Moldes v. Mullet
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Fructuoso and Diego Moldes, and oppositor Maria Salud Mullet, are cousins. Four parcels of land, inherited from their parents Antonio Moldes and Faustina Moldes, were registered under Certificates of Title Nos. 5536, 1987, 1986, and 1988 in the name of Faustina Moldes, as Antonio was a minor at the time. An extrajudicial partition deed (Annex "A"), dated March 25, 1923, executed by Honorio Medina (husband of the deceased Faustina Moldes), assigned one-half of each property to Maria Salud Mullet and the other half to Fructuoso and Diego Moldes. The deed bore the conformity of Maria Salud Mullet, despite her minority, and her uncles who were stated to be the guardians of the petitioners. Procedural History: Two civil cases were litigated between the parties concerning these properties. Civil Case No. 1418-P was filed by Maria Salud Mullet to annul the extrajudicial partition deed (Annex "A") and recover possession. Civil Case No. 1703 was filed by Fructuoso and Diego Moldes to compel Maria Salud Mullet to comply with the partition deed and surrender the certificates of title. Civil Case No. 1703 was dismissed on May 9, 1952, due to the pendency of Civil Case No. 1418-P. Subsequently, Civil Case No. 1418-P was dismissed on June 21, 1954, for failure of the plaintiff to appear for hearing on the merits. The original petition in the present case sought the annotation of the extrajudicial partition on the transfer certificates of title. The Register of Deeds opposed as to TCT Nos. 1986 and 1987, stating they were cancelled on August 10, 1929. The lower court ordered the presentation of TCT Nos. 5536 and 1988 only. The Petition: Maria Salud Mullet appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which ordered her to surrender TCT Nos. 5536 and 1988 for annotation of the deed of partition.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court had jurisdiction over the petition for annotation when the validity of the deed of extrajudicial partition was controverted on the ground of fraud. Whether the petitioners' present petition for annotation is barred by the dismissal of Civil Case No. 1703.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, ordering the presentation of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 5536 and 1988 for the annotation of the deed of extrajudicial partition. Costs were against the oppositor-appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and controverted deed: The Court held that the lower court had jurisdiction. The validity of the deed of extrajudicial partition (Exhibit "A" or Annex "A") had already been passed upon finally and conclusively in Civil Case No. 1418-P, Maria Salud Mullet vs. Fructuoso Moldes and Diego Moldes, adversely against the appellant herein. According to Section 1 of Rule 30, the dismissal of Civil Case No. 1418-P, without any statement as to its nature, concluded the authenticity and due execution of the deed. Therefore, the oppositor-appellant was prohibited from contesting the validity of its execution or its provisions, as the principle of res judicata applied. On the issue of the petition being barred by dismissal: The Court ruled that the petitioners' present petition was not barred by the dismissal of Civil Case No. 1703. The dismissal of Civil Case No. 1703 was based on the ground of the pendency of another case (Civil Case No. 1418-P) between the same parties for the same cause of action. Such a dismissal is not a judgment on the merits within the meaning of Section 44 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, it lacks the essential requisite of being a judgment on the merits to be conclusive on the parties, citing San Diego vs. Cardona. Thus, the dismissal did not bar the petitioners from seeking the annotation of the deed of extrajudicial partition.
Main Doctrine
A dismissal based on the pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause of action is not a judgment on the merits and does not bar a subsequent petition for annotation of a deed of extrajudicial partition, especially when the validity of the deed has been conclusively passed upon in a prior case.