REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS MANILA SIXTH DIVISION BELEN S. QUIZON et al. Petitione rs, -versusC.A. G.R.

SP No. 85 !"8

#UDGE $ENCESLAO A. NICDAO% SR. et. al.% Responden ts. x----------------------------------------------------x MEMORANDUM RESPONDENT Sparrow Construction Corporation, through counsel, in co pliance with the Order o! the "onora#le Court dated $ %une &'(& which was received on (' %une &'(&, respect!ull) su# its this *e orandu and in support thereo! states+

STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a Petition !or Review on Certiorari under Rule ,- o! the (../ Rules o! Civil Procedure to review the Order dated & Octo#er &'(' o! the "onora#le Regional Trial Court, 0ranch 1,, Cit) o! San 2ernando, Pa panga in Civil Case No. ($//- entitled+ 3 Sparrow Construction Corporation, plaintiff vs. Quizon Corporation, et al.,

&

Defendants4, den)ing the *otion to Dis iss as well as the *otion !or Reconsideration !iled #) petitioners herein.

5s will #e discussed hereunder, the Petition su!!ers !ro

#oth

procedural and su#stantive de!ects, and should !orthwith #e dis issed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS (. On ( %ul) &'', respondent thru its President and dul) authori6ed representative, 5tt). El!ren "ipolito, %r., and petitioners entered into a %oint 7enture 5gree ent dated ( %ul) &'', wherein private respondent undertoo8 to develop the lots owned #) 9ui6on Corporation into a su#division !or sale to the pu#lic.

&. 5t the ti e o! the signing o! the %oint 7enture 5gree ent, the certi!icates o! title covering the parcels o! land su#:ect atter

thereo! were in the possession o! the ;overn ent Service <nsurance S)ste !avor. =;S<S>, #) virtue o! a ortgage dul) executed in the latter?s

$. <t is stipulated, a ong others, in the %oint 7enture 5gree ent that the petitioners shall o#tain 3docu ents necessar) to clear the titles !ro all liens, encu #rances and taxes4, including the

o#ligation to o#tain !ro Title.

the ;S<S all Original Trans!er Certi!icates o!

1. <t is !urther stipulated in said %oint 7enture 5gree ent that upon co pliance thereo!, Sparrow Construction shall 3give 9ui6on Corporation, through petitioners herein, an initial goodwill pa) ent o! TEN *<@@<ON PESOS =P(',''','''.''>.4

-. 2ro

the execution o! the %oint 7enture 5gree ent and in

the )ears that !ollowed, petitioners have consistentl) represented to respondent that the su#:ect titles have )et to #e secured !ro the

;S<S as the court proceedings involving the sa e are still pending.

,. So eti e in %ul) &''/, Sparrow Construction discovered !ro a dul) licensed real estate #ro8ers that the properties su#:ect

atter o! the %oint 7enture 5gree ent were #eing o!!ered !or sale #) petitioners, in utter disregard o! the existing %oint 7enture 5gree ent.

/. Private respondent later !ound out that the titles over the su#:ect parcels o! land have #een ordered reconve)ed to petitioners as earl) as Nove #er &'',, pursuant to a Arit o! Execution issued #) the Regional Trial Court o! the Cit) o! San 2ernando, Pa panga, 0ranch 1/.

B. To the end that its rights and interest under the %oint 7enture 5gree ent a) #e protected, respondent in a letter dated 1

%ul) &''/ lost no ti e in dul) noti!)ing the Register o! Deeds !or the Province o! Pa panga o! this develop ent.

.. 5s a !urther

easure o! protection o! its rights and interest,

private respondent thru its President executed on . %anuar) &''B an 5!!idavit o! 5dverse Clai and had the sa e annotated on the titles

covering the su#:ect parcels o! land.

('. Petitioners were as !ar #ac8 as Nove #er &'', ver)

uch

in a position to co pl) with the o#ligation to secure the Trans!er Certi!icates o! Title !ro the ;S<S and turn the over to private

respondent #ut deli#eratel) re!used, !or no valid reasons, and even concealed this !act !ro the plainti!!.

((. On 2e#ruar) &, &''., a petition !or the cancellation o! 5dverse Clai annotated in the Trans!er Certi!icates o! Title covering atter o! the %oint 7enture 5gree ent

the parcels o! land su#:ect

was !iled. The said case was ra!!led to Regional Trial Court, 0ranch 1/ and was doc8eted as @RC Case No. -&-,.

(&. The said Regional Trial Court, 0ranch 1/ has on (- %anuar) &'(' rendered a Decision !inding the annotation o! the adverse clai null and void, the dispositive portion o! which is Cuoted as !ollows+ 3A"ERE2ORE, pre ises considered, the adverse clai as registered over Trans!er Certi!icates o! Title Nos. &,/$,/-R to &,B1/-R #eing invalid #e ordered cancelled and the Register o! Deeds o! Pa panga is here#) ordered to cancel and re ove the annotations thereo! !ro the su#:ect certi!ication o! titles. 3No pronounce ent as to 5ttorne)?s !ees and litigation expenses 3SO ORDERED.4 ($. On & 5pril &'(', private respondent herein !iled a co plaint !or speci!ic per!or ance !or the en!orce ent o! the %oint 7enture 5gree ent. The case was ra!!led to the Regional Trial Court, 0ranch 1, and was doc8eted as Civil Case No. $,/&1.

(1. Petitioners !iled a *otion to Dis iss dated ($ 5ugust &'(' raising therein the grounds o! res judicata and !oru shopping.

(-. The said *otion to Dis iss was denied in the assailed Order dated &$ Octo#er &'('. 5 *otion !or Reconsideration dated (' Nove #er &'(' was !iled #) petitioners which su!!ered the sa e !ate as it was also denied #) respondent :udge < its assailed Order dated & *arch &'((.

(,. Dndaunted, petitioners !iled the instant petition !or certiorari under Rule ,- i puting grave a#use o! discretion on the part o! the respondent :udge in issuing the assailed Orders.

ISSUE 5 perusal o! the Petition !or Certiorari would show that the sole issue raised #) petitioners is+ $HETHER OR NOT THERE $AS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE LO$ER COURT IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED ORDERS DISCUSSION T&e '()ta(t a**eal +,)t -e .')+'))e. /o0 ,tte0 la12 o/ +e0't. Petitioners argue that the co plaint !or speci!ic per!or ance !iled #) private respondent Sparrow Construction on the ground o! res judicata and !oru shopping. ust #e dis issed

Su!!ice it to state that the said contentions are devoid o!

erit.

Thus, there is no grave a#use o! discretion on the part o! the respondent court when it issued the Orders su#:ect instant case. atter o! this

2or the purpose o! clarit), res judicata, according to 0lac8?s @aw Dictionar), re!ers to 3the rule that a !inal :udg ent rendered #) a court o! co petent :urisdiction on the erits is conclusive as to the rights o!

the parties and their privies and, as to the , constitutes an a#solute #ar to a su#seCuent action involving the sa e clai , de and or

cause o! action4. <t e #races two concepts+ =a> the e!!ect o! a :udg ent as a #ar to the prosecution o! a second action upon the sa e clai , de and or cause o! actionE this is designated as F bar by former judgmentE and, =#> precludes the relitigation o! a particular !act or issues in another action #etween the sa e parties on a di!!erent clai or cause o! action. This is the rule on F conclusiveness of

judgment. =Calalang vs. Register of Deeds, &$( SCR5 BB =(..1>>

The ele ents o! res judicata &a3e -ee( 0e'te0ate. -4 t&e S,*0e+e Co,0t '( t&e /a'0l4 0e1e(t 1a)e o/ So1'al Se1,0't4 Co++'))'o( 3). R'5al Po,lt04 a(. L'3e)to12 A))o1'at'o(% I(1.% G.R. No. 6 7858% #,(e 86% "866, to wit G 3The ele ents o! res judicata are+ =(> the :udg ent sought to #ar the new action ust #e !inalE =&> the decision ust have #een rendered #) a court having :urisdiction over the su#:ect atter and the partiesE =$> the disposition o! the case ust #e a :udg ent on the eritsE and =1> there ust #e as #etween the !irst and second action, identit) o! parties, su#:ect atter, and causes o! action.4 2or want o! the !ourth reCuisite, to wit, that there ust #e as

#etween the !irst and second action, identit) o! parties, su#:ect atter, and causes o! action, the instant case is thus re oved !ro the operation o! the principle o! res judicata.

2irst and !ore ost, it cannot #e said that there is identit) o! parties in the @RC Case No. -&-, and Civil Case No. $,/&1. <n truth

and in !act, the de!endants in the case !or speci!ic per!or ance are not the sa e petitioners in the action !or cancellation o! adverse clai . Petitioners in @RC Case No. -&-, asserted their rights as heirs to the su#:ect pieces o! properties while de!endants in Civil Case No. $,/&1 were sued #ased on the :oint venture that the) have voluntaril) entered into. <t cannot even #e said that there is su#stantial identit) o! parties since there was no privit) o! interest #etween petitioners in the land registration case and the de!endants in the case !or speci!ic per!or ance.

<n the sa e vein, there is no identit) o! cause o! action #etween the two =&> cases. The Supre e Court e plo)ed various tests in deter ining whether or not there is identit) o! causes o! action to warrant the application o! the principle o! res judicata. 2or the purpose o! clarit), the di!!erent tests to deter ine identit) o! causes o! action are hereto applied.

The Supre e Court in the case o! Luzon Development Bank v. Conquilla, 1/' SCR5 -$$, -1, and in a long line o! decisions, enu erated the ele ents o! a cause o! action as !ollows G =(> a right in !avor o! the plainti!! #) whatever eans and under whatever law it arises or is createdE

('

=&> an o#ligation on the part o! the na ed de!endant to respect or not to violate such rightE and =$> an act or o ission on the part o! such de!endant in violation o! the right o! the plainti!! or constituting a #reach o! the o#ligation o! the de!endant to the plainti!! !or which the latter a) aintain an action !or

recover) o! da ages.

5ppl)ing the !oregoing, petitioners in @RC Case No. -&-, anchored their right to have the annotated adverse clai cancelled

#ased on Section /' o! PD (-&. =@and Registration Decree>. Petitioners therein clai ed that the) are heirs entitled to a portion o! the said pieces o! propert). Thus, the cause o! action is the wrong!ul annotation o! an adverse clai over the entire lots covered #)

Trans!er Certi!icates o! Title Nos. &,/$,/-R to &,B1/-R

"owever, in Civil Case No. $,/&1, the cause o! action is the en!orce ent o! the :oint venture agree ent voluntaril) entered into #) petitioners herein. Private respondent Sparrow Construction has su!!icientl) shown that it has the right to see8 en!orce ent o! the :oint venture agree ent it #eing a part) to the said contractE as petitioner 9ui6on Corporation represented #) 0elen S. 9ui6on and Conrad N.

((

9ui6on voluntaril) entered into said agree ent, the) have the correlative o#ligation to co pl) with the ter s and conditions thereo! inas uch as these provisions are not contrar) to law, orals or

pu#lic polic) and that petitioners? act o! 8nowingl) and !raudulentl) o!!ering !or sale the su#:ect parcels o! land notwithstanding the su#sistence o! the %oint 7enture 5gree ent s ac8s o! #ad !aith and un!airl) deprived the private respondent herein o! its rights and interest thus constraining it to !ile the co plaint !or speci!ic per!or ance.

Even i! we appl) 3a#sence o! inconsistenc) test4, another test o! identit) o! causes o! action, as enunciated in the case o! Valencia et al, vs Regional Trial Court of uezon Cit!, Branc" #$ , ;.R. No.

B&((&, 5pril $, (..', the sa e conclusion will #e reached. The Supre e Court in the said case held G 3One test o! identit) o! causes o! action is whether or not the :udg ent sought in a su#seCuent case will #e inconsistent with the prior :udg ent. <! no inconsistenc) will result, the prior :udg ent cannot #e held to #e a #ar.4 5ppl)ing the sa e test to the instant case, an) decision o! the respondent court would not #e inconsistent with the pronounce ent in @RC Case No. -&-,. To illustrate, respondent court in its assailed Order had pronounced G 32urther ore, in the event this court orders de!endants =petitioners herein> to co pl) with the :oint venture agree ent, the) will #e reCuired to see8 the partition o! the

(&

su#:ect lots and that allocated to the will onl) #e developed into a su#division #) plainti!! =private respondent herein>. This will not contradict the decision in @RC Case No. -&-,, #ecause the shares o! petitioners in said case will not #e a!!ected. On the other hand, in case a decision is rendered in !avor o! de!endants =petitioners herein>, this case will :ust #e dis issed. De!endants =petitioners herein> and co-heirs would re ain in the sa e situation, prior to the !iling o! the case at #ench, in relation to the su#:ect lots.4 The said pronounce ent is consistent with the decision in @RC Case No. -&-,, to wit+ 3"owever, the :oint venture agree ent should #e treated as a personal underta8ing o! 0elen S. 9ui6on and Conrad N. 9ui6on with Sparrow Construction Corporation to #ind their pro-indiviso share to the su#:ect properties. 0ut to #ind whatever pro-indiviso share o! 0elen S. 9ui6on and Conrad 0. 9ui6on to the su#:ect properties, there is a need to e!!ectuate :udicial or extra-:udicial partition in order to identi!) which part o! the whole ass o! the su#:ect properties #elong to the .4 @astl), the ore co on approach in ascertaining identit) o!

causes o! action is the Hsa e evidence test,H where#) the !ollowing Cuestion serves as a su!!icient criterion+ Hwould the sa e evidence support and esta#lish #oth the present and !or er causes o! actionIH <! the answer is in the a!!ir ative, then the prior :udg ent is a #ar to the su#seCuent actionE conversel), it is not. = Development Ban of t!e "!ilippines v. "undogar, ;.R. No. .,.&(, %anuar) &., (..$>.

($

<t is the hu #le su# ission o! private respondents that a si ple application o! this test to the !acts o! the instant case readil) reveals that the evidence necessar) to o#tain a!!ir ative relie! in the present action !or speci!ic per!or ance #ased on the executed %oint 7enture 5gree ent is not the sa e as that in the action !or cancellation o! adverse clai . 5t this :uncture, it is again stressed that there is no identit) o! su#:ect atter #etween the previous and present suits.

This !inding necessaril) translates to the utter di!!erence in the pieces o! evidence necessar) to prove the causes o! action in the two actions.

0ased on the !oregoing, it is readil) apparent that the causes o! action !ro the two =&> cases are totall) di!!erent, thus the principle o!

res judicata !inds no application.

PRA9ER $HEREFORE, it is respect!ull) pra)ed o! this "onora#le Court that the instant petition !or certiorari #e dis issed !or utter lac8 o! erit.

Other relie!s and re edies are li8ewise pra)ed !or.

5ngeles Cit), !or *anila, JJJ %une &'(&.

(1

VILLANUEVA DE LEON HIPOLITO TUAZON IMBONG LA$ OFFICES Counsel for Respondent Sparrow Construction Corp. (,/ Sto. Rosario Street, Sto. Do ingo, 5ngeles Cit)E Tel No. BBB-,B--KBBB-,B$& P@DT No. ,&--$.-'-E 1$,-(/,( Ae#site+ www.vlhtlaw.co 0)+ ELFREN P. HIPOLITO% #R. Notar) Pu#lic, 5ngeles Cit) Co . No. &'('-'$1 Exp. Dec $(, &'($ PTR No. (B&-1$-BK%an '1, &''/K5.C. <0P No. ,,1$/1KDece #er 1, &'('K5.C. Sto. Do ingo, 5ngeles Cit) *C@E Co pliance No. <<<G''1-.&/ $K$'K(' e ail address+ ephLvlhtlaw.co

Co*4 F,0(')&e. =0) registered ail with return card> ATT9. APOLLO #. UMADHA9 Aaterview 0uilding, Stall (', Pandan 5ngeles Cit) RR No JJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJ Nove #er &'($ *ain Post O!!ice, 5.C.

(-

EXPLANATION

:'( 1o+*l'a(1e ;'t& Se1t'o( 66% R,le 6! o/ t&e 6<<7 R,le) o/ C'3'l P0o1e.,0e= Copies o! the pleadingK otion to which this explanation is appended was+ !iled with this "onora#le Court #) registered ailE sent to counsel !or the adverse part)Kies #) registered ailE due to the !ollowing reasonKs+ the distance #etween this "onora#le Court and counsel?s o!!ice which a8es personal !iling o! the pleadingK otion i practica#leE the great distance !ro the o!!ice o! counsels !or #oth parties which a8es personal service i practica#leE lac8 o! o!!ice personnel to e!!ect personal serviceE ti e constraints E.P.HIPOLITO% #R.