Você está na página 1de 2

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 181962 January 16, 2012
CEFERINO S. CABREA, JR., BJ! "O#!INGS CORP., r$%r$&$n'$( )y ATT*. MANUE# !U#A*,
Topic: Property Relations
he follo!in" re#uisites $ust be present for the proper invocation of litis pendentia as a "round for
dis$issin" an action%
&. Identit' of parties or representation in both cases(
). Identit' of ri"hts asserted and relief pra'ed for, the relief bein" founded on the sa$e facts
and the sa$e basis( and
*. Identit' of the t!o precedin" particulars, such that an' +ud"$ent that $a' be rendered in the
other action !ill, re"ardless of !hich part' is successful, a$ount to res judicata in the action
under consideration.
Lower Court: Dismissed complaint (for declaration of nullity of the Deed of Sale of a conjugal dwelling)
CA: Reverse RTC decision
SC: Reverse CA decision. Reinstated RTC ruling dismissing complaint
1. Jan 2001, RTC of Pasig declared marriage between Ceferino (petitioner) and Amparo (respondent) as null
and void and ordered dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership. Petitioner executed a deed of
absolute sale in favor of BJD Holdings Corp involving the conjugal dwelling. Petitioner asked the RTC to
authorized him to signed in behalf of the respondent and order the occupants to vacate the property.
2. Respondent countered by flling a Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate,
arguing that (1) the parties had another conjugal lot apart from the conjugal dwelling; and (2) under Article
129 of the Family Code,
the conjugal dwelling should be adjudicated to her as the spouse, with whom four
of the fve Cabreza children were staying.
The CA erred in reversing the RTC decision by dismissing the complaint of declaring the nullity of Deed of
Sale on the basis of litis pendentia and forum shopping.
1. CA erred in giving merit to the respondents argument. We also take time to stress that the Complaint for
Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Sale cannot prosper, because, like the Petition to nullify the Writ of
Possession, it efectively seeks the modifcation of an already fnal Order of RTC Br. 70. In view of this
Courts consistent ruling that Amparo cannot be allowed to impugn the already fnal Order of RTC Br. 70
directing the sale of the conjugal dwelling, we deny the prayer for preliminary injunction to hold in
abeyance the implementation of the Notice to Vacate