PROPERTY

DIGESTS (2013 2014)

ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO

G.R. No. 149313 January 22, 2008 PANGANIBAN v. OAMIL Plaintiffs: (Children of Partenio Rombaua and his deceased first wife Juliana) Julita Rombaua Panganiban Paquito Rombaua Ruperto Rombaua Teresita Rombaua Telaje Leonor Rombaua Opiana Defendant: Julita Oamil (buyer of Partenio Rombauas property) CASE: Julita Oamil is the buyer of Partenio Rombauas conjugal share in a property and filed for specific performance (Civil Case No. 140-0-93) to effect the transfer of the deed. The trial court ruled in favor of Oamil without indicating which portion of the property is awarded to her specifically but only that she is entitled to the portion which constitutes Partenios conjugal share. Herein petitioners then filed a petition for relief claiming that the subject of Civil Case No. 140-0-93 is still under litigation for partition (Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86). The trial court with Oamils consent then deferred the decision of the reconsideration for Civil Case No. 140-0-93 until Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86 is final. The latter was resolved declaring that Partenios share is the Canda St. portion. However, the trial court still ruled that the sold portion to Oamil is the 21st St. portion, and this was affirmed by the CA. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court of Civil Case No. 140-0-93 should not have modified the ruling of Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86, and said that the property subject of the Agreement of Sale between Oamil and Partenio is the Canda St. portion. The Court also ruled that Oamil can no longer question this judgment because (1) being a buyer, she has no greater right over the property than Partenio had as the

seller, and (2) she did no avail of Article 497 which gave her the opportunity to intervene in the special civil action for the partition. Therefore, she is bound by the judgment and can no longer question it. BACKGROUND: Two portions of a commercial property in East Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City is in contention: o 204.5 square meters facing 21st St. (21st portion) o 204.5 square meters facing Canda St. (Canda portion) o One portion belongs to Partenio Rombaua as part of his conjugal share, and 1/6 each of the remaining half is co- owned by Partenio and petitioners as heirs of Juliana. April 26, 1993 Julita Oamil filed a complaint for specific performance with damages against Partenio asking that he be ordered to execute a final deed of sale over the 21st portion, which is allegedly covered by their Agreement to Sell executed on May 17, 1990. o Partenio failed to answer and was declared in default. December 26, 1993 Without indicating which portion of the property should be deeded to respondent as buyer of Partenios conjugal share, the trial court for Civil Case No. 140-0-93 ruled in favor of Oamil.1 February 21, 1994 Partenio was served a write of execution issued on February 15 after the decision became final and executor on February 4.

Dec. 26, 1993 decision of the Trial Court on Civil Case No. 140-0-93: WHEREFORE, viewed from all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: (1) The defendant is hereby ordered to execute a deed of absolute sale over the 12 portion (front) of the realty subject matter of this case in favor of the plaintiff and to surrender the possession thereof to the plaintiff. Failure of the defendant to do so, then the City Assessor of Olongapo is hereby directed to effect the transfer of all rights/interest on the one-half (1/2) front portion of the said realty in the name of the plaintiff, upon the finality of this decision;; (2) Plaintiff, however, is ordered to pay the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND PESOS (P8,000.00) representing the balance of the interests due on the amount of P200,000.00, delinquent for one (1) year computed at 12% per annum;; (3) Defendant is, likewise, hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff attorneys fees in the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00). Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the City Assessor of Olongapo City.
1

RACHELLE ANNE GUTIERREZ

PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 2014)

o

ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO

The writ was also served to the City Assessor of Olongapo City who transferred the Tax Declaration covering the 21st St. portion in Oamils name. June 1994 Herein petitioners filed for relief from the decision on the ground that: o Partenios conjugal share in the property, and that of petitioners as well, are being litigated in a judicial partition proceeding (the partition case) which is pending with the Court of Appeals, hence the trial court may not yet render a decision disposing of a definite area of the subject property in respondents favor. o Petitioners were unjustly deprived of the opportunity to protect and defend their interest in court because, notwithstanding that they are indispensable parties to the case (being co-owners of the subject property), they were not impleaded in Civil Case No. 140-0-93. January 13, 1995 Petition for relief is denied but petitioners filed for reconsideration. Instead of resolving the motion, the trial court, with the concurrence of the petitioners and the respondent, deferred the proceedings, to await the result of a pending appeal with the Court of Appeals of the decision in Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86, the partition case, where the trial court (who handled this partition case) awarded the Canda St. portion to Partenio as his conjugal share. o Ruling: the CA affirmed the trial court, and awarded the Canda St. portion as Partenios conjugal share. (Sobrang epal lang ng person na to but just in case) Sometime in 1995 Sotero Gan filed a Complaint in Intervention claiming (1) to have purchased Partenios conjugal share who in turn executed a deed of waiver and quitclaim to his possessory rights, and (2) that the tax declaration had been transferred in his name. He seeks to dismiss Civil Case No. 140-0-93 and asked for the reinstatement of his name on the tax declaration which by then had been placed in Oamils name. Petitioner opposed Gans claim saying that intervention was no longer proper.

October 23, 1997 The trial court handling Civil Case No. 140- 0-93 denied Gans motion for reconsideration, as well as that for the petitioners motion for relief. The trial court ALSO MODIFIED its December 26, 1993 decision by awarding specifically the 21st St. portion of the property to Partenio as his conjugal share, despite the pronouncement in Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86 which awards the Canda St. portion to him. March 22, 2001 The CA affirmed the October 23, 1997 ruling on ground that petitioners have always acknowledged Partenios acts of ownership over the 21st St portion, thus signifying their consent and barring them from questioning.

ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED: 1. Whether or not petitioners can intervene in Civil Case No. 140- 0-93 (complaint for specific performance of Oamil against Partenio Rombaua) in order to protect their rights as co-owners of the subject property. RESOLUTIONS AND ARGUMENTS ISSUE 1 Whether or not petitioners can intervene in Civil Case No. 140-0-93 (complaint for specific performance of Oamil against Partenio Rombaua) in order to protect their rights as co-owners of the subject property. YES. By virtue of the decision on the partition case, the land which Partenio sold to Oamil is one which he co-owns with his children. Thus, petitioners are interested parties in Civil Case No. 140-0-93. Major Point 1: In a contract of sale of co-owned property, what the vendee obtains by virtue of such a sale are the same rights as the vendor had as co-owner, and the vedee merely steps into the shoes of the vendor as co-owner. The decision in Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86, which is an action for judicial partition of the subject property, determines what Partenio, and ultimately, respondent, as his successor-in- interest, is entitled to in Civil Case No. 140-0-93.

RACHELLE ANNE GUTIERREZ

PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 2014)

ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO

Oamil, as Partenios successor-in-interest, cannot acquire any superior right in the property than what Partenio is entitled to receive.

Major Point 2: Respondent Oamil did not avail of the right to intervene granted to her by Article 4972 and therefore may no longer question the decision of partitioning. As early as May 17, 1990, when respondent and Partenio executed the "Agreement to Sell", the former knew that the property she was purchasing was conjugal property owned in common by Partenio and the heirs of his deceased wife. While Civil Case No. 140-0-93 was pending, respondent was informed of the pendency of Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86 yet she did not take any steps to intervene in said partition proceedings. Instead she unconditionally agreed to the trial courts decision to suspend proceedings until the partition case has been resolved. When the decision in Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86 became final and executory without the respondent having questioned the same in any manner whatsoever, by appeal or otherwise, the division of property decreed therein may no longer be impugned by her. Major Point 3: The trial court in Civil Case No. 140-0-93 cannot award the 21st portion to Partenio (and consider it as the property sold to Oamil) since Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86 awarded the Canda portion to him, and the latter should be conclusive of which specific portion of the property became the subject matter of sale between Partenio and the respondent the Canda St. portion. Trial Courts trying an ordinary action (like Civil Case No. 140-0- 93) cannot perform acts pertaining to a special proceeding (like

Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86) because it is subject to specific prescribed rules. Thus, the CA was in error to have considered the alleged acts of ownership exercised upon the 21st St. portion by Partenio as weighing heavily against the decreed partition in Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86. The determination of this issue is beyond the ambit of the trial court in Civil Case No. 140-0-93. The trial court and the Court of Appeals, by disregarding the final and executory judgment in Special Civil Action No. 340-0- 86, certainly ignored the principle of conclusiveness of judgments, which prohibits the trying of identical issues after it has been resolved by final judgment of a competent court.3

FINAL VERDICT: As a result of the trial courts refusal to abide by the decision in Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86, the rights of the petitioners have been unnecessarily transgressed, thereby giving them the right to seek relief in court in order to annul the October 23, 1997 Order of the trial court which substantially and wrongly modified its original decision in Civil Case No. 140-0-93. With respect to Gans intervention, the same is no longer proper because the decision in Civil Case No. 140-0-93 is final and executory. Intervention, being merely collateral or ancillary to the principal action,

PRINCIPLE OF CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENTS: [A] fact or question which was in issue in a former suit and was there judicially passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the judgment therein as far as the parties to that action and persons in privity with them are concerned and cannot be again litigated in any future action between such parties or their privies, in the same court or any other court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or different cause of action, while the judgment remains unreversed by proper authority. It has been held that in order that a judgment in one action can be conclusive as to a particular matter in another action between the same parties or their privies, it is essential that the issue be identical. 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 (Nabus vs. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 732 [1991]). Identity of cause of action is not required but merely identity of issues.
3

Article 497, Civil Code: The creditors or assignees of the co-owners may take part in the division of the thing owned in common and object to its being effected without their concurrence. But they cannot impugn any partition already executed, unless there has been fraud, or in case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it, without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its validity.

RACHELLE ANNE GUTIERREZ

PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 2014)

ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO

may no longer be allowed in a case already terminated by final judgment. NO SEPARATE OPINIONS

RACHELLE ANNE GUTIERREZ