CEFERINO S. CABREZA, JR., BJD HOLDINGS CORP., REPRESENTED BY ATTY. MANUEL DULAY, PETITIONERS, VS. AMPARO ROBLES CABREZA, RESPONDENTS.

Cabreza versus Cabreza

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Ceferino Cabreza, Junior, joined by BJD Holdings Corporation, against his former wife Amparo Robles Cabreza. The dispute concerns a complaint Amparo filed to annul the Deed of Absolute Sale of the former conjugal dwelling, a sale that Ceferino executed in his own behalf and in her behalf by authority of a court order. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean teaching on litis pendentia and forum shopping, and because it carefully separates those grounds from res judicata, reminding us that not every final dismissal is a judgment on the merits.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 70, had earlier declared the marriage of Ceferino and Amparo void and ordered the dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership under Article 129 of the Family Code. That decision became final. The same branch later authorized the sale of the conjugal home, approved the Deed of Absolute Sale, and issued a Writ of Possession and a Notice to Vacate. Amparo's attempts to question those orders failed before the Court of Appeals and before the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Amparo filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 67, a complaint to annul the Deed of Absolute Sale for lack of her consent. Branch 67 dismissed the complaint with prejudice on the grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for trial on the merits, holding that there was neither litis pendentia nor forum shopping. Ceferino's motion for reconsideration was denied, so he came to the Supreme Court by petition for review under Rule 45.

Facts

On 3 January 2001, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 70, declared the marriage of Ceferino and Amparo void and ordered the dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership in accordance with Article 129 of the Family Code. When that decision became final, Ceferino moved that the only conjugal property, the conjugal home, be sold and the proceeds distributed. The court granted the motion in an order dated 26 May 2003, which likewise became final after the Supreme Court dismissed Amparo's petition on technicalities.

Ceferino then filed an Omnibus Motion to approve the Deed of Absolute Sale, to authorize him to sign it for and on behalf of Amparo, and to order the occupants to vacate. Only Ceferino and his counsel appeared at the hearing despite notice to Amparo. The court granted the motion on 2 October 2003, and its dispositive portion directed that after the sale, all occupants shall vacate and clear the property. Ceferino then executed the Deed of Sale in favor of BJD Holdings Corporation, and the court later granted a Motion for Writ of Possession and to Divide the Purchase Price.

Amparo resisted the Writ of Possession and the Notice to Vacate, arguing that there was another conjugal lot and that under Article 129 the conjugal dwelling should be adjudicated to her as the spouse with whom the majority of the children chose to remain. She failed in that effort. While her petition impugning the Writ of Possession was pending before the Court of Appeals, she filed a separate complaint with Branch 67 to annul the Deed of Absolute Sale for lack of her consent. Branch 67 dismissed it on the grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping, but the Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a trial on the merits.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that there was no litis pendentia between the complaint to annul the Deed of Absolute Sale and the petition impugning the Writ of Possession.
• Whether or not Amparo was guilty of forum shopping.
• Whether or not the dismissal of the earlier petition by the Supreme Court operated as res judicata on the complaint to annul the Deed of Sale.

Applicable Provisions

Article 129 of the Family Code, paragraph 9, provides:

In the partition of the properties, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated shall, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, be adjudicated to the spouse with whom the majority of the common children choose to remain. Children below the age of seven years are deemed to have chosen the mother, unless the court has decided otherwise. In case there is no such majority, the court shall decide, taking into consideration the best interests of said children.

This is the provision Amparo invoked in both cases, claiming that the dwelling should be adjudicated to her rather than sold, which is why the Court found her two actions grounded on the same theory.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all the requisites of litis pendentia were present. There was identity of parties. There was substantial identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, applying the two tests: whether the same evidence would support both causes of action, and whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other. The Court found that the same evidence, the 2 October 2003 Order of Branch 70, would defeat both of Amparo's actions, and that the same defense would defeat both as well. In both cases she sought to prevent the sale and keep the dwelling, on the same theory that the later orders improperly modified a final decision and that Article 129 required adjudication to her. Finally, a final judgment in one case would bar the other under res judicata.

On the second issue, the Court held that having ruled litis pendentia was properly invoked, Amparo was necessarily guilty of forum shopping, and it quoted its own doctrine:

Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.

On the third issue, the Court clarified that res judicata did not apply to the dismissal of the earlier petition, because that dismissal was not a judgment on the merits. The Court explained that a judgment is on the merits when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of formal, technical or dilatory objections, or after a determination of which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal or merely technical point. The earlier petition had been dismissed on a procedural inability to consider the case, based on the finality of judgments.

Doctrine

For litis pendentia to justify dismissal, three requisites must concur: identity of parties or representation; identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts and the same basis; and identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. And a dismissal on a procedural or technical ground, such as the finality of judgments, is not a judgment on the merits and will not support res judicata.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the dismissal of Amparo's complaint on the grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping.

Remember This

Memorize this line: forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of litis pendentia and the distinction between a dismissal on technical grounds and a judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata.