Reyes-De Leon v. Del Rosario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Pantaleon U. del Rosario and his son, Vicente B. del Rosario (respondent), filed an action for Partition before the RTC of Cebu City, impleading Teresita S. Reyes-De Leon (petitioner) as a defendant. The partition involved several parcels of land collectively grouped as "Tupas Properties," "Asinan Properties," "Figueroa Property," "Barili Properties," "Mambaling Properties," "Negros Properties," and "Other Properties." The plaintiffs claimed that petitioner executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of respondent covering all her shares in the properties. Petitioner, an heir of the late spouses Pantaleon S. del Rosario and Ceferina Llamas, denied executing such a deed, averring that she only sold her shares in the Asinan and Negros properties to Pantaleon U. del Rosario and the late Vicente S. del Rosario. Procedural History: Petitioner later filed a Complaint for declaration of nullity of deed of sale with damages, alleging that she sold her share in the Asinan Properties to respondent's father on December 14, 1983. She was shocked to learn in August 1996 that respondent was claiming all her shares in the estate of her maternal grandmother, based on a deed of absolute sale purportedly signed by her on January 20, 1985. Petitioner claimed this deed fraudulently added a phrase covering "any and all of her shares, rights and interests on all other real estate properties together with their improvements which she acquired by inheritance from the estate of the late Ceferina Llamas Vda. De Del Rosario." She sought P500,000.00 in moral damages. The partition court initially suspended proceedings, stating the nullity case had a different cause of action. However, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the nullity case, arguing petitioner failed to raise the issue as a compulsory counterclaim in the partition case and was guilty of forum shopping. The partition case was raffled to another branch, which proceeded with a preliminary conference and ordered parties to submit uncontested properties. Subsequently, the RTC Branch 6, where the nullity case was filed, dismissed the complaint, reasoning that ownership should be determined in the partition case to avoid multiplicity of suits. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the instant petition. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to set aside the RTC orders dismissing her complaint for declaration of nullity of deed of sale with damages, raising issues of multiplicity of suits, forum shopping, and the effect of the partition court's suspension order.
Issue(s)
Whether or not a party raising the defense of inexistence or nullity of deed of sale in a partition case is barred from filing an entirely separate action for declaration of nullity of the same deed on the ground of multiplicity of suits and forum-shopping. Whether or not the final January 19, 2000 Order of the trial court in the partition case (suspending the proceeding therein on the ground that the Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Sale cannot be incorporated in the partition case) will be adversely affected by the dismissal of the instant case. Whether or not this petition should be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia and forum-shopping because of the pendency of the partition case, including the issue of false certification of non-forum shopping.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The orders of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 6 dismissing the Complaint in Civil Case No. CEB-24698 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum shopping and litis pendentia, and the nature of the action for declaration of nullity as a compulsory counterclaim: The Court held that forum shopping exists when multiple suits are filed involving the same parties, causes of action, and reliefs, leading to the possibility of conflicting judgments. Litis pendentia requires the identity of parties, rights asserted, reliefs prayed for, and the same facts, such that any judgment in one case would be res judicata in the other. In this case, both the partition action and the action for declaration of nullity involved the same parties and arose from the same disputed deed of sale. Petitioner asserted she did not sell all her shares, and the determination of ownership in either case would amount to res judicata in the other. The issue of the deed's validity is intrinsically linked to the partition case, as only validly sold shares can be included in the partition. Therefore, filing a separate action for declaration of nullity constituted forum shopping and litis pendentia. The Court also found that the action for declaration of nullity, including the claim for damages, partook of the nature of a compulsory counterclaim. A compulsory counterclaim is one that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the plaintiff's complaint and must be set up in the same suit. The tests for a compulsory counterclaim—identity of issues, res judicata, same evidence, and logical relation—were all met. The disputed deed of sale was the basis for both the partition claim and the nullity action. Therefore, petitioner's failure to set up the claim for nullity and damages as a counterclaim in the partition case barred her from filing a separate action for these reliefs. On the effect of the partition court's suspension order and the necessity of resolving ownership in the partition case: The Court ruled that the partition court's initial suspension of proceedings was provisional and did not affect the final outcome of the case. The partition court, even after the suspension order, proceeded with the partition of uncontested portions of the estate. The resumption of proceedings and the issuance of subsequent orders by the new presiding judge rendered the earlier suspension order functus officio. Therefore, the dismissal of the nullity case did not adversely affect the partition proceedings, as the issue of nullity could be properly ventilated in the partition case itself. The Court reiterated that in actions for partition, the court must first determine the existence of co-ownership and settle the issue of ownership before ordering the division of property. This is because an action for partition presupposes co-ownership, and only properties owned in common can be partitioned. The case of Catapusan v. Court of Appeals was cited, emphasizing that it would be premature to effect a partition until the issue of ownership is definitively resolved. Similarly, in Viloria v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that the issue of co-ownership and the legality of a sale had to be resolved in the partition case itself, as the petitioner denied the respondents' claim of co-ownership by asserting a deed of sale. On the false certification of non-forum shopping: The Court found that petitioner made a false or untrue certification of non-forum shopping. Her complaint for declaration of nullity explicitly stated that respondent was claiming all her shares based on the disputed deed of sale, information she allegedly learned from cousins who were defendants in the partition case. She had also filed an Answer in the partition case denying the sale. This clearly indicated her awareness of the partition case and her participation therein, contradicting her certification.
Main Doctrine
A party is barred from filing a separate action for declaration of nullity of a deed of sale when the issue of nullity was raised as a defense in a prior partition case involving the same properties, as it constitutes a compulsory counterclaim that should have been raised in the same suit. Filing separate actions for the same transaction or occurrence constitutes forum shopping and litis pendentia.