PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 – 2014) ATTY.

VIVENCIO ABANO

G.R. No. 149313 January 22, 2008 sell

seller
er,
, and
and (2)
(2) she
she did
did no avai
avail
l of Article
Article 497 whic
which
h gave
gave her
her the
the
opport
opportuniunity
ty to interve
intervene
ne in the special
special civil
civil action
action for the partiti
partition.
on.
PANGANIBANv.OAMIL Therefore,sheisboundbythejudgmentandcannolongerquestionit.

Plainti
Plaintiffs:
ffs: (Childr
(Children
en of Parten
Partenio
io Rombaua
Rombaua and his deceased
deceased first
first wife
wife BACKGROUND:
Juliana)  Two
Two port
portion
ions
s of a comme
commerc rcial
ial prop
proper erty
ty in East
East Baja
Bajac-B
c-Baj
ajac
ac,
,
• JulitaRombauaPanganiban OlongapoCityisincontention:
st st
• PaquitoRombaua o 204.5squaremetersfacing21 St.(21 portion)
• RupertoRombaua o 204.5squaremetersfacingCandaSt.(Candaportion)
• TeresitaRombauaTelaje o OneportionbelongstoPartenioRombauaaspartofhis
• LeonorRombauaOpiana conjugalshare,and1/6eachoftheremaininghalfisco-
ownedbyPartenioandpetitionersasheirsofJuliana.
Defendant:  April
April 26, 1993
1993 à Julit
Julita
a Oamil
Oamil filed
filed a compl
complaiaint
nt for
for specif
specific
ic
• JulitaOamil(buyerofPartenioRombaua’sproperty) performancewithdamagesagainstPartenioaskingthathebe
st
ordere
orderedd toexecute
toexecute a finaldeedof
finaldeedof sale over
over the 21 portion,
portion,
CASE:JulitaOamilisthebuyerofPart
CASE:JulitaOamilisthebuyerofPartenioRomba
enioRombaua’sconju
ua’sconjugalsharein
galsharein whic
which
h is alle
allege
gedl
dly
y cove
coverred by theitheirr “Agr
“Agree
eeme
mentnt to Sell
Sell”
”
apropertyandfiledforspecificperformance(CivilCaseNo.140-0-93)to executedonMay17,1990.
effectthetransferofthedeed.ThetrialcourtruledinfavorofOamil o Parteniofailedtoanswerandwasdeclaredindefault.
withou
without t indicat
indicating
ing which
which portio
portion
n of the proper
property
ty is awarde
awardedd to her  December26,1993àWithoutindicatingwhichportionofthe
specificallybutonlythatsheisentitledtotheportionwhichconstitutes propertyshouldbedeededtorespondentasbuyerofPartenio’s
Parten
Partenio’
io’s
s conjug
conjugal
al share.
share. Hereinpetiti
Hereinpetitione
oners
rs then
then filed
filed a petitio
petition
n for conjugalshare,thetrialcourtforCivilCaseNo.140-0-93ruled
1
reliefclaimingthatthesubjectofCivilCaseNo.140-0-93isstillunder infavorofOamil. 
litigationforpartit
litigationforpartition(Speci
ion(SpecialCivilActionNo.340
alCivilActionNo.340-0-86)
-0-86).Thetrialcourt
.Thetrialcourt  February21,1994àParteniowasservedawriteofexecution
 – with Oamil’s consent – then deferred the decision of the issue
issued
d on Febr
Februauary
ry 15 after
after the
the decis
decisioion
n becam
became e final
final and
and
reconsiderati
reconsiderationforCivilCaseNo.140-0
onforCivilCaseNo.140-0-93untilSpe
-93untilSpecialCivilAction
cialCivilActionNo.
No. executoronFebruary4.
340-0-86isfinal.ThelatterwasresolveddeclaringthatPartenio’sshare

istheCandaSt.portion.However,thetrialcourtstillruledthatthesold 1Dec.26,1993decisionoftheTrialCourtonCivilCaseNo.140-0-93:
st
portiontoOamilisthe21 St.portion,andthiswasaffirmedbytheCA. WHEREFORE,viewedfromalltheforegoing,judgmentisherebyrenderedasfollows:
(1)Thedefendantisherebyorderedtoexecuteadeedofabsolutesaleoverthe1⁄2portion
(front)oftherealtysubjectmatterofthiscaseinfavoroftheplaintiffandtosurrenderthe
TheSupremeCourtruledthatthetrialcourtofCivilCaseNo.140-0-93 possessionthere
possessionthereoftotheplaintif
oftotheplaintiff.Failure
f.Failureofthedefendanttodoso,thentheCity
ofthedefendanttodoso,thentheCityAssesso
Assessorof
rof
Olongapoisherebydirectedtoeffectthetransferofallrights/i
Olongapoisherebydirectedtoeffectthetransferofallrights/interestontheone-half(1/2)
nterestontheone-half(1/2)
shouldnothavemodifiedtherulingofSpecialCivilActionNo.340-0-86,
frontportionofthesaidrealtyinthenameoftheplaintiff,uponthefinalityofthisdecision;;
andsaid thatthe property
property subject of theAgreementof Salebetween (2) Plaint
Plaintiff
iff,
, howeve
however,
r, is ordere
ordered
d to pay the amount
amount of EIGHT
EIGHT THOUSA
THOUSAND ND PESOS
PESOS
OamilandPartenioistheCandaSt.portion.TheCourtalsoruledthat (P8,000.00)
(P8,000.00) representingthe
representingthe balanceof theinterests
theinterests dueon theamount
theamount ofP200,000.0
ofP200,000.00, 0,
delinquentforone(1)yearcomputedat12%perannum;;
Oamilcannolongerquestionthisjudgmentbecause(1)beingabuyer, (3)Defendantis,likewi
(3)Defendantis,likewise,hereby
se,herebyorderedtopaytheplain
orderedtopaytheplaintiff
tiffattorney’sfeesintheamount
attorney’sfeesintheamount
she has nogreater
nogreater right
right over the proper
propertythan
tythan Parten
Partenio
io had as the ofTENTHOUSANDPESOS(P10,000.00).
LetacopyofthisDecisionbefurnishedtheCityAssessorofOlongapoCity.

RACHELLEANNEGUTIERREZ
PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 – 2014)
o The writ was also served to the City Assessor of
Olongapo City who transferred the Tax Declaration
coveringthe21stSt.portioninOamil’sname.
 June1994 àHereinpetitionersfiledforrelieffromthedecision
onthegroundthat:
o Partenio’s conjugal sharein the property, and that of
petitioners as well, are being litigated in a judicial
partition proceeding (the partition case) which is
pendingwiththeCourtofAppeals,hencethetrialcourt
may not yetrender a decision disposing of a definite
areaofthesubjectpropertyinrespondent’sfavor.
o Petitionerswereunjustlydeprivedoftheopportunityto
protect and defend their interest in court because,
notwithstanding thatthey areindispensable parties to
thecase(beingco-ownersofthesubjectproperty),they
werenotimpleadedinCivilCaseNo.140-0-93.
 January13,1995àPetitionforreliefisdeniedbutpetitioners
filedfor reconsideration. Instead of resolving the motion, the
trial court, with the concurrence of the petitioners and the
respondent,deferredtheproceedings,toawaittheresultofa
pending appeal with the Court of Appeals of the decision in
SpecialCivilActionNo.340-0-86,thepartitioncase,wherethe
trialcourt(whohandledthispartitioncase)awardedtheCanda
St.portiontoPartenioashisconjugalshare.
o Ruling:theCAaffirmedthetrialcourt,andawardedthe
CandaSt.portionasPartenio’sconjugalshare.
 (Sobrangepallangngpersonna‘tobutjustincase) Sometime
in1995 àSoteroGanfiledaComplaintinInterventionclaiming
(1) to have purchased Partenio’s conjugal share who in turn
executed a deed of waiver and quitclaim to his possessory
rights,and(2)thatthetaxdeclarationhadbeentransferredin
hisname.HeseekstodismissCivilCaseNo.140-0-93andasked
forthereinstatementofhis nameonthetaxdeclarationwhich
bythenhadbeenplacedinOamil’sname.Petitioneropposed
Gan’sclaimsayingthatinterventionwasnolongerproper.
RACHELLEANNEGUTIERREZ
ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO
 October23,1997 àThetrialcourthandlingCivilCaseNo.140-
0-93denied Gan’smotion for reconsideration, aswellas that
for the petitioner’s motion for relief. The trial court ALSO
MODIFIED it’s December 26, 1993 decision by awarding
specificallythe21stSt.portionofthepropertytoPartenioashis
conjugal share, despite the pronouncement in Special Civil
ActionNo.340-0-86whichawardstheCandaSt.portiontohim.
 March22,2001 àTheCAaffirmedtheOctober23,1997ruling
on ground that petitioners have always acknowledged
st
Partenio’s “acts of ownership” over the 21 St portion, thus
signifyingtheirconsentandbarringthemfromquestioning.
ISSUESTOBERESOLVED:
1. WhetherornotpetitionerscaninterveneinCivilCaseNo.140-
0-93 (complaint for specific performance of Oamil against
PartenioRombaua)inordertoprotecttheirrightsasco-owners
ofthesubjectproperty.
RESOLUTIONSANDARGUMENTS
ISSUE1 WhetherornotpetitionerscaninterveneinCivilCaseNo.
140-0-93(complaintforspecificperformanceofOamilagainstPartenio
Rombaua)in orderto protect theirrightsas co-owners ofthe subject
property.àYES.Byvirtueofthedecisiononthepartitioncase,theland
whichParteniosoldtoOamilisonewhichheco-ownswithhischildren.
Thus,petitionersareinterestedpartiesinCivilCaseNo.140-0-93.
Major Point 1: Ina contract ofsale of co-owned property, what the
vendee obtains by virtue of such a sale are the same rights as the
vendorhadasco-owner,andthevedeemerelystepsintotheshoesof
thevendorasco-owner.
• Thedecisionin Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86, which is an
actionforjudicialpartitionofthesubjectproperty,determines
whatPartenio,andultimately,respondent,ashissuccessor-in-
interest,isentitledtoinCivilCaseNo.140-0-93.
PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 – 2014)
• Oamil, as Partenio’s successor-in-interest, cannot acquire any
superiorrightinthepropertythanwhatPartenioisentitledto
receive.
MajorPoint2:RespondentOamildidnotavailoftherighttointervene
2
grantedtoherby Article497 andthereforemaynolongerquestionthe
decisionofpartitioning.
• As early as May 17, 1990, when respondent and Partenio
executed the "Agreement to Sell", the former knew that the
property she was purchasing was conjugal property ownedin
commonbyPartenioandtheheirsofhisdeceasedwife.
• While Civil Case No. 140-0-93 was pending, respondent was
informedof thependencyof Special CivilAction No.340-0-86
yet she did not take any steps to intervene in said partition
proceedings. Instead she unconditionally agreed to the trial
court’sdecisiontosuspendproceedingsuntilthepartitioncase
hasbeenresolved.
• WhenthedecisioninSpecialCivilActionNo.340-0-86became
finalandexecutorywithouttherespondenthavingquestioned
the same inany manner whatsoever,by appealorotherwise,
the division of property decreed therein may no longer be
impugnedbyher.
MajorPoint3:ThetrialcourtinCivilCaseNo.140-0-93cannotaward
st
the 21 portion to Partenio (and consider it as the property sold to
Oamil) since Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86 awarded the Canda
portion tohim, and the latter shouldbe conclusive of whichspecific
portion of the property became the subject matter of sale between
Partenioandtherespondent–theCandaSt.portion.
• TrialCourtstryinganordinaryaction(likeCivilCaseNo.140-0-
93)cannotperformactspertainingtoaspecialproceeding(like

2 Article 497,C ivil Code:Thecreditorsorassigneesoftheco-ownersmaytakepartinthe
division of the thing owned in common and object to its being effected without their
concurrence.Buttheycannot impugn anypartition alreadyexecuted,unlesstherehas been
fraud, orin caseit wasmade notwithstandinga formal oppositionpresentedto preventit,
withoutprejudicetotherightofthedebtororassignortomaintainitsvalidity.
RACHELLEANNEGUTIERREZ
ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO
SpecialCivilActionNo.340-0-86)becauseitissubjecttospecific
prescribedrules.
• Thus,theCAwasinerrortohaveconsideredtheallegedactsof
ownership exerciseduponthe 21st St. portion byPartenioas
weighing heavily againstthe decreedpartition inSpecial Civil
ActionNo.340-0-86.Thedeterminationofthisissueisbeyond
theambitofthetrialcourtinCivilCaseNo.140-0-93.
• Thetrialcourt and the Courtof Appeals, by disregarding the
finalandexecutoryjudgmentinSpecialCivilActionNo.340-0-
86, certainly ignored the principle of conclusiveness of
 judgments,which prohibitsthe tryingof identical issues afterit
3
hasbeenresolvedbyfinaljudgmentofacompetentcourt.
FINALVERDICT: Asa resultofthetrialcourt’srefusaltoabide bythe
decisioninSpecialCivilActionNo.340-0-86,therightsofthepetitioners
havebeenunnecessarilytransgressed,therebygivingthemtherightto
seekreliefincourtinordertoannultheOctober23,1997Orderofthe
trialcourtwhichsubstantiallyandwronglymodifieditsoriginaldecision
inCivilCaseNo.140-0-93.
With respect to Gan’s intervention, the same is no longer proper
becausethedecisioninCivilCaseNo.140-0-93isfinalandexecutory.
Intervention,beingmerelycollateralorancillarytotheprincipalaction,

3PRINCIPLEOFCONCLUSIVENESSOFJUDGMENTS:
[A]factorquestionwhichwasinissueina formersuitandwastherejudiciallypassedupon
anddeterminedbya courtofcompetentjurisdiction,isconclusivelysettledbythejudgment
thereinasfarasthepartiestothatactionandpersonsinprivitywiththemareconcernedand
cannotbeagainlitigatedinanyfutureactionbetweensuchpartiesortheirprivies,inthesame
courtorany othercourtof concurrentjurisdictionon eitherthesameor differentcauseof
action,whilethejudgmentremainsunreversedbyproperauthority.Ithasbeenheldthatin
orderthat ajudgmentin oneactioncan beconclusiveas toa particularmatterin another
actionbetweenthesamepartiesortheirprivies,itisessentialthattheissuebeidentical.Ifa
particularpointorquestionisinissueinthesecondaction,andthejudgmentwilldependon
thedeterminationofthatparticularpointor question,aformerjudgmentbetweenthe same
partiesortheirprivieswillbefinalandconclusiveinthesecondifthatsamepointorquestion
was inissue andadjudicatedin thefirst suit (Nabusvs.Courtof Appeals, 193SCRA732
[1991]).Identityofcauseofactionisnotrequiredbutmerelyidentityofissues.
PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 – 2014) ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO

may no longer be allowed in a case already terminated by final

 judgment.

NOSEPARATEOPINIONS

RACHELLEANNEGUTIERREZ