GERMAN S. MONTESA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. FELIPE ONOFRE DIRECTO, ARTURO ANTONIO DIRECTO, MARIA CARIDAD DIRECTO AND VALERIANO MANIPOL, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Appeal from an order of dismissal of the Court of First Ins­tance
of Manila.

Soon after the death of Angustia Sipin, alias Angustia Sipin de Montesa, on August 22,
1949, Valerian Manipol, and plaintiff herein, German
S. Montesa, acting in his behalf and as guardian of
the minors Amparo Montesa,
Felipe Onofre Directo,
Arturo Antonio Directo and Maria Caridad
Directo, executed, on Novem­ber 12, 1949, a deed of
extrajudicial partition of the estate of the deceased, stating that said Valeriano Manipol is her surviving
espouse; that German S. Montesa and the minors
represented by him are her children; that said estate consists of two (2)
parcels of land located, one (of about 114 sq. meters) at Sta. Cruz, Manila,
and the other (of about 300 sq. meters) at Cubao, San
Juan del Monte, Province of Rizal, and two (2)
Savings Accounts, one (for P1,418.97) in the Monte de Piedad
and another (for P7,812.73) in the Philippine National Bank; that said estate
has no pending debts or claims against it; that said two (2) parcels of land
are paraphernal property of the deceased and were,
accordingly, adjudicated to her aforementioned five (5) children, each one of
whom shall own one-fifth of each lot; that the amounts of said savings accounts
shall be distributed as follows:  the
sums depo­sited before October 30, 1945, when Angustia
Sipin married Valeriano Manipol, were, likewise, the former’s
paraphernal property and belonged to her
aforementioned children in equal shares, whereas the sums deposited after said
date were con­jugal property, so that five-tenths thereof were adjudicated to Valeriano Manipol, and the rest
to her aforementioned children, at one-tenth each; and that, should other
property of the deceased be found subsequently, the same shall be similarly
divided and distributed among the parties to the agreement, depending upon the paraphernal or conjugal nature of such property.

It appears that on January 24, 1966, Felipe, Arturo and Maria Directo brought Civil Case No. 64032, of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, against German S. Montesa and Amparo Montesa for the partition
of the lot in Manila, adjudicated to all of them in the aforementioned deed of extrajudicial partition, and of a four-door two story
apartment house, existing on said lot. 
In their answer to the complaint therein, the Montesas
alleged, inter alia, that they are the
sole owners of said property, having inherit­ed the same from their mother, Angustia Sipin de Montesa, and that the Directors are merely her spurious
illegitimate children, who, as such, “have no right, interest or
participation whatsoever therein. 
“The Montesas alleged, also, “(t)hat whatever documents, instruments, papers„ writings
and/or titles or title deeds present­ly existing which evidence the alleged
co-ownership between the parties of the properties in controversy are null and
void ab initio,
because they were executed under a mistake or misapprehension of facts and have
no legal basis whatsoever, aside from the fact that the same were executed
without any valid and/or sufficient consideration whatsoever.”

This answer was filed on February
11, 1966.  Seven (7) months
later, or on September 10, 1966, German Montesa
instituted the present action in the same court – as Civil Case No. 66772
thereof – against the Directos and Valeriano Manipol, for the
purpose of annul­ling the aforementioned deed of extrajudicial partition,
alleging that German Montesa had executed said
instrument because of “misrepresentation, deceit, fraud and undue
influence made by defendants, particularly defendant Valeriano
Manipol.” The Directors moved to dismiss the
complaint, upon the ground of pendency of another
action ‘’between the same parties over the same cause,” referring to said
Civil Case No. 64032.  Said court granted
this motion and, accordingly, dismissed the case at bar, without costs.  A reconsideration of the order to this effect
having been denied, plaintiff interposed the present appeal to the Supreme
Court.

Plaintiff insists that the two (2) cases do not have the same
subject-matter and cause of action, because the first case is for partition,
whereas the second is for annulment of the aforementioned deed of extrajudicial
partition, and the object of the first case was one only of the properties
forming part of the estate of the deceased, whereas the case at bar affects the
entirety of said estate.

Plaintiff’s pretense is manifestly devoid of merit.  The claim of the Directos
in the first case is necessarily anchored upon the adjudication, of
three-fifths of the property involved therein, made in their favor in the
aforementioned deed of extrajudicial partition, which is assailed by German Montesa, in his answer as one of the defendants in said
case.  To decide the same, it is
necessary, therefore, for the court to pass upon the validity or nullity of
said deed of extrajudicial partition, which is the very same issue raised by German Montesa in his
complaint herein.  In other words, the
decision in Case No. 64032 would settle the issue in the case at bar.^[1]

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed,
with costs against plaintiff German S. Montesa.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz
Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and
Barredo, JJ., concur.

^[1] Manuel v. Wigett,
14 Phil. 9; Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. v.
lbañez, 30 Phil. 255; Jison
v. Vda.
de Her­naez, 74 Phil. 72; J. Northcott
& Co. v. Villa-Abrille, 41 Phil. 462; Tambunting v. De Leon, L-2184, Aug. 11, 1950; Santos
v. Geronimo, 89 Phil. 715; Capati v. Ballesteros, 47 O.G. 5127; Francisco v. Vda. de Bias, 93 Phil. 1; Pillado v. Francisco de Lasala,
95 Phil. 490.