Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81810:169214&catid=1571&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:59:17+00:00

Document:
G.R. NO. 169214, June 19, 2013 - SPOUSES MANUEL SY AND VICTORIA SY, Petitioners, v. GENALYN D. YOUNG, Respondent.
SPOUSES MANUEL SY AND VICTORIA SY, Petitioners, v. GENALYN D. YOUNG, Respondent.
The petition originated from a Complaint for Nullification of Second Supplemental Extrajudicial Settlement, Mortgage, Foreclosure Sale and Tax Declaration4 filed by respondent Genalyn D. Young with the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Branch 32 (RTC). The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. SP-5703.
Genalyn alleged that she is the legitimate daughter of spouses George Young and Lilia Dy.5 When George died, he left an unregistered parcel of land (property) covered by Tax Declaration No. 91-489296 in San Roque, San Pablo City, Laguna. On September 3, 1993, Lilia executed a Second Supplemental to the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition.7 The property was adjudicated solely in Lilia’s favor in the partition. Lilia represented Genalyn, who was then a minor, in the execution of the document.
Subsequently, Lilia obtained a loan from the spouses Sy with the property as security.8 When Lilia defaulted on her loan, the property was foreclosed and sold to the spouses Sy. Thereafter, the spouses Sy registered the certificate of sale9 with the Office of the Register of Deeds and obtained a tax declaration10 in their name.
In her complaint, Genalyn argued that the partition was unenforceable since she was only a minor at the time of its execution. She also pointed out that the partition was contrary to the Rules of Court because it was without the court’s approval. She further asserted that the spouses Sy entered into the contract of mortgage with the knowledge that Lilia was unauthorized to mortgage the property.
On July 20, 2000, Genalyn filed with the RTC a Motion to Admit a Supplemental Complaint with the attached Supplemental Complaint. In the supplemental complaint, she invoked her right to exercise legal redemption as a co-owner of the disputed property. However, the RTC denied the motion in its Order11 dated December 28, 2000. Subsequently, she filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court docketed as CA-G.R. Sp. No. 65629 with the CA.
With respect to CA-G.R. CV No. 74045, the CA reversed the RTC’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.16 The CA also denied17 the spouses Sy’s motion for reconsideration, prompting them to file the present petition.
(2) whether or not the CA erred in not holding Genalyn guilty of forum shopping in the CA’s Decision dated March 30, 2005 and Resolution dated August 8, 2005.
In denying the petition, we necessarily must reiterate our ruling in Young which constitutes as the controlling doctrine or the law of the case in the present case.
In Young, we directed the RTC to admit Genalyn’s supplemental complaint. In so ruling, we also vacated the RTC Orders which dismissed Genalyn’s complaint for failure to prosecute. Moreover, Genalyn’s move to suspend the proceedings which led to the dismissal of her complaint stemmed essentially from the RTC’s erroneous refusal to admit the supplemental complaint. On the second issue, we unequivocably also settled that Genalyn committed forum shopping when she filed an appeal and a petition for certiorari successively. This ruling we uphold as the ruling that should apply.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. The CA Decision dated March 30, 2005 and Resolution dated August 8, 2005 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ. concur.
1 Dated September 23, 2005 and filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; rollo, pp. 27-88.
2 Id. at 14-22; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam, and concurred in by Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Japar B. Dimaampao.
11 Penned by Judge Zorayda Herradura Salcedo.
12Young v. Spouses Sy, 534 Phil. 246, 253 (2006).
14Young v. Spouses Sy, supra note 12, at 255-256.
18Young v. Spouses Sy, supra note 12.
21Radio Communications of the Phils., Inc. v. CA, 522 Phil. 267, 273 (2006), citing Padillo v. Court of Appeals, 422 Phil. 334 (2001).
22Padillo v. Court of Appeals, supra, at 352, citing Comilang v. Court of Appeals (Fifth Division), 160 Phil. 85 (1975).
23Zarate v. Director of Lands, 39 Phil. 747, 749-750 (1919).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.