FELICISIMA M. PARAS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. ROSALINA COLEMAN (DECEASED), SPOUSES RICARDO AND SYLVIA RAMOS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MILAGROS RAMOS-NUQUI, AND THE…
SALAZAR-FERNANDO, J.:
Order dated November 3, 2003
“WHEREFORE, after a judicious consideration of the case at bar, the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated September 27, 2002, filed by defendants is GRANTED. Let this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, the action being barred by a prior judgment on the merits.
Notify all parties concerned of this Order.
SO ORDERED.”
Order dated January 8, 2004
“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied due course.
Notify all parties concerned of this Order.
SO ORDERED.”
The facts are:
On October 21, 1998, plaintiff-appellant Felicisima M. Paras (Felicisima for brevity), for herself and purportedly in behalf of her children, Oscar M. Paras (Oscar for brevity) and Nicolas M. Paras (Nicolas for brevity), filed before the RTC, Angeles City a complaint[3] for cancellation of title, reconveyance and damages against defendants-appellees Rosalina Coleman (Coleman for brevity), Spouses Ricardo and Sylvia Ramos (Spouses Ramos for brevity) and the Register of Deeds of Angeles City, alleging that: she and her children are the absolute and registered owners of two (2) parcels of land situated at Barangay Cutcut, Angeles City, covered by TCT No. 97514[4] (Lot 33) registered in her name and her son Oscar on September 20, 1993, and TCT No. 98898[5] (Lot 34) registered in her name and her son Nicolas on March 11, 1994 with the Registry of Deeds of Angeles City; the lots in controversy, i.e. Lots 33 and 34 of Psd-48978, were acquired by Coleman but had them registered in the names of the Spouses Ramos because as an American citizen, she is not qualified to acquire real properties in the Philippines; Lot 33, which was originally registered in the names of the Spouses Ramos on November 24, 1976 under TCT No. 45338, was later sold by Coleman to Florante Quizon and was transferred under the latter’s name on March 1, 1979 under TCT No. 50274; Florante Quizon sold the same lot to Ruperto Paras and was transferred under the latter’s name on December 19, 1990 under TCT No. 89527; Ruperto Paras, on the other hand, sold the lot to her and her son Oscar, and was transferred in their names on September 20, 1993 under TCT No. 97514; Lot 34, which was likewise registered in the names of the Spouses Ramos on November 24, 1976 under TCT No. 45337, was also sold by Coleman to Florante Quizon and was transferred under the latter’s name on March 1, 1979 under TCT No. 50273; Florante Quizon sold the same lot to Pacifico Paras and was transferred under the latter’s name on August 24, 1983 under TCT No. 61685; Pacifico Paras sold the said lot to her and her son Nicolas, and was transferred in their names on March 11, 1994 under TCT No. 98898; when her sons, Oscar and Nicolas, agreed to purchase the said lots on installment basis from Ruperto and Pacifico, all of them were in Japan; their transaction was based on trust and confidence and her sons did not have the chance to examine the titles of the subject properties; it was only when the lots were fully paid and the titles thereto were delivered to them, and they were about to register the same in their names, when they were told that there were annotations of lis pendens on the titles of the lots; being unlettered, they did not know the significance of such annotations; they have occupied the lots for years and have built their houses thereon even before the same were sold to them but nobody, not even the defendants-appellees, told them that the said lots were under litigation; there were no signs, notices, warnings, fences or enclosures to indicate any claim of ownership over the lots by the defendants-appellees or anybody; they are innocent buyers in good faith and for valuable consideration; to clear their titles, they filed against the Register of Deeds of Angeles City a petition for the cancellation of notice of lis pendens on their titles as early as August 1, 1995, which was opposed by Coleman, and which was assigned to the RTC, Branch 57, Angeles City, docketed as Cadastral Case No. A-124-746; she did not know and was not a party to Civil Case No. 3271, filed with the RTC, Branch 62, Angeles City, which was filed by Coleman against Florante Quizon; the said case involved the same parcels of land, i.e. lots 33 and 34, and she learned about it only during the trial of Cadastral Case No. A-124-746; Civil Case No. 3271 was eventually decided by the lower court in favor of the defendants-appellees which ordered the cancellation of TCT Nos. 50273 and 50274; on March 6, 1998, her lawyer wrote a letter[6] addressed to the Register of Deeds of Angeles City requesting the latter to deny Coleman’s request to cancel TCT Nos. 50273 and 50274 as the same were already cancelled and new titles were already issued in their names; this notwithstanding, on July 6, 1998, the titles under Florante Quizon’s name, as well as those under their names, were cancelled, and new TCTs were prepared in the names of the Spouses Ramos; to prevent the issuance of the new titles to the Spouses Ramos, they filed an urgent application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction with the RTC, Branch 57, Angeles City; the same was scheduled for hearing but it was ignored by the defendants-appellees; sometime in 1979, Coleman and Florante Quizon conspired to mortgage the said properties for P200,000.00 with the Development Bank of the Philippines, with the intention of taking away the proceeds thereof without redeeming it; however, when Quizon failed to mortgage the properties, Coleman filed a case against Quizon to recover the properties from him, and subsequently annotated a notice of lis pendens on the titles of the properties; Coleman eventually won the case against Quizon, hence, their titles were cancelled and new ones were issued in the names of the Spouses Ramos. In sum, plaintiff-appellant prayed for the cancellation of TCT Nos. 110513[7] and 110514[8] in the names of the Spouses Ramos and for the restoration of TCT Nos. 97514 and 98898, as well as for the payment of damages and attorney’s fees in her favor.
Defendants-appellees filed their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim[9] denying the material averments of the complaint and countered that: the plaintiff-appellant has no cause of action against them because the issues raised in the complaint were already resolved in a decision[10] dated January 29, 1992 of the RTC, Branch 62, Angeles City in Civil Case No. 3271; the TCTs under the names of Florante Quizon, Ruperto Paras, the plaintiff-appellant and her children, were cancelled after the said decision became final and executory; plaintiff-appellant filed the complaint to pre-empt their ejectment from the subject premises; they cannot claim to be innocent buyers in good faith and for valuable consideration because at the time they bought the said lots, a notice of lis pendens appears in the memorandum of encumbrances on the titles thereof; whatever right they have on the said lots was lost because they bought the same subject to the outcome of the case in litigation; plaintiff-appellant’s illiteracy is not a defense because ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith; buyers of real estate are duty-bound to look into the encumbrances appearing at the back of the titles and to inquire from the seller as to the status of the property; the plaintiff-appellant’s claim for damages has no basis because they simply acted on their right to claim back the properties which they have been deprived for so many years already; plaintiff-appellant is guilty of forum-shopping because the issues raised in the complaint are the same issues litigated before the RTC, Branch 57, Angeles City. By way of compulsory counterclaim, defendants-appellees prayed for the payment of moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees in their favor.
On January 22, 1999, the defendants-appellees filed a “Motion to Set Hearing on the Special and Affirmative Defenses xxx”[11] raised in their answer.
On September 23, 1999, the defendants-appellees filed a “Manifestation and Substitution of Party Defendant”[12] praying for the substitution of Milagros Ramos Nuqui in lieu of Rosalina Coleman because of the illness of the latter. On even date, defendants-appellees likewise filed a “Manifestation and Urgent Motion to Set the Special and Affirmative Defenses xxx”[13] reiterating their earlier motion. Plaintiff-appellant filed her “Comment and Opposition xxx”[14] to both motions.
On February 9, 2000, defendants-appellees filed a Manifestation[15] alleging, among others, the death of Rosalina Coleman on December 13, 1999, thence, reiterating her substitution.
In an Order dated March 31, 2000[16], the lower court denied the substitution of Rosalina Coleman by Milagros Nuqui. Nonetheless, the lower court scheduled the special and affirmative defenses for hearing as prayed for in the defendants-appellees’ answer.
On June 21, 2000, defendants-appellees filed another Motion for Substitution of Defendant.[17]
In an Order dated September 27, 2002[18], the lower court ruled that Milagros Nuqui can act as attorney-in-fact of the Spouses Ramos but cannot act as such in favor of Rosalina Coleman. As regards the special and affirmative defenses raised in the defendants-appellees’ answer, the lower court found the same unmeritorious, defendants-appellees having failed to present evidence in support of their allegation that there is a pending case between the same parties involving the same subject matter.
On November 3, 2003, the lower court issued the assailed order dismissing the case with prejudice, based on the special and affirmative defense raised by the defendants-appellees that the case is barred by res judicata.
On January 8, 2004, the plaintiff-appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, which was nonetheless denied. Hence, this appeal assigning the following errors:
“THE HONORABLE COURT BELOW ERRED IN FINDING THAT:
- THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS HAVE NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
- THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS CANNOT CLAIM TO BE INNOCENT BUYERS IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION.
- THE DECISION DATED JANUARY 29, 1992 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 62 OF ANGELES CITY IN CIVIL CASE NO. 3271 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES AGAINST FLORANTE QUIZON FOR ANNULMENT OF DEED OF SALE IN FAVOR OF FLORANTE QUIZON, HAD BEEN RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES INVOLVING THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER, WHICH WAS RESOLVED WITH FINALITY, HAS THE EFFECT OF res judicata, WHICH BARRED THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS IN SAME CAUSE OF ACTION.”[19]
The appeal lacks merit.
The lower court’s dismissal of the case is correct. This case is absolutely barred by res judicata.
The requisites for res judicata are: (a) the former judgment or order must be final, (b) it must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was rendered after a consideration of the evidence or stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial of the case, (c) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, and (d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of action; this requisite is satisfied if the two actions are substantially between the same parties.[20]
When Felicisima Paras filed the complaint on October 21, 1998, the decision dated January 29, 1992 of the RTC, Branch 62, Angeles City in Civil Case No. 3271, which was subsequently affirmed by this Court in CA-G.R. CV No. 38158 in a decision dated August 21, 1995, had already been final and executory. As it was, the same had been the basis of the cancellation proceedings by the Register of Deeds of Angeles City, which issued on February 12, 1998 new TCTs in favor of the Spouses Ramos.
While there is strictly no identity of parties in Civil Case No. 3271 and the present case, Felicisima and her children are bound by the judgment in Civil Case No. 3271 as successors-in-interest of Florante Quizon, from whose title Felicisima and her children’s titles were derived and originated. Civil Case No. 3271 and the present case are precisely premised on the same subject matter and cause of action, i.e. the ownership of Lots 33 and 34. Since this was already settled by the decision in Civil Case No. 3271, the same cannot be resurrected and litigated anew, otherwise, there would be no end to this litigation.
Although it is true that Felicisima and her children were not parties in Civil Case No. 3271, this is because at the time the said case was initiated, they did not yet have titles over the contested lots. The records would show that TCTs in their favor were issued only on September 20, 1993 and March 11, 1994. There was simply no way by which they could be made parties at that time.
Felicisima and her children cannot claim to be buyers in good faith. A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property.[21] A notice of lis pendens has been annotated on the titles of the contested lots. Once a notice of lis pendens has been duly registered, any cancellation or issuance of the title of the land involved as well as any subsequent transaction affecting the same, would have to be subject of the outcome of the suit. A purchaser who buys registered land with full notice of the fact that it is in litigation between the vendor and a third party stands in the shoes of his vendor and his title is subject to the incidents and result of the pending litigation.[22]
Felicisima and her children’s alleged failure to examine the titles to the lots and supposed ignorance as to the legal significance of the notice of lis pendens will not relieve them from the legal effects thereof. In Laroza vs. Guia,[23] the Supreme Court reiterated:
“xxx the filing of a notice of lis pendens charges all strangers with a notice of the particular litigation referred to therein and, therefore, any right they may thereafter acquire on the property is subject to the eventuality of the suit. The doctrine of lis pendens is founded upon reason of public policy and necessity, the purpose of which is to keep the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the Court until the judgment or decree shall have been entered; otherwise, by successive alienations pending the litigation, its judgment or decree shall be rendered abortive and impossible of execution.”
As correctly held by the lower court, Felicisima and her children acquired no better titles than Florante Quizon, for they merely stepped into the shoes of the latter. The cancellation of Florante Quizon’s titles, from which originated Felicisima and her children’s titles, necessarily includes the cancellation of the subsequent titles derived from it. Water cannot rise higher than its source.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed orders dated November 3, 2003 and January 8, 2004 of the RTC, Branch 58, Angeles City in Civil Case No. 9195 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Tijam and Tayag, JJ., concur.
* The caption of the case in the lower court includes the sons of Felicisima, namely, Oscar Paras and Nicolas Paras as principal plaintiffs, who were allegedly represented by their mother in the case. However, perusal of the complaint filed before the lower court reveals that the Verification and Certification of Non-forum shopping therein was signed only by Felicisima, and that Oscar and Nicolas were not signatories therein, nor did they execute a special power of attorney to legally authorize their mother to represent them. In the same vein, the Verification and Certification of the Appellants’ Brief filed before this Court was signed only by Felicisima.
** Rosalina Coleman died pending litigation. It appears, however, that the motion for her substitution as principal defendant was denied by the lower court in an Order dated September 27, 2002 (Records, pp. 297-298). The records is bereft of any indication that she was substituted by a legal representative.
*** Milagros Ramos Nuqui was substituted as attorney-in-fact of the Spouses Ramos in lieu of Rosalina Coleman, per Order dated September 27, 2002 (ibid.) of the lower court.
[1] Records, pp. 370-373
[2] Records, p. 408
[3] Records, pp. 2-6
[4] Records, p. 7, Annex A of Complaint
[5] Records, p. 8, Annex B of Complaint
[6] Records, pp. 9-10, Annex C of Complaint
[7] Records, p. 14, Annex G of Complaint
[8] Records, p. 15, Annex H of Complaint
[9] Records, pp. 35-39
[10] The said decision was affirmed by this Court’s Sixth Division in CA-G.R. CV No. 38158 in a decision dated August 21, 1995 penned by then CA Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, with Justices R. T. Reyes and A. M. Martinez concurring.
[11] Records, p. 52
[12] Records, p. 117
[13] Records, p. 120
[14] Records, pp. 128-131
[15] Records, p. 167
[16] Records, pp. 184-185
[17] Records, p. 200
[18] Records, pp. 297-298
[19] Rollo, pp. 13-14
[20] Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, vol. 1, p. 482
[21] Seveses vs. Court of Appeals, 316 SCRA 605
[22] Esguerra vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 380
[23] 134 SCRA 341