Sempio v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Sempio spouses mortgaged a parcel of land to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). The loan was not fully paid, leading to extrajudicial foreclosure by DBP, which emerged as the highest bidder. Respondent Aurelia L. Tuazon later purchased the land from DBP. The Sempio spouses filed a complaint for annulment of foreclosure, reconveyance, and damages, contending lack of notice, posting, and publication. DBP filed a petition for issuance of a writ of possession. Respondent Tuazon filed a complaint for injunction and damages, claiming exclusive ownership of the land. Procedural History: The trial court nullified the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings in the Sempio spouses' case. Subsequently, the trial court dismissed respondent Tuazon's complaint for injunction and damages on the ground of lis pendens, citing the pendency of DBP's petition for writ of possession. The trial court also denied DBP's petition and respondent Tuazon's intervention. The Court of Appeals, however, set aside the dismissal of respondent Tuazon's complaint and ordered its remand for further proceedings. The Petition: Petitioner Boyet Sempio sought to set aside the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the dismissal of respondent Tuazon's complaint on the ground of lis pendens or res judicata was proper.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that neither identity of parties nor identity of causes of action attended Civil Case No. 681-M-90 vis-à-vis Civil Cases Nos. P-1787-89 and 181-M-90 as to warrant dismissal on the ground of lis pendens or res judicata.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1993, and its Resolution dated March 21, 1996, are SET ASIDE, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Bulacan, in Civil Case No. 681-M-90, is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of lis pendens and res judicata: The Court held that the requisites for lis pendens were present. First, there was substantial identity of parties. While respondent Tuazon was not a party-defendant in Civil Case No. 181-M-90, her interests were inextricably intertwined with those of DBP, as her purchase of the land was conditioned on the validity of DBP's foreclosure. Furthermore, her interest as a new owner was uniform in all cases, whether as intervenor seeking possession or as plaintiff seeking injunction and damages. Second, there was substantial identity of causes of action. Although the forms of action differed (issuance of writ of possession, annulment of foreclosure, injunction with damages), they all stemmed from respondent Tuazon's asserted right as the new owner of the land. The same evidence of her exclusive ownership would be indispensable in prosecuting her claims. The Court emphasized that the true test of identity of causes of action is whether the same evidence would support and establish the several actions pending. Finally, the Court found that a judgment in any of the pending cases would amount to res judicata in the others, especially considering that this Court had already restored the Sempios to their full ownership of the land by nullifying the foreclosure proceedings. Therefore, Civil Case No. 681-M-90 was correctly dismissed on the ground of lis pendens, and now also on the ground of res judicata.
Main Doctrine
The requisites for lis pendens, namely, identity of parties (or substantial identity of interests), identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, and identity such that the judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other, were found to concur, warranting the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lis pendens.