TOMAS ALARCON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. RUFINA GUERRERO VDA. DE TORRES AND J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

This is an appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance
of Manila dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. Q-5046, for “Specific
Performance Damages, etc.” filed by Tomas Alarcon
against Rufina Guerrero vda.
de Torres and J. M. Tuason and Co., Inc., the ground
for such dismissal being the existence of lis pendens.  The
appeal was first brought to the Court of Appeals but that court certified it to
us on the ground that only questions of law are involved.

In its first cause of action, the complaint states that on March 18, 1949, Agustin de Torres,
predecessor in interest of Rufina Guerrero vda. de Torres, executed a deed of sale conveying to the
plaintiff a parcel of land of 1,000 square meters, for the sum of P3,000, P300
of which was paid upon the signing of the contract and the remaining P2,700
supposed to be paid within ten years. 
This balance was, however, refused acceptance by Rufina
Guerrero upon repeated tenders made by the plaintiff.

Under the second cause of action, the following are alleged:

“3. That on September 9, 1958, a complaint was
filed by the defendant J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc.
against the herein plaintiff, which complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-3277 entitled J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., Plaintiff, versus Tomas Alarcon, Defendant’”

“4. That in the said
complaint, J. M. Tua­son & Co., Inc. alleges that
it is the regis­tered owner of a parcel of land covered by T.C.T. No. 1267 (37686X of the Registry of
Deeds of Quezon City, a portion of which is Lot No. 20 which was contracted to be sold
by Agustin de Torres to the plaintiff, x x x.

“5. That as a
consequence of the filing of the said complaint, the plaintiff is now exposed
to the danger of being evicted from the premises known as Lot No. 20, x x x and con­demned to pay the reasonable value for the use
and occupation of the said parcel of land which J. M. Tuason
& Co., Inc. claims to be P100 a month.”

“xxx                                                   xxx                                                       xxx

Under the third cause of action, the following are also alleged:

“3. That on March 16, 1953, the defend­ant Rufina Guerrero Vda. de Torres,
in repre­sentation and as successor-in-interest of Agustin de Torres, together
with others col­lectively referred to as the ‘DEUDORS,’ en­tered into a
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT with the defendant J. M. Tuason
& Co., Inc., a copy of which agreement is hereto attached as Annex ‘C’ and
made an integral part of the foregoing complaint;

“4. That it
appears in the said COMPROMISE AGREEMENT that the defendant Rufi­na
Guerrero Vda. de Torres, among others and together
with the other DEUDORS sold the possessory rights
over the parcels of land described therein, which include the parcel of land
her predecessor-in-interest Agustin de Torres had contracted to sell to the
plaintiff;

“xxx                                                   xxx                                                       xxx

“6. That the
defendant J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. conformably to
the said agreement, should be ordered to enter into a new con­tract of purchase
with the plaintiff with respect to Lot No. 20; and to respect the necessary
rights of the plaintiff thereto;

“7. That if the
plaintiff be compelled to enter into such new contract of purchase at the
current and higher price per square meter than that agreed to in that document
captioned ‘DEED OF SALE,’ x x x
the differ­ence should be deducted and deemed compen­sated from the sum of
P89,511.77, as repre­sentative and successor-in-interest of Agus­tin de Torres,
is entitled to receive from the defendant J. M. Tuason
& Co., Inc. un­der Condition SIXTH of the said COMPROMISE AGREEMENT, x x x;

“xxx                                                   xxx                                                       xxx

Among others, the complaint prays that the defendant J. M. Tuason & Co. be ordered to enter into a new contract of
purchase with the plaintiff with respect to Lot No. 20; and, that in the event
that purchase price be based at the current price per square meter higher than
the agreed price stipulated in the Deed of Sale, the difference be­tween said
prices be deducted and ordered compensated from the sum of 189,511.77 which the
defendant J. M. Tua­son & Co., Inc. is obligated
to pay the defendant Rufina Guerrero Vda. de Torres under Condition No. SIXTH of the aforesaid
compromise agreement; and, the defendant J. M. Tuason
& Co., Inc. be ordered to execute and deliver to the plaintiff the final
deed of conveyance and title to said Lot No. 20, and pending the same, to
recognize the quiet and peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the said
parcel of land.

Instead of answering the amended complaint, the defendant J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., thru its counsel, filed a motion to
dismiss it, on the ground that there is another action pending between the same
parties for the same cause.

After considering the opposition to the motion to dismiss and
reply thereto, and finding the said motion to be meritorious, the court below
dismissed the case.

Not satisfied, the plaintiff, Alarcon,
has appealed maintaining the inclusion of J. M. Tuason
as party in his complaint, with the argument that there is no lis pendens in this
case.

The following are the requisites of lis
pendens as a ground for the dismissal of a
complaint:  (1) Identity of parties, or
at least such as presenting the same in­terests in both actions; (2) Identity
of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same
facts; and (3) Identity in both cases is such that the judgment that may be
rendered in the pending case would, regardless of which party is successful,
amounts to res judicata
in the other.^[1]

It is not disputed here that, as alleged in paragraphs 3 and 4
under the Second Cause of Action of the complaint, there is another case (Civil
Case Q-3277) pending in the court between the plaintiff Alarcon
and defendant J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., involving
the same parcel of land.  For this
reason, We have only to resolve the issue as to whether or not the causes of
action in the two cases are such that decision in the pending case would amount
to res judicata
to this case later filed.

In Civil Case No. Q-3277, J. M. Tuason,
as plaintiff, claims ownership of the lot in question by virtue of a transfer
certificate of title issued to it by the Re­gister of Deeds of Quezon City.  In his
answer with counterclaim, the herein plaintiff-appellant, as de­fendant therein,
also asserts ownership over the same lot by virtue of a Deed of Sale executed
by Agustin De Torres in his favor.  In
other words, the case Q­-3277 filed by Tuason is an accion publiciana
seeking to recover possession of the lot over which Alarcon
also claims title.  Indeed, the court has
first to make a finding as to who is the real owner of the lot before it can
resolve the question as to who has the better right to its possession.

In the present case, Q-5046, the plaintiff-appel­lant seeks to
enforce an alleged preferential right granted to him under the compromise
agreement entered into between the “DEUDORS” (one of whom is Rufina Guer­rero) and J. M. Tuason
& Co., Inc., as, according to him, he is a buyer in good faith, and,
consequently, J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. must
recognize and deliver to him the corresponding title to the land free from all
liens and encumbrances.  This claim of
plaintiff-appel­lant is anchored upon that very deed of sale mentioned in
Q-3277 which was executed by Torres in his favor.  Similarly, in order for the court to
determine here whe­ther or not Tuason should be
ordered to deliver the title to the land to the plaintiff-appellant, the
question of ownership will first have to be decided.

With the identities as shown above, it would result that whatever
judgment that may be rendered in Civil Case No. Q-3277 will be res judicata in
Civil Case No. Q-5046, be­cause a finding as to ownership of the land in
question is necessary, if not the main issue, in both cases.

The instant case is similar to previous cases decided by this
Court^[2]
concerning the same compromise agreement allegedly executed between the DEUDORS
and J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. on March 16, 1953.  Consistently, We dismissed, on the grounds of either lis
pendens or res
judicata, as the case may be, those actions
that involved the same par­ties and the same subject matter as other cases that
had been filed and/or decided ahead.

WHEREFORE, the order dismissing Case No. Q-5046 with
respect to J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. is hereby
affirmed, with costs against the plaintiff-appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and
Castro, JJ., concur.

Makalintal, J., took no part.

^[1]
Manuel v. Wigett, 14 Phil. 9; Hongkong
& Shanghai Banking v. Aldecoa, 30 Phil.
255; Olayvar v. Olayvar,
51 O.G. 6219; Del Rosario et al v. Jacinto, et al., G.R. No. L-20340, September 10, 1965.

^[2]
Del Rosario v. Jacinto, supra; Roman et al v. J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-21692, Dec. 29,
1965; Deudors v. J.M. Tuason
& Co., et al., G.R. No. L-20105, Oct.
31, 1963.