SEMPIO v CA a.
Case 2: RTC nullified the extrajudicial foreclosure that
Petitioner: Boyet Sempio
Respondents: CA, Aurelia Tuazon
G.R. No. 124326; January 22 1998; J. Puno
DOCTRINE:
The requisites for lis pendens are: (1) identity of parties, or
at least representing the same interests in both actions; (2)
identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs
being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity in both
cases is such that the judgment that may be rendered in the
pending case would amount to res judicata in the other.
What is needed for the first requisite is substantial identity
of parties (not absolute).
FACTS
1. Sempios parents obtained a loan from Development Bank
of the Philippines (DBP) where they used a land in
Bulacan as mortgage.
2. The loan was not fully paid so DBP extrajudicially
foreclosed the mortgage, emerged as the highest bidder,
and was given a Certificate of Sale.
3. Tuazon brought the said land from the DBP (through her
daughter) even when DBP had not yet effectuated the
cancellation of the TCT in the Sempios name and no
certificate of title was issued to DBP.
4. DBP filed a Petition for the Issuance of Writ of Possession
in an RTC of Bulacan (Case 1). Sempios parents opposed
the petition. Tuazon intervened in the case claiming that
she was the new owner of the land.
5. Sempios parents then filed a Complaint for Annulment of
Foreclosure in another RTC of Bulacan (Case 2) against
DBP. Tuazon was not a party to the case.
6. Tuazon then filed a Complaint for Injunction and Damages
in another RTC of Bulacan (Case 3) against the Sempios.
7. Decisions on the Cases:
DBP made. CA reversed. SC (not this case) reversed
and held that the extrajudicial foreclosure was null and
void.
b. Case 3: RTC dismissed on the ground of lis pendens
by saying that Tuazon should have sought protection of
her right as new owner in Case 2. CA reversed the
RTC decision and remanded the case to it for further
proceedings.
c. Case 1: RTC denied DBPs petition and Tuazons
complaint-in-intervention. CA affirmed RTC.
8. Sempio replaced his parents who have already died during
the pendency of the proceedings. He filed an MR for Case
3 in the CA which the CA denied.
ISSUES
W/n Case 3 should have been dismissed due to the doctrine of
lis pendens?
HELD/RATIO
Yes. Case 3 should have been dismissed due to lis
pendens.
The requisites for lis pendens are: (1) identity of parties, or
at least representing the same interests in both actions; (2)
identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs
being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity in both
cases is such that the judgment that may be rendered in the
pending case would amount to res judicata in the other.
Court held that all the requisites are present in the instant
case.
First requisite. It is well settled that what is only needed in
lis pendens (and even res judicata) is substantial and not
absolute identity of parties. There is already substantial
identity of parties when there is a community of interest
between the parties in the 2 cases (even if a party was not
impleaded in the first case).
 Even if Tuazon was not impleaded as a party in Case 2, decision of CA are set aside and the decision of the RTC is
Tuazons interest is inextricably intertwined with DBP, reinstated.
because the exercise of her rights as purchaser-transferee is
conditioned upon DBPs successful defense of the validity of
the foreclosure proceedings in Case 2. Thus, there is a OTHER DISCUSSIONS:
community of interest (and thus, substantial identity of parties) 1. The circumstances in which Tuazon bought the land (see
between Tuazon and DBP in Cases 2 and 3. Fact 3), makes her unable to now invoke being a
There is also substantial identity of parties in Cases 1 and 3. purchaser in good faith and for value. She should have
Even if Tuazon was a mere intervenor in Case 1, it is taken the ordinary precautions which a prudent person
unquestionable that Tuazon had a uniform interest, being the would have taken by making inquiries as to the rights of
new owner of the subject land. In Cases 1 and 3, Tuazon, the Sempios who were in possession of the subject land.
acting as intervenor and plaintiff respectively, asserted what Thus, she committed gross negligence amounting to bad
she believed to be her right as exclusive owner of the land. faith.
Second requisite. This was also met because what was 2. Parties are bound not only as regards every matter offered
only dissimilar amongst the 3 cases was the form by which and received to sustain or defeat their claims or demand
Tuazon sought to enforce her right as new owner of the land but as to any other admissible matter which might have
In the 3 cases, it was this right that Tuazon was fighting for. been offered for that purpose and of all other matters that
SC said that there was identity of causes of action because could have been adjudged in that case.
there was only 1 cause of action running through Tuazons
undertaking: right to exclusive possession and enjoyment
of the land). Even if she was not impleaded in Case 2, her
rights are contingent on those of the DBPs since she was not
a purchaser in good faith and for value (See Other
Discussions 1).
Third requisite. This was also met because a decision in
one of the cases would constitute res judicata on the other
cases. Tuazon thus cannot be insulated from the legal effects
of the decision in Case 2 (nullification of foreclosure
proceedings). Since the Sempios were restored by the SC to
full ownership of the said land, Tuazon is bound by that
decision.

DISPOSITION:
RTC was right in dismissing Case 3 on the ground of lis
pendens (though now also res judicata applies). Thus,