigned Resolution; Rollo, pp.
264-269.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
G.R. No. 50526, 4 December 1991, 204 SCRA 560, 567.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Nacuray v. NLRC, 336 Phil. 749, 757 [1997].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |