ZENAIDA F. DAPAR ALIAS ZENAIDA D. BIASCAN PETITIONER, VS. GLORIA LOZANO BIASCAN AND MARIO BIASCAN RESPONDENTS.

Zenaida Dapar versus Gloria Lozano Biascan

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Zenaida Dapar, also known as Zenaida Biascan, against Gloria Lozano Biascan and Mario Biascan. Gloria, the lawful wife of Mario, sued Zenaida to annul a transfer certificate of title, to recover a one-half undivided portion of a house and lot, and to collect damages, on the theory that Zenaida had falsely held herself out as Mario's wife and had thereby been included as a registered co-owner. The case matters because it settles how the Supreme Court treats a final judgment in a partition suit when the same property is later litigated in an action for annulment of title and reconveyance, and because it shows how the rule on co-ownership between persons living in an illicit relationship gives way to the binding force of a prior adjudication.

Procedural History

Gloria filed her complaint for annulment of title, reconveyance, and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 120. Zenaida moved to dismiss on the ground that a married woman cannot sue alone without joining her husband, and that the registered co-owner was an indispensable party. The trial court denied the motion. Gloria then amended her complaint to implead Mario, and the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the enforcement of a writ of execution issued in an earlier partition case. After trial, the Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Zenaida, dismissed the complaint, and awarded her attorney's fees, exemplary damages, and costs. It held that the law on co-ownership governed the property relations of Mario and Zenaida under Article 148 of the Family Code.

Gloria appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. It declared the transfer certificate of title null and void, ordered Zenaida to reconvey one-half undivided portion of the property to Gloria as the lawful wife, and ordered Zenaida to pay attorney's fees and costs. The appellate court found that Zenaida failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she contributed money to the purchase price. Zenaida's motion for reconsideration was denied. She then elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

Gloria and Mario Biascan were married in 1966 and had four children. Mario, an electrician, worked in Saudi Arabia as an overseas contract worker from 1977 to 1981. In 1979 he met Zenaida Dapar, then a domestic helper, and they became lovers. This relationship led to Mario's failure to support his wife and family. Zenaida returned to the Philippines in 1981, and when Mario came home he lived with her in a rented house in Valenzuela. They opened a joint savings account with the Philippine National Bank in March 1982. Mario returned to Saudi Arabia in February 1984 and remitted his earnings to Zenaida, who deposited them in the joint account.

In July 1985 a contract to sell was executed in favor of spouses Mario Biascan and Zenaida Biascan over a 150 square meter lot in Caloocan City for 177,189 pesos. A deed of sale followed, and a transfer certificate of title was issued in their names in February 1990.

Earlier, Zenaida had filed an action for partition before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 129, and that court rendered a decision in May 1993 declaring her a co-owner of the lot. Mario's petition for relief from judgment was dismissed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal in December 1993, so the partition decision became final and executory. Gloria then filed this action for annulment of title, reconveyance, and damages in November 1993.

Issues

• Whether or not the action of Gloria Biascan is barred by the final decision of the Regional Trial Court in the partition case.
• Whether or not Zenaida is liable to Gloria for damages for usurpation of the surname Biascan under Article 377 of the Civil Code.

Applicable Provisions

Article 148 of the Family Code, which the trial court applied to the property relations of Mario and Zenaida, provides:

In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.

This provision was the basis of the trial court's ruling that Zenaida lawfully owned one-half of the property, and it frames the conflict with the final partition judgment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that Gloria's action was barred by the decision in the partition case. For res judicata to bar a subsequent action, four requisites must concur: the former judgment must be final; it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; it must be a judgment on the merits; and there must be identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of cause of action. The Court found all of them present. The partition decision had become final and executory, it was rendered on the merits by a court with jurisdiction, and the subject matter was the same parcel of land covered by the transfer certificate of title. The Court stressed that an action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved. The Court explained the foundation of the doctrine in these words:

Res judicata lays the rule that an existing final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit.

On the second issue, the Court resolved that Zenaida is not liable for damages for usurpation of the surname, since Mario consented to her use of it. The Court thus set aside the appellate court's award in favor of Gloria.

Doctrine

A final judgment in a partition suit is conclusive upon the parties and their privies in a later action involving the same property. Partition is not a mere preliminary step; it is itself a declaration of co-ownership and a conveyance of determinate shares, so a subsequent suit for annulment of title and reconveyance over the same land is barred by prior judgment. The requisites of res judicata are finality, jurisdiction, judgment on the merits, and identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action. Where these concur, the earlier adjudication of co-ownership under Article 148 of the Family Code stands, and the losing party cannot relitigate the shares through a fresh action.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the decision of the trial court dismissing Gloria's complaint and upholding Zenaida's co-ownership.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a final judgment in a partition case is res judicata against a later action to annul the title and recover the same land. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of res judicata and the rule that partition already adjudicates co-ownership.