Khemani v. Trinidad
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, the Heirs of Anastacio Trinidad, claim ownership over a 340-square meter portion of Lot No. 107, asserting open, peaceful, public, and adverse possession in the concept of owner since 1950. Petitioners Cynthia Cruz Khemani and Shanker N. Khemani, on the other hand, derive their claim from the heirs of Jose B. Peña, who purchased Lot No. 355 (later subdivided into Lot Nos. 107, 108, and 109) from Jesus M. Larrabaster. The dispute centers on the ownership of Lot No. 107, which was awarded to Peña by the Office of the President, including accretions, despite a prior claim by Basilio Mendoza over Lot No. 107 based on a Miscellaneous Sales Application. Procedural History: The underlying dispute traces back to the award of Lot No. 355. Basilio Mendoza challenged the Office of the President's decision awarding the entire lot, including accretions, to Jose B. Peña. This led to Civil Case No. 98, where the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed Peña's ownership in Assistant Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs of the Office of the President v. Court of Appeals. Subsequently, the Peña Heirs were issued a patent and title for Lot No. 107. The Trinidad Heirs then filed Civil Case No. 1122 against the Peña Heirs and government agencies, seeking a review of the decree of registration and/or reconveyance, asserting their prior possession and alleging fraudulent issuance of title. The Regional Trial Court initially dismissed this case but later reinstated it upon reconsideration. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed their petition, affirming the trial court's order and finding no res judicata. The Petition: Petitioners seek review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision that affirmed the reinstatement of Civil Case No. 1122. Petitioners argue that the prior Supreme Court ruling in Assistant Executive Secretary bars the filing of Civil Case No. 1122 due to res judicata and that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to assail the order denying the motion to dismiss. Respondents counter that res judicata does not apply as they were not parties to the prior case, nor are they successors-in-interest of Mendoza, and that their cause of action, based on their possession and alleged fraud in the issuance of title, is distinct. They also assert their right to file an action for review of decree of registration within the one-year period prescribed by law, or an action for reconveyance within ten years.
Issue(s)
Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail an order denying a motion to dismiss. Whether Judge Ampig committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss and reinstating Civil Case No. 1122, specifically on the ground of res judicata.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The July 31, 2000 Decision and the January 8, 2001 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 55581 are affirmed. The trial court is ordered to resume trial in Civil Case No. 1122 and to resolve the same with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari: The Court reiterated the general rule that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and cannot be questioned via certiorari. However, it affirmed the exception that certiorari is allowed when the ground for dismissal is improper venue, lack of jurisdiction, or res judicata, as in the case at bar. Therefore, the petitioners did not commit a procedural error in filing the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. On the application of res judicata: The Court found that Judge Ampig did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss and reinstating Civil Case No. 1122. While the first three requisites of res judicata (finality of judgment, jurisdiction, and judgment on the merits) and the identity of the subject matter were not disputed, the Court found no identity of parties and causes of action. The parties in Civil Case No. 98 (Mendoza) and Civil Case No. 1122 (Trinidad Heirs) were different, and the respondents were not successors-in-interest of Mendoza. Furthermore, Mendoza's claim was based on alleged abuse of discretion in awarding the land and his Miscellaneous Sales Application, while the respondents' claim was based on their long-standing possession and alleged fraud in the issuance of the patent and title. The evidence required for each case was distinct, thus negating the identity of causes of action. The Court emphasized that while res judicata promotes public policy, it must be balanced with the policy of affording a party a fair adversary proceeding. The action for review of decree of registration filed by respondents was sanctioned under Section 32 of PD 1529, and they filed it within the one-year period from the issuance of the patent. The Court also noted that the petitioner was not an innocent purchaser for value as a notice of lis pendens was annotated on her title. Even if the action were filed beyond one year, an action for reconveyance based on implied trust, which prescribes in ten years, could still be availed of. The Court concluded that it would be premature to dismiss the complaint without a full-blown trial, especially since the respondents' physical possession of the Disputed Property was not disputed.
Main Doctrine
The requisites of res judicata, namely (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; and (4) there is – between the first and the second actions – identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action, must all concur. The absence of identity of parties and causes of action precludes the application of res judicata, even if the subject matter is identical.