Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30464:g-r-no-68053-may-7,-1990-laura-alvarez,-et-al-v-intermediate-appellate-court&catid=1263&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:23:44+00:00

Document:
LAURA ALVAREZ, FLORA ALVAREZ and RAYMUNDO ALVAREZ, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and JESUS YANES, ESTELITA YANES, ANTONIO YANES, ROSARIO YANES, and ILUMINADO YANES, Respondents.
Francisco G. Banzon, for Petitioners.
Renecio R. Espiritu for Private Respondents.
The real properties involved are two parcels of land identified as Lot 773-A and Lot 773-B which were originally known as Lot 773 of the cadastral survey of Murcia, Negros Occidental. Lot 773, with an area of 156,549 square meters, was registered in the name of the heirs of Aniceto Yanes under Original Certificate of Title No. RO-4858 (8804) issued on October 9, 1917 by the Register of Deeds of Occidental Negros (Exh. A).
Aniceto Yanes was survived by his children, Rufino, Felipe and Teodora. Herein private respondents, Estelita, Iluminado and Jesus, are the children of Rufino who died in 1962 while the other private respondents, Antonio and Rosario Yanes, are children of Felipe. Teodora was survived by her child, Jovita (Jovito) Alib. 1 It is not clear why the latter is not included as a party in this case.
It is on record that on May 19, 1938, Fortunato D. Santiago was issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. RF 2694 (29797) covering Lot 773-A with an area of 37,818 square meters. 3 TCT No. RF 2694 describes Lot 773-A as a portion of Lot 773 of the cadastral survey of Murcia and as originally registered under OCT No. 8804.
The bigger portion of Lot 773 with an area of 118,831 square meters was also registered in the name of Fortunato D. Santiago on September 6, 1938 under TCT No. RT-2695 (28192). 4 Said transfer certificate of title also contains a certification to the effect that Lot 773-B was originally registered under OCT No. 8804.
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered, ordering the defendant Rosendo Alvarez to reconvey to the plaintiffs lots Nos. 773 and 823 of the Cadastral Survey of Murcia, Negros Occidental, now covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-23165 and T-23166 in the name of said defendant, and thereafter to deliver the possession of said lots to the plaintiffs. No special pronouncement as to costs.
It will be noted that the above-mentioned manifestation of Jesus Yanes was not mentioned in the aforesaid decision.
The execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 5022 having met a hindrance, herein private respondents (the Yaneses) filed on July 31, 1965, in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title and for a declaration of nullity of TCT Nos. T-23165 and T-23166 issued to Rosendo Alvarez. 18 Thereafter, the court required Rodolfo Siason to produce the certificates of title covering Lots 773 and 823.
A.	The case against the defendant Dr. Rodolfo Siason and the Register of Deeds are (sic) hereby dismissed.
B.	The defendants, Laura, Flora and Raymundo, all surnamed Alvarez being the legitimate children of the deceased Rosendo Alvarez are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs the sum of P20,000.00 representing the actual value of Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of Murcia Cadastre, Negros Occidental; the sum of P2,000.00 as actual damages suffered by the plaintiffs; the sum of P5,000.00 representing moral damages and the sum of P2,000 as attorney’s fees, all with legal rate of interest from date of the filing of this complaint up to final payment.
C.	The cross-claim filed by the defendant Dr. Rodolfo Siason against the defendants, Laura, Flora and Raymundo, all surnamed Alvarez is hereby dismissed.
D.	Defendants, Laura, Flora and Raymundo, all surnamed Alvarez, are hereby ordered to pay the costs of this suit.
"WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed insofar as it ordered defendants-appellants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs-appellees the sum of P20,000.00 representing the actual value of Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of the cadastral survey of Murcia, Negros Occidental, and is reversed insofar as it awarded the sums of P2,000.00, P5,000.00 and P2,000.00 as actual damages, moral damages and attorney’s fees, respectively. No costs.
Finding no cogent reason to grant appellants’ motion for reconsideration, said appellate court denied the same.
1.	Whether or not the defense of prescription and estoppel had been timely and properly invoked and raised by the petitioners in the lower court.
2.	Whether or not the cause and/or causes of action of the private respondents, if ever there are any, as alleged in their complaint dated February 21, 1968 which has been docketed in the trial court as Civil Case No. 8474 supra, are forever barred by statute of limitation and/or prescription of action and estoppel.
3.	Whether or not the late Rosendo Alvarez, a defendant in Civil Case No. 5022, supra, and father of the petitioners become a privy and/or party to the waiver (Exhibit "4" -defendant Siason) in Civil Case No. 8474, supra, where the private respondents had unqualifiedly and absolutely waived, renounced and quitclaimed all their alleged rights and interests, if ever there is any, on Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of Murcia Cadastre as appearing in their written manifestation dated November 6, 1962 (Exhibits "4" -Siason) which had not been controverted or even impliedly or indirectly denied by them.
There is no dispute that the rights of the Yaneses to the properties in question have been finally adjudicated in Civil Case No. 5022. As found by the lower court, from the uncontroverted evidence presented, the Yaneses have been illegally deprived of ownership and possession of the lots in question. 37 In fact, Civil Case No. 8474 now under review, arose from the failure to execute Civil Case No. 5022, as subject lots can no longer be reconveyed to private respondents Yaneses, the same having been sold during the pendency of the case by the petitioners’ father to Dr. Siason who did not know about the controversy, there being no lis pendens annotated on the titles. Hence, it was also settled beyond question that Dr. Siason is a purchaser-in-good faith.
The issue on the right to the properties in litigation having been finally adjudicated in Civil Case No. 5022 in favor of private respondents, it cannot now be reopened in the instant case on the pretext that the defenses of prescription and estoppel have not been properly considered by the lower court. Petitioners could have appealed in the former case but they did not. They have therefore foreclosed their rights, if any, and they cannot now be heard to complain in another case in order to defeat the enforcement of a judgment which has long become final and executory.
"Art. 774.	Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law.
"Art. 776.	The inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his death.
"The binding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the deceased party is not altered by the provision of our Rules of Court that money debts of a deceased must be liquidated and paid from his estate before the residue is distributed among said heirs (Rule 89). The reason is that whatever payment is thus made from the state is ultimately a payment by the heirs or distributees, since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs would have been entitled to receive.
WHEREFORE, subject to the clarification herein above stated, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano and Cortes, JJ., concur.
Bidin, J., took no part.
1.	TSN, October 17, 1973, pp. 4-5.
2.	TSN, December 11, 1973, pp. 11 & 55.
3.	Exhibits 26 and 28.
6.	Exhibits 23 and 24-Siason.
7.	Exhibits 1-Alvarez: Exh. 17-Siason.
11.	Civil Case No. 5022; Exhibit B.
13.	Exhibits 12 and 13.
14.	Exhibits 10, 11, 14 and 15.
16.	Record on Appeal, p. 25.
18.	Cad. Case No. 6; Exhibit 3.
19.	Cad. Case No. 6.
24.	Civil Case No. 8474.
25.	Record on Appeal, pp. 8-9.
26.	Record on Appeal, p. 36.
29.	Record on Appeal, pp. 100-101.
30.	Porfirio V. Sison Jr. J., ponente Abdulwahid A. Bidin, Marcelino R. Veloso and Desiderio P. Jurado , JJ., concurring.
35.	Miranda v. C.A., 141 SCRA 302 .
36.	Ngo Bun Tiong v. Judge Sayo, G.R. No. 45825, June 30, 1988.
37.	Record on Appeal, pp. 24-25.
39.	Quiniano Et. Al. v. C.A., 39 SCRA 221 .
42.	Lopez v. Enriquez, 16 Phil. 336 (1910).

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