FLORENCIA NISNISAN, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JOSEFINA GENTILES BACAL IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 10, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MALAYBALAY CITY, BUKIDNON, VICENTA CUBI…
FRANCISCO, J.:
The Facts of the Case
On March 15, 2006, plaintiffs Vicenta Cubita & Flordeliza Baliling (herein private respondents) filed a complaint for “Cancellation of title, Recovery of Possession and Damages” against defendant Florencia Nisnisan (herein petitioner) before the RTC, 10th Judicial Region, Branch 9, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon docketed as Civil Case No. 3539-06.[3]
On July 7, 2006, defendant filed her Answer to the complaint.[4]
On June 16, 2008, the RTC Branch 9, Malaybalay City, issued an Order dismissing the complaint, thus:
It would appear from the pleading and the Pre-Trial Conference that ensued that the land involved in this case is a registered parcel of land. Lot Psu-231061 with an area of 33,331 square meters, more or less covered with Original Certificate of Title No. P-40766 under the name of the defendant who is in actual possession thereof.
A certificate of title is not subject to collateral attack. Under the Property Registration Decree, title issued under the Torrens System can only be altered, modified or canceled in direct proceeding in accordance with the law.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING and for failure of plaintiff to file its amended complaint per order made in open Court on February 19, 2008 during the Pre-trial Conference, case is hereby ordered dismissed.[5]
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of the June 16, 2008 Order was denied by RTC Branch 9 in its Order dated February 16, 2009, the pertinent portion of which stated-
Scrutiny of the records showed that original complaint was filed on March 3, 2006 and the defendants filed an Answer on July 7, 2006 and prayed for the dismissal of the case considering that the title of the subject land was issued more than a year, thus, it has already attained its indefeasibility.
On March 2, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which was admitted by the Court and the only changes from the original complaint were, the word reconveyance was added in the caption and also in the prayer.
Moreover, the instant case was dismissed for failure of the plaintiffs to amend its complaint as contained in the assailed Order.
The rule is, it is the allegations in the complaint may properly be considered in ascertaining the existence of a cause of action. (sic) Scrutiny of the complaint, one can inferred (sic) that it is an attack against the title of the property issued in favor of the defendant. This kind of attack is barred as above-discussed.[6]
On June 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed another complaint for “Cancellation of Title and Damages” against defendant before the RTC Branch 10, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon docketed as Civil Case No. 3945-09.[7]
On July 9, 2009, defendant filed her Answer to the complaint.[8]
On May 27, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint[9] with the attached copy of the Amended Complaint for Reconveyance of Title and Damages.[10]
On February 17, 2011, the RTC Branch 10 issued a Resolution which, inter alia, decreed:
Adopting the observation made by the defendant, it must be recalled that prior to the institution of the present case, herein plaintiffs earlier filed before RTC Br. 9, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Civil Case No. 3539-06 for Cancellation of Title, Recovery of Possession and Damages. Considering that the title of defendant over the land in litigation has already become indefeasible, plaintiffs, opted to amend the original complaint from Cancellation of Title to Recovery of Title to avoid outright dismissal thereof. The main allegations as well as the relief prayed for were not amended but remained unchanged. The case was ordered dismissed by the Court however and plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. On June 3, 2009, herein plaintiffs filed this present case again for “Cancellation of Title and Damages”, seeking once more to declare the nullity or cancellation of OCT No. 40766 in the name of defendant. It is noteworthy in this connection that the allegation as well as the reliefs sought for in the three complaints, namely: [1] The original complaint in Civil Case No. 3539-06; [2] The Amended Complaint thereof and [3] The present complaint are the same, in fact, a verbatim copy or reproduction of each other.
As correctly pointed out by the defendant, all the requisites of res judicata are present in this case. First, the order of dismissal in Civil Case No. 3539-06 rendered by the RTC Br. 9 is fina[l]. Second, the said Order is an adjudication upon the merits [Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court]. Third, the said order was rendered by court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties and Fourt[h], there is between the first and the present action, identity of parties, of subject matter and cause of action.
In the light of the above, the Court finds plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint bereft of merit, thus DENIED. On the other hand[,] defendant’s grounds relied in her Special and/or Affirmative Defenses appear to be meritorious, hence, the instant Complaint is hereby ordered DISMISSED and plaintiffs are hereby ordered to vacate the land in litigation and return to them the possession of the property in litigation.
SO ORDERED.[11]
On June 21, 2011, the RTC Branch 10 granted plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of the February 17, 2011 Resolution, viz–
In their plea, movants prays (sic) that this Court takes a second look on the arguments raised as well as the jurisprudence invoked.
Accordingly, citing Section 3, Rule 17 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, any dismissal which is grounded on the failure to comply with the order of the court shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merit[s] but only if the order is valid. Movants claimed that when the Presiding Judge of RTC Br. 9 ordered herein movants to amend their complaint under Civil Case No. 3539-06 for Reconveyance [of] Title, etc. changing the cause of action to that of Annulment of Title, movant failed and refused to do so alleging that such order was patently erroneous and eventually led to the dismissal of their case.
While it is true that the present action is for the cancellation of title and damages, however, a perusal of the allegations raised by the plaintiffs-movants, particularly from paragraph 3 to paragraph 9 of the complaint and its prayer, appears to be an action for reconveyance and nothing in the allegations which prayed for the setting the decree of registration, nor aimed to open in order to review or attack the alleged erroneous issuance of title to the defendant.(sic)
Thus, in the case of Javier vs. CA, et al., GR No. 101177, March 28, 1994 which has bearing in this present case, the Supreme Court decreed:
“The basic rule is that after the lapse of one (1) year from entry, a decree of registration is no longer open to review or attack, even though its issuance is attended by actual fraud. This does not mean however that the aggrieved party is without a remedy at law. If the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value, the action for reconveyance is still available. The decree becomes incontrovertible and can no longer be reviewed after one (1) year from the date of decree so that the only remedy of the landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another’s name is to bring an ordinary action in court for reconveyance, which is an action in personam and is always available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent third party for value. If the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, the remedy is an action for damages.”
To reiterate, a perusal of the allegations of the complaint the same show that plaintiff’s cause of action is that of reconveyance and not an attempt to review or attack a decree of registration and or issuance of Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg. P-0766 in favour of defendant Florencia Nisnisan. As to what determines nature of action, the Supreme Court in one case, held: “The nature of the action filed in court is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting the cause of action. The designation or caption is not controlling, more than the allegations in the complaint themselves are, for it is not even an indispensable part of the complaint.” [1Moran 126; Republic vs. Estenzo, G.R. No. 35512, Feb. 29, 1988; Sumulong vs. CA, 51 SCAD 246, 232 SCRA 372, 1944].
Plaintiffs in this case who claimed to be the true owners over the property in question properly brought an action to have the ownership or title to the land to be judicially settled, so that the court in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction and without ordering the cancellation of the titles issued upon the patent, may direct the registered owner to reconvey the parcel of land to the party who has been found to be the true owner thereof. The circumstances surrounding the present action falls squarely with the foregoing cited jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, finding the Motion for Reconsideration to be with merit, the same is hereby granted and the Resolution issued by this Court on February 17, 2011 is hereby reconsidered and ordered set aside. The Amended Complaint dated May 27, 2010 is hereby admitted.
SO ORDERED.[12]
On October 17, 2011, the RTC denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of its June 21, 2011 Order.[13]
In this recourse, defendant Florencia Nisnisan (hereafter petitioner) alleges that the RTC Branch 10 gravely abused its discretion in issuing the Orders dated June 21, 2011 and October 17, 2011 granting the motion for reconsideration of the plaintiffs thereby setting aside its own Order dated February 17, 2011 and admitting their amended complaint for Reconveyance of Title and Damages.[14]
In a Resolution dated April 23, 2012, this Court denied petitioner’s motion for TRO and/or WPI. [15]
The Ruling of the Court
The petition is impressed with merit.
The elements of res judicata are the following:
- There must be a final judgment or order;
- The court rendering the judgment must have jurisdiction over the subject matter;
- The former judgment is a judgment on the merits;
- There is between the first and second actions identity of the parties, subject matter and of causes of action.[16]
The judgment in Civil Case No. 3539-06 is a final judgment, since plaintiffs (private respondents hereafter) failed to appeal therefrom within the reglementary period.
The RTC Branch 9 which rendered the judgment has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The dismissal of Civil Case No. 3539-06 on the ground of failure to comply with the order of the court has the effect of judgment on the merits (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 17, Sec. 3). It has the force of res judicata against the revival of substantially the same action originally filed in another court.
There is between the first and second actions, (Civil Case No. 3539-06 and Civil Case No. 3945-09, respectively) identity of the parties, subject matter and of causes of action.
The RTC Branch 10 was already correct in dismissing the refiled Civil Case No. 3945-09 on the ground of res judicata in its February 17, 2011 Resolution. In the assailed Orders, however, it reversed its own February 17, 2011 Resolution on the ground that the RTC Branch 9 erred in dismissing Civil Case No. 3539-06 in its June 16, 2008 Order. Indubitably, the RTC Branch 10 wrongfully appreciated the issue before it. The issue was not whether the RTC Branch 9 erred in dismissing Civil Case No. 3539-06, but rather, whether the Order dated June 16, 2008 of the RTC Branch 9 in Civil Case No. 3539-06 operated as res judicata to Civil Case No. 3945-09.
Moreover, the Doctrine of Concurrent Jurisdiction prohibits the RTC Branch 10 from interfering with the orders of the RTC Branch 9.[17] It would have been clearly supererogatory for the RTC Branch 10 to virtually act as a higher appellate court by reviewing, much less reversing, the dismissal order of a co-equal court.[18] Besides, private respondents could have appealed the order of dismissal to the appellate court. However, instead of appealing from the order of dismissal in Civil Case No. 3539-06, they filed another case which is an act of forum shopping. Settled is the rule that private respondents are bound by the negligence and mistakes in procedural matters of their counsel.[19]
Notably, before procedural rules can be relaxed to give way to substantive justice, it is implicit that such liberality be applied in a proper case.[20] The circumstances in this case do not warrant this Court’s liberality.
Furthermore, it is a principle of public policy that at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of court should become final at some definite time fixed by law. The very object of which the courts were constituted was to put an end to controversies.[21]
Hence, this Court finds grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC Branch 10 in issuing the Orders dated June 21, 2011 and October 17, 2011 granting private respondents’ motion for reconsideration of its February 17, 2011 Order.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated June 21, 2011 and October 17, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, 10th Judicial Region, Branch 10, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon in Civil Case No. 3945-09 are SET ASIDE. Its February 17, 2011 Order of Dismissal is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Borja, J., Ch., and Badelles, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 4-21.
[2] Rollo, pp. 25-26 and p. 27, respectively.
[3] Rollo, pp. 28-31.
[4] Rollo, pp. 32-37.
[5] Rollo, p. 38.
[6] Rollo, p. 39.
[7] Rollo, pp. 40-42.
[8] Rollo, pp. 44-47.
[9] Rollo, pp. 49-50.
[10] Rollo, pp. 51-53.
[11] Rollo, p. 56.
[12] Rollo, pp. 25-26.
[13] Rollo, p. 27.
[14] Rollo, pp. 11-12.
[15] Rollo, pp. 71-75.
[16] SPS. LUIS ILASCO, JR., et al. v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS et al., G.R. No. 88983, December 14, 1993.
[17] PHILIPP BROTHERS OCEANIC, INC., v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, et al., G.R. Nos. 105416-17, 111863, & 143715, June 25, 2003.
[18] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WOOLCOCK, G.R. No. 110658, May 22, 1995.
[19] Supra at note 16.
[20] Supra at note 16.
[21] Ibid.