202036978546posterjd

CASE DIGEST
03 Selga vs. Brar

Legal Method

Court Supreme Court, First Division

Citation G.R. No. 175151
Date September 21, 2011
Petitioner Tobias Selga and Ceferina Garancho Selga
Respondent Sony Entierro Brar
Ponente J. Leonardo-De Castro

Relevant topic/s Res Judicata

Prepared by GD Baltazar

FACTS:

 Francisco Entierro (Francisco) died intestate on March 7, 1979, and left behind a parcel of land, identified
as Lot 1138-A, located in Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental.

 On May 15, 1985, Francisco’s spouse, Basilia Tabile (Basilia) and legitimate children, Esteban, Herminia,
Elma, Percival and Gilda, executed a Deed of Sale with Declaration of Heirship. In the said Deed, Basila et
al. declared themselves to be Francisco’s only heirs who inherited the subject property; and at the same
time, sold the subject property to petitioners, spouses Tobias Selga and Ceferina Selga for 120k. By reason
of said sale, TCT-10273 in Francisco’s name was cancelled and replaced by TCT-134408 in petitioners’
names.

RTC BRANCH 55:

 Seven years later, respondent Sony Entierro Brar filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale with Damages
against petitioners, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 276. Respondent claimed that she was one of
the legitimate children of Francisco and Basilia, and that she had been preterited and illegaly deprived of
her rightful share.

 One of the allegations of respondent was that as one of the co-heirs, she is legally entitled to redeem the
said property from the petitioners for the same price paid by the latter.
 The RTC Branch 55 rendered the following judgement in the Civil Case No. 276:

o Respondent is one of the legitimate children and thus, is entitled to inherit and share in the subject
lot; o The Deed of Sale with Declaration of Heirship was annulled;

o Ordered the respondent to legally redeem the lot for the price of 52k;

o Ordered the petitioners to account to the respondent her share in the produce of the land in
question from May 15, 1985 up to the time her share have been ordered delivered to her.

 Upon Francisco’s death, half of the property was inherited by Basilia while the other half was inherited by
his children, pro indiviso. The property relation of the heirs was governed by the provisions on co-
ownership.

 Upon the declaration of the annulment of sale, the sharing was declared as 1/11 for the respondent and
10/11 for the petitioner spouses.

 Unsatisfied, respondent filed an appeal of the judgement of RTC Branch 55 before the CA.
However, respondent subsequently moved to withdraw her appeal.

 In a Letter dated August 11, 1997, respondent informed the petitioners that she was exercising her right
to redeem petitioners’ 10/11 share in the property. This was countered by petitioners’ counsel saying
that the redemption is devoid of complete merit, that the respondent pleaded redemption as a cause of
action in the RTC case but the RTC did not see fit to grant you the right of redemption.

RTC BRANCH 56:

 Respondent then instituted on January 21, 1998 at RTC Branch 56 a Complaint for Legal Redemption
with Damages (Civil Case No. 573). In their Answer with Counterclaim, petitioners invoked the
defenses of res judicata and/or forum shopping.

 RTC Branch 56 agreed with the petitioners that the present action, Civil Case 573, is barred by res
judicata in view of the finality of the decision in Civil Case 276 involving the same parties. Although the
prior case was entitled annulment of sale with damages, yet, the averments in the complaint and the
relief’s sought for included the legal redemption which is the subject matter of the present action.

COURT OF APPEALS:
 Respondent appealed the Decision of Branch 56. The Court of Appeals promulgated its decision
which reversed and set aside the Decision of RTC Branch 56 in Civil Case 573.

 As a rule, co-heirs or co-owners of undivided property are required to notify in writing the other/s of the
actual sale of the former’s share in the co-ownership. And within one month or 30 days from notice, a co-
heir or co-owner who wish to redeem such property must make a claim for the reconveyance of the same
by either

Page 1 of 3
CASE DIGEST
03 Selga vs. Brar

Legal Method

consignation in court or offer to repurchase by tendering the vendor payment of the redemption
money. No such notice was given to the respondent.

 What had become final and conclusive in Civil Case 276 is only with respect to the filiation of the
respondent and her right to inherit, but not as to her right to redeem the property.

ISSUE-HELD-RATIO:

ISSUE AND HELD RATIO

W/N Cas 57
Civil e 3 GENERAL DISCUSSION ON RES JUDICATA
befo ∙ Res judicata means “a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or
re Branch 56 is decided; a
barr b fin
ed y the al thing or matter settled by judgment.”
judgment of Civil
Case ∙ It is for the interest of the public that there should be an end to litigation by the
render parties over a subject fully and fairly adjudicated. The doctrine of res judicata
276 ed by is a
Branch 55. rule that pervades every well-regulated system of jurisprudence and is
YES. founded
upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of the common law namely:
1 Public policy and necessity – It would be the interest of the State that
. there be
an end to litigation.
2
. The hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same
cause.
∙ Res judicata has two concepts:
1 Bar by prior judgment under Rule 39, Section 47b – the judgment or final
. as to
any matter that could have been raised in relation thereto is conclusive
between
the parties…
2 Conclusiveness of judgment under Rule 39, Section 47c – that only is
. deemed
to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears
upon
its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily
included therein or necessary thereto.
∙ The four essential requisites of res judicata:
a. Finality of former judgment;
b. The court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and
the
parties;
c. It must be a judgment on the merits; and
d. There must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties,
subject
matter and causes of action.

RESOLVING THE ISSUE

 It is not disputed that the Decision dated May 8, 1996 of RTC Branch 55 in Civil
Case 276 had become final and executory. Petitioners no longer appealed the
said decision, while respondent withdrew her appeal of the same before the CA.
 There is also no question that RTC Branch 55 had jurisdiction over the subject
matter and parties in Civil Case 276 and that the Decision was a judgment on
the merits, meaning, one rendered after a consideration of the evidence or
stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial of the case.
 Controversy arises on the fourth requisite: the identity of the parties, subject
matter and causes of action. There is identity of parties as both cases were
instituted by respondent against petitioners. There is also identity of subject
matter as both cases involved the respondent’s rights and interests over the
subject property. Finally, there is identity of causes of action.
 Sec. 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as “the act or
omission by which a party violates the right of another.” The cause of action in
both cases is the sale of the entire subject property by Basilia et al., to
petitioners without respondent’s knowledge and consent.

 The annulment of the sale of respondent’s share in the subject property and the
claim for damages should not be mistaken to be the causes of action but they
were the remedies and reliefs prayed for by the respondent to redress the
wrong allegedly committed against her.

 In her Complaint in Civil Case 276, respondent already alleged her right to
redemption and prayed, among others, the RTC Branch 55 to order respondent
legally entitled to redeem the subject property. The Decision of Branch 55

neither discussed her right of redemption nor ordered in its decretal portion.

Page 2 of 3
CASE DIGEST
03 Selga vs. Brar

Legal Method

 All matters within the issues raised in Civil Case 276 were passed upon by the
court. Resultantly, the silence of the Decision in Civil Case 276 regarding the
right of redemption does not mean that RTC Branch 55 did not take cognizance
of the same, but rather, that RTC Branch 55 did not deem respondent entitled
to said right.

 Therefore, Civil Case 573 before RTC Branch 56 should be dismissed, being
barred by res judicata, given the final and executory Decision dated May 8,
1996 of RTC Branch 55 in Civil Case 276. The Court stresses that res judicata, in
the concept of bar by prior judgment, renders the judgment or final order
conclusive between the parties and their privies, not just with respect to a
matter directly adjudged, but also any other matter that could have been raised
in relation thereto.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated May 31, 2006 and Resolutions dated
September 28, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 72987 are SET ASIDE. The Decision dated July 27,
2001 of Branch 56 of the Regional Trial Court of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, dismissing Civil Case No.
573 is REINSTATED.
Page 3 of 3