Tolentino v. Natanauan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The core dispute revolves around a 50,000 square meter parcel of land in Sungay, Tagaytay City. Initially, Jose Natanauan sold this property to the Natanauan siblings (Dolores, Rafaela, Ernestina, and Romulo) via a Deed of Sale on August 31, 1976. Subsequently, the Natanauans sold the same property to spouses Alejo and Filomena Tolentino through a Deed of Sale dated January 3, 1978. Procedural History: The Natanauans initiated legal actions concerning this property. In 1982, they filed Civil Case No. TG-680 for annulment of deed of sale and reconveyance against the Tolentinos, which was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on joint motion. Later, in 1990, the RTC modified this dismissal to be with prejudice upon the Natanauans' motion. In 1991, the Natanauans filed Civil Case No. TG-1188 for recovery of possession, seeking rescission of the January 3, 1978 sale due to alleged non-payment by the Tolentinos. The RTC ruled in favor of the Natanauans, ordering rescission and reconveyance, but the Court of Appeals (CA) modified this by deleting the directive to cancel the title. This CA decision became final. However, in 1994, the Natanauans filed another complaint, Civil Case No. TG-1421, for declaration of nullity and damages, alleging a falsified Deed of Sale dated August 3, 1979, and subsequent fraudulent transactions involving Roberto P. Tolentino, Buck Estate Inc., and a mortgage to RCBC. The RTC denied motions to dismiss, and Roberto P. Tolentino's subsequent petition for certiorari to the CA was dismissed, leading to the present petition. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner Roberto P. Tolentino seeks to reverse the Court of Appeals' decision that dismissed his petition for certiorari. The CA had dismissed his petition, deeming his motion to re-examine previous orders as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration and finding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying his motions to dismiss Civil Case No. TG-1421. Petitioner argues that the CA erred in its dismissal, essentially reiterating arguments previously raised and passed upon by the lower courts, including issues of res judicata, forum shopping, and estoppel.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari. Whether the denial of the motion to dismiss by the Regional Trial Court was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Whether the principle of res judicata applies. Whether the respondents were guilty of forum shopping. Whether the respondents were barred by estoppel.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The records of Civil Case No. TG-1421 are remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Cavite (Branch 18) for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the certiorari petition: The Court held that an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and not appealable. The proper recourse is to file an answer, proceed to trial, and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from the final judgment. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that a petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to question the denial of a motion to dismiss, as it is an interlocutory order. However, the appellate court erroneously applied the proscription against second motions for reconsideration to interlocutory orders; such a motion may be denied as a "rehash" but not as a prohibited pleading. On the denial of the motion to dismiss: The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that a petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to question the denial of a motion to dismiss, as it is an interlocutory order. On res judicata: The Court found that the elements of res judicata were not present. Specifically, there was no identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between Civil Case No. TG-1188 (rescission of a deed of sale due to non-payment) and Civil Case No. TG-1421 (declaration of nullity of an allegedly falsified deed of sale involving a deceased seller and subsequent fraudulent transactions). The causes of action and issues were distinct, as Civil Case No. TG-1421 involved an alleged fraudulent deed of sale discovered only in 1993, which was not the subject of the prior cases. On forum shopping: The Court reiterated that the essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, to obtain a favorable judgment. Since the elements of litis pendentia or res judicata were not present, the lower courts correctly held that the respondents were not guilty of forum shopping. On estoppel: The Court found that the argument of estoppel was not plausible because the causes of action and issues in the prior cases (TG-680 and TG-1188) were different from Civil Case No. TG-1421. The prior cases involved a Deed of Sale dated January 3, 1978, while the latter case involved an allegedly fraudulent Deed of Sale dated August 3, 1979, the existence of which was allegedly discovered only in 1993. It was for the trial court to determine after a full trial whether the respondents could have raised the matter of the August 3, 1979 deed in the earlier cases.
Main Doctrine
An order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and therefore not appealable, nor can it be the subject of a petition for review on certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial.