Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82893:56732&catid=1581&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 03:54:16+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 158916, March 19, 2014 - HEIRS OF CORNELIO MIGUEL, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF ANGEL MIGUEL, Respondents.
HEIRS OF CORNELIO MIGUEL, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF ANGEL MIGUEL, Respondents.
This an appeal from the Decision1 dated January 31, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. CV No. 50122 dismissing the appeal of the petitioners, the heirs of Cornelio Miguel, and affirming the Order2 dated March 21, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Branch 51 in Civil Case No. 2735 which dismissed the petitioners’ complaint for the nullification of deeds of donation and reconveyance of property.
While blood may be thicker than water, land has caused numerous family disputes which are oftentimes bitter and protracted. This case is another example.
A parcel of land (Lot 2–J of the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd–146880, being a portion of a parcel of land described on plan S1–13184, LRC Rec. No. 5, Pat. No. V–3), situated in the Barrio of Calero, Municipality of Puerto Princesa, Province of Palawan, Island of Palawan. Bounded on the NE., points 4 to 5 by Lot I; on the E., SE., and SW., point[s] 5 to 7, 7 to 1 and 1 to 3 by Lot K (proposed road widening); and on the W., points 3 to 4 by Lot F, all of the subdivision plan. Beginning at a point marked “1” on plan being S., 65 deg. 37°E., 285.42 m. from BLBM 1, Bo. of Tiniguiban, Puerto Princesa.
The donation of the property described above became the subject of various suits between Cornelio, Angel, and Angel’s siblings, and also between Angel’s siblings and Angel’s children.
From the evidence adduced, it appears that the Owner’s Original Certificate of Title exists in the archives of the Registry of Deeds of Puerto Princesa City. The notice of hearing together with the petition was posted on the bulletin boards of the Capitol Building of this province at Puerto Princesa, at the City Hall and on the premises of the property in Barrio San Pedro, where the land is located.
Petitioner Angel M. Miguel testifying for and in his behalf alleged that a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. S–14 is in the name of his parents Cornelio Miguel and Nieves Malabad; that this land has been subdivided and that Petitioner has acquired two (2) lots, [letters] “G” and “J” from his parents; that he could not secure the title to these lots from the City Register of Deeds of Puerto Princesa because the latter required him to produce the owner’s duplicate certificate of title of the mother land; that petitioner then went to his father to borrow the said owner’s certificate of title as required by the City Register of Deeds of Puerto Princesa City; that forthwith, Mr. Cornelio Miguel went to get the title from a certain [carton] where he had his other important papers secured in a room in his house; that to his amazement, he found only bits of [paper], once constituting a solid piece which was his duplicate of his original certificate of title; that the same is now completely beyond recognition and, for all purpose, a complete destruction. Petitioner further [alleged] that the two (2) lots involved have not been delivered to anybody, neither have they been encumbered to secure the performance of any obligation whatsoever. Petitioner has declared the property for tax purposes and is up–to–date in payment of taxes to the government.
The court is convinced that petitioner is a person in interest within the [contemplation] of law.
The requisites of law having been complied with and the evidence adduced satisfactory, the Court believes that for reasons of public interest and in fairness to the petitioner, the relief sought for should be granted.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Register of Deeds of Puerto Princesa City, is hereby directed to issue a New Owner’s Duplicate Certificate of Title No. S–14, in lieu of the one destroyed, which is the subject of this proceeding. Such title shall contain a memorandum stating that it is issued in lieu of the destroyed one but shall, in all respects, be deemed to be of the same effect as the destroyed owner’s duplicate certificate of title for all intents and purposes under the Land Registration Act.
Considering that the determinative technical description, describing and denoting the boundaries thereof, are the same [as] in the Deed of Donation Inter–vivos and in Civil Case No. 1185 for annulment are the same in every aspect and detail, it is crystal clear that one of the subject[s] of donation is Lot No. “J” (LRC) PSD–146880 and not Lot “2–J” (LRC) PSD–146880. It is clear beyond doubt and cavil that a clerical error has been inadvertently committed as to the Lot Number concerned although there was already a meeting of minds o[n] the two (2) lots donated. x x x.
The petition fails. Res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment precludes the complaint in Civil Case No. 2735.
A better understanding of the fundamentals of res judicata and conclusiveness of judgment will explain and clarify the Court’s ruling.
The doctrine states that a fact or question which was in issue in a former suit, and was there judicially passed on and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the judgment therein, as far as concerns the parties to that action and persons in privity with them, and cannot be again litigated in any future action between such parties or their privies, in the same court or any other court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or a different cause of action, while the judgment remains unreversed or unvacated by proper authority. The only identities thus required for the operation of the judgment as an estoppel x x x are identity of parties and identity of issues.
The petitioners do not question the ruling of the Court of Appeals that there is identity of parties in Civil Case No. 1185 and Civil Case No. 2735. What the petitioners principally contend is that the judgment in Civil Case No. 1185 cannot bar Civil Case No. 2735 as the two cases involve different causes of action and different subject matters.
The Order dated January 31, 1986 in Civil Case No. 1185 ruled that Cornelio and the petitioners had no cause of action in connection with the reformation of the deed of donation executed by the spouses Cornelio and Nieves in favor of Angel because the said deed of donation is a simple donation and therefore not a proper subject of an action for reformation. As there can be no reformation of the deed of donation pursuant to Article 1366 of the Civil Code, the necessary implication and consequence of the Order dated January 31, 1986 in Civil Case No. 1185 is that the deed of donation stands and the identity of the property subject of the donation is that parcel of land which corresponds to the technical description in the deed of donation. In other words, the property donated under the deed of donation is that which matches the property whose metes and bounds is particularly described in the deed of donation. This is because the technical description of the land is proof of its identity.43 Such technical description embodies the identity of the land.44 In this case, the technical description in the deed of donation pertains to Lot J of Psd. 146880. That is why the trial court in Spl. Civil Action No. 1950 ordered the issuance in Angel’s name of TCT No. 11349 over Lot J of Psd. 146880. Thus, in Civil Case No. 1185 and Spl. Civil Action No. 1950, Lot J of Psd. 146880 is the property donated to Angel and registered in his name as TCT No. 11349 and, subsequently, to Angel’s four children as TCT Nos. 20094, 20095, 20096, and 20097.
For purposes of conclusiveness of judgment, identity of issues means that the right, fact, or matter in issue has previously been either “directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action”45 by a competent court. In this case, the issue of the transfer pursuant to the deed of donation to Angel of Lot J of Psd. 146880 and, corollarily, his right over the said property has been necessarily involved in Civil Case No. 1185.
The petitioners engage in hair–splitting in arguing that none of the issues involved in Civil Case No. 1185 is also involved in Civil Case No. 2735. The primary issue in Civil Case No. 1185 is whether the true intention of the spouses Cornelio and Nieves as donors was to donate to Angel the property described in the deed of donation, that is, Lot J of Psd. 146880. The issue in Civil Case No. 1185 is therefore the identity of one of the properties donated by the spouses Cornelio and Nieves for which Cornelio and the petitioners sought reformation of the deed of donation. As stated above, the order of dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No. 1185 necessarily implied that, as the deed of donation is not subject to reformation, the identity of the property subject of the donation is the property corresponding to the technical description, Lot J of Psd. 146880. On the other hand, the subject matter of Civil Case No. 2735 is the recovery of Lot J of Psd. 146880 on the petitioners’ claim that a clerical error prevented the deed of donation from conforming to the true intention of the spouses Cornelio and Nieves as to the identity of the property they intended to donate to Angel. This boils down to the issue of the true identity of the property, which has been, as earlier stated, necessarily adjudicated in Civil Case No. 1185. Thus, the judgment in Civil Case No. 1185 on the issue of the identity of the land donated by Cornelio and Nieves to Angel is conclusive in Civil Case No. 2735, there being a similarity of parties in the said cases.
The petitioners also question the validity of the deed of donation executed by the spouses Cornelio and Nieves in favor of Angel. Indeed, that is the foundation of their claim. However, that issue had been settled with finality in Civil Case No. 1185. The petitioners who were parties against Angel in Civil Case No. 1185 cannot resurrect that issue against the privies or successors–in–interest of Angel in Civil Case No. 2735 without violating the principle of res judicata. In other words, Civil Case No. 2735 is barred by the conclusiveness of the judgment in Civil Case No. 1185.
As the issues of whether Lot J of Psd. 146880 is one of the properties donated by the spouses Cornelio and Nieves to Angel and whether such donation was valid have been necessarily settled in Civil Case No. 1185, they can no longer be relitigated again in Civil Case No. 2735. The Order dated January 31, 1986 effectively held that the said property had been donated to Angel. It follows that he had properly sought its registration in his name under TCT No. 11349 and he had validly partitioned and donated it to his four children who acquired TCT Nos. 20094, 20095, 20096, and 20097 in their respective names.
1Rollo, pp. 17–23; penned by Associate Justice Danilo B. Pine with Associate Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Renato C. Dacudao, concurring.
6 Records, pp. 18–20, Deed of Donation of Real Property.
32 Id. at 8–14, Petition for Review on Certiorari .
35 Id. at 30–77, 46–75, Opposition to Petition for Review on Certiorari .
36Social Security Commission v. Rizal Poultry and Livestock Association, Inc., G.R. No. 167050, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 50, 57–58.
37 Id. at 56, 58.
38 271 Phil. 768, 784 (1991).
39P.L. Uy Realty Corporation v. ALS Management and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 166462, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 453, 466 citing Social Security Commission v. Rizal Poultry and Livestock Association, Inc., supra note 36 at 57.
41P.L. Uy Realty Corporation v. ALS Management and Development Corporation, supra note 39 at 466.
43See Republic v. Espinosa, G.R. No. 171514, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 92, 110.
44See VSD Realty & Development Corporation v. Uniwide Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 170677, July 31, 2013, 702 SCRA 597, 606.
45P.L. Uy Realty Corporation v. ALS Management and Development Corporation, supra note 39 at 466.

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