Cabreza v. Cabreza
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from the dissolution of the marriage between Ceferino S. Cabreza, Jr. and Amparo Robles Cabreza. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared their marriage void ab initio and ordered the liquidation of their conjugal partnership. Subsequently, the RTC authorized the sale of their conjugal dwelling, which was executed by Ceferino for himself and on behalf of Amparo, and then granted a writ of possession to the buyer, BJD Holdings Corporation. 2. Procedural History: Amparo challenged the RTC's orders authorizing the sale and issuing the writ of possession through a Petition for Review to the Supreme Court (SC) in G.R. No. 171260. The SC denied this petition, holding that it sought to modify a final order and that her arguments should have been raised earlier. While her petition was pending before the Court of Appeals (CA), Amparo filed a separate Complaint with the RTC to annul the Deed of Absolute Sale, alleging lack of consent. The RTC dismissed this complaint on grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping. The CA reversed this dismissal, finding no litis pendentia. This reversal by the CA is the subject of the present petition before the SC. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Ceferino S. Cabreza, Jr. and BJD Holdings Corp., filed this Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They argue that the CA erred in reversing the RTC's dismissal of Amparo's Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Sale. The petitioners contend that the CA should have upheld the RTC's finding of litis pendentia and forum shopping, as Amparo's subsequent complaint was substantially the same as her earlier petition that had been denied by the Supreme Court, and both effectively sought to modify a final and executory order of the RTC.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the dismissal of the Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Sale on the ground of litis pendentia. Whether Amparo was guilty of forum shopping.
Ruling
The Petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED. The Resolution of the Regional Trial Court dismissing the Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Sale on the ground of litis pendencia and forum shopping is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of litis pendentia: The Court found that the requisites for litis pendentia were present. There was an identity of parties. Regarding the identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the Court disagreed with the CA's application of the tests. The Court held that the same evidence, specifically the RTC's 2 October 2003 Order authorizing Ceferino to sign the Deed of Sale on Amparo's behalf and directing occupants to vacate, would defeat both Amparo's Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Sale and her Petition impugning the Writ of Possession. Amparo failed to timely question this 2 October 2003 Order. Furthermore, both cases effectively sought to prevent the sale and maintain ownership of the conjugal dwelling, based on the same grounds: that the RTC's subsequent orders improperly modified its final decision and that the dwelling should be adjudicated to her under Article 129(9) of the Family Code. The same defense, the 2 October 2003 Order, would defeat both actions. The Court also noted that a final judgment on the merits in the petition impugning the Writ of Possession would have barred the subsequent complaint due to res judicata, as the RTC branch that dismissed the complaint had jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties. On the issue of forum shopping: The Court held that Amparo was necessarily guilty of forum shopping, as the elements of litis pendentia were present. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. The CA erred in reversing the dismissal by RTC Br. 67 on the ground of the pendency of the Petition impugning the Writ of Possession before another Division of the CA. The Court clarified that while the dismissal of G.R. No. 171260 was final, it was not a judgment on the merits but a dismissal based on procedural inability to consider the case due to the finality of prior orders. The Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Sale, like the Petition to nullify the Writ of Possession, effectively sought to modify an already final Order of RTC Br. 70, which the Court consistently ruled against.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals erred in reversing the dismissal of a complaint for declaration of nullity of a Deed of Absolute Sale on the ground of litis pendentia, as the requisites for litis pendentia were present, and the subsequent complaint effectively sought to modify a final and executory order of the RTC.