de ramos vs ca

7/31/2019 De Ramos vs ca

1/15

De Ramos vs. Court of Ap

[G.R. No. 86844, September 01, 1992]


2/15

FACTS:

Private respondents mortgaged their 230 sqresidential lot located in Modern Village, PaCalamba, Laguna and covered by Transfer of Title No. T-35475 in the Register of DeeProvince of Laguna, to the Luzon Develop(hereinafter, the Bank) as security for a

P10,000.00 which is evidenced by a promissorsaid note provides that if there is a defapayment of any of the installments as they bethe entire unpaid balance, together with thinterest, shall automatically become due anwithout need of prior notice.


3/15

There being default in the payment of the on due dates despite several written demandapplied for the extrajudicial foreclosuremortgage. In a public auction on 30 JulyProvincial Sheriff of Laguna sold the mortgageto the Bank, the lone bidder therein, for P23,amount of its bid. The certificate of salerecorded in the Office of the Register of De

August 1981. The private respondents failed the property within the one-year redemptionon 13 September 1982, the Bank filed with ththe Register of Deeds an affidavit of consoownership. Consequently, said office cancell35475 and issued TCT No. T-89122 in the na

Bank.


4/15

On 26 July 1983, the Bank filed a petition for the issuancpossession with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calawhich was docketed as SLRC Case No. III-83-C.Th

assigned to Branch 37 of the said court. SubsequDemamay filed a verified opposition to the petition allecourt has no jurisdiction over the petition because notified of both the foreclosure proceedings and the and that the issues involved are highly controversial anature. She further claims that the foreclosure wabecause her obligation was to mature only on 29 J

court conducted a hearing on the petition and evidence of the parties. In its Order dated 24 June court granted the petition, ordered the issuance possession and directed the Provincial Sheriff or any oto place the Bank in possession of the property;possession was issued on 1 July 1985.


5/15

During the pendency of the petition for

possession, or specifically on 3 September 198sold to the herein petitioners the property under a Deed of Conditional Sale for payable in installments, The said balance hapaid, the Bank executed in the petitioners' faof Absolute Sale on 9 November 1983[6]

registered in the Office of the Register of DeNovember 1983. Transfer Certificate of Title was then cancelled and Transfer Certificate T-119912 was issued in the name of the petitio


6/15

The Demamays neither moved for a reconsinor appealed from the aforesaid 24 June 1Instead, on 5 July 1985, Estelita Demamcomplaint "To Set Aside the Sale of Mortgageand Subsequent Transactions Pertinent ThCancel Writ of Possession Issued Thereon" docketed as Civil Case No. 894-85-C. This wa

to Branch 36 of the same RTC.[7] In said comreiterated the grounds raised in her opposipetition for the issuance of a writ of possfurther alleged that the writ of possession haleg to stand on because the Bank had alreaproperty to the petitioners herein.


7/15

In its Answer and/or Opposition to Petition filed on 13 SepteBank interposed, as one of its special and affirmative defenres judicata of Estelita Demamay's filing of the complaint coissues involved therein were already raised before Branch 37 in the aforementioned petition for a writ of possession (SLRC lower court considered the defense of res judicata as a grou

dismiss and in its Order of 7 November 1985, required Dewriting her Reply thereto, after which the motion would be dfor resolution. On 3 January 1986, Branch 36 of the RTC handedismissing Civil Case No. 894-85-C , the pertinent parts theredispositive portion of which read

"The aforementioned grounds are the same grounds ventilated and tried on the merits bCourt. Although the petition for writ of possession filed with this Court and assigned to Bnature, plaintiff Damamay (sic) have (sic) filed a verified opposition thereto in the same peobjections on the part of the parties proceeded to hear the petition on the merits of the caevidence of both parties on the basis of which the questioned Order dated June 24, 1985 of possession was issued. Herein petitioner Damamay (sic) did not take any further accertiorari to the appellate court. The present petition of petitioner Damamay (sic) clearly final order of Branch XXXVII of this Court in RTC SLRC No. 111-83-C.

IN VIEW THEREOF, the Motion To Dismiss is hereby GRANTED. The complaint is hereby DISMISof jurisdiction of this Court to annul the final order of Branch XXXVII of the Regional Trial Co


8/15

Again, Estelita Demamay neither moved to recabove order nor appealed therefrom. It thus band final.

Then, seven (7) months later, or more specifically, 1986, Estelita Demamay, now joined by her husbfiled a complaint for Annulment of Sales and Recof Real Property with Damages against the bankpetitioners with the RTC of Calamba, Laguna; thwas docketed as Civil Case No. 1031-86-C[1raffled off to Branch 34 of the said court. In its Counterclaim and Opposition to the Issuance oInjunction,[12] the Bank interposed Special andDefenses, among which are (a) res judicatainvolved having already been raised and rBranches 37 and 36 of the court, and (b) Branch 3has no jurisdiction to annul the final orders of aforementioned branches of the court in SLRC Nand Civil Case No. 849-85-C, respectively.


9/15

Clearly the principle of res judicata applies in

There being clearly identical parties and identasserted in all three (3) cases -- the focal issue having been fully adjudicated in the aforecitethis case must be dismissed.


10/15

The Demamays appealed from the said Orespondent Court of Appeals which docketeas C.A.-G.R. CV No. 14411. On 21 Septemberespondent Court promulgated a decisionaside the Order of 1 April 1987 in Civil Case N

C (Branch 34 of the RTC) on the ground that rcannot be invoked to bar said case.


11/15

The trial court was correct in dismissing Civil Case Non the ground that it is barred by res judicata becausorders dated 24 June 1985 in SLRC No. 111-83-C, an1986 in Civil Case No. 894-85-C.

The principle of res judicata is enshrined in paSection 49, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which reads:

"SEC. 49. Effect of Judgments. -- The effect of a judgment or final ordecourt or judge of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the jumay be as follows:

x x x

(b) In other cases the judgment or order is, with respect to the matter dor as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thebetween the parties and their successors in interest by title subcommencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for theunder the same title and in the same capacity."


12/15

The doctrine ofres judicatais an old axiom of the law, dictated bsanctified by age, and is founded on the broad principle that it iof the public that there should be an end to litigation by the sama subject once fully and fairly adjudicated. It is "a rule pervadingregulated system of jurisprudence, and is put upon two grounds

various maxims of the common law; the one, public policy and nmakes it to the interest of the state that there should be an end trepublicae ut sit litium; the other, the hardship on the individual be vexed twice for the same cause -- nemo debet bis vexari et ecausa." A contrary doctrine would subject the public peace andwill and neglect of individuals and prefer the gratification of the disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public happiness.

The essential requisites ofres judicata are (1) there must be a fina

order; (2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the suand over the parties; (3) it must be a judgment or order on the mthere must be between the two cases identity of parties, identity matter, and identity of action.


13/15

After having submitted to the jurisdiction of the cour111-83-C, testifying therein and offering documentaryresist the petition for a writ of possession and to obtarelief such as the nullification of the foreclosure proceeincidents thereto including, necessarily, the sale aauction, Demamay cannot now be heard to cjurisdiction of the said court and to suggest, in order tothe effects of the finality of the Order, that all that hadthe said case was an exercise in futility. A party cannjurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relieopponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtainrepudiate or question that same jurisdiction. Put differproper for a party who has affirmed and invoked the a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmaafterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape penorder was, undoubtedly, an adjudication on thDemamay's claim and cause of action.


14/15

The 3 January 1986 Order in Civil Case No. 894-85-C an adjudication on the merits of the Demamay sp

because it declared them no longer entitled to thwhich their claims are based. A judgment is derendered upon the merits when it amounts to a declalaw as to the respective rights and duties of the partiesthe ultimate fact or state of facts disclosed by the pevidence, and upon which the right of recoveirrespective of formal, technical or dilatory o

contentions.


15/15

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The decisionSeptember 1988 of the respondent Court of Appeals in C.No. 14411 is hereby SET ASIDE and the Order of 1 April 198734 of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna in Civil 1031-86-C is hereby REINSTATED.

Costs against private respondents.

de ramos vs ca

Documents