CASES PENNED BY JUSTICE LUCAS BERSAMIN 2013

CASE TITLE CATALINA BALAIS-MABANAG VS. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON

CITY, CONCEPCION ALCARAZ AND RAMONA ALCARAZ
CITATION G.R. No. 153142
PROMULGATION
March 29, 2010
DATE
DIGEST BY Rodriguez, Maria Lorraine S.
TOPIC COVERED RULE 39 Section 10 and Section 47 (b) CIVIL PROCEDURE
DOCTRINE:
Under res judicata, the parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issues
more than once; that when the a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined
by the court, so long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon parties and
their privies. For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action, the ff requisites
must be complied with: a.) the former judgment must be final; b.) it must have been
rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; c.) it must
be a judgment on the merits; d.) there must be between the first and second actions
identity of parties, identity of the subject matter and identity of cause of action.

If a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land, personal property or to

deliver deeds xxx, and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may
direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person
appointed by the court and the act when so done shall have like effect as if done by
the party.

FACTS:
In January 1985, The Coronels executed a document entitled receipt of down
payment, stipulating that they received from private respondent Ramona ALcaraz thru
the latters mother, Concepcion Alcaraz, the sum of P50K as down payment on the
total purchase price of P1,240,000 for their house and lot covered by a TCT registered
with RD-Quezon City. However, sometime in February 1985, the Coronels sold the same
property to the petitioner for the higher price of P1.5 million after the latter delivered an
initial sum of P300K. For this reason, the Coronels rescinded their contract with Ramona
by depositing her down payment in the bank in trust for Ramona. Consequently, Private
respondent Concepcion filed a complaint for specific performance and damages thru
her attorney-in-fact, Noel before the RTC of QC. Later, PR Concepcion caused the
annotation of a notice of lis pendes on said TCT.
Petitioner had a notice of adverse claim annotated on the disputed TCT. In April
1985, the Coronels executed a deed of absolute sale in favour of petitioner.
Accordingly, a TCT was issued in the name of the petitioner. Concepcion sought leave
of court to amend the complaint to implead Ramona as a co-plaintiff.

RTC: Ruled in favour of the private respondents and ordered the Coronels to execute in
favour of private respondents a deed of sale covering the parcel of land. MR was
likewise denied. CA: Affirmed the order of RTC.

1
 CASES PENNED BY JUSTICE LUCAS BERSAMIN 2013

The decision of RTC became final and executory. RTC, then, issued a writ of execution
in favour of PR. Petitioners and Coronel opposed. RTC ordered the implementation of
the writ however petitioners failed to comply with the writ of execution. The RTC , then,
approved the respondents motion for appointment of suitable person to execute deed
and ordered the clerk of court to execute the deed in favour of Ramona in lieu of the
petitioners and Coronels. Petitioners filed MR before the CA but it was denied. Following
such denial, petitioners commenced a special civil action for certiorari in CA to assail
the RTCs action. In the appeal, petitioner alleged that CA erred in sustaining the
registration of the RD of the deed of absolute sale despite the lack of citizenship of the
buyer over the property; and in sustaining the order of RTC directing the branch clerk of
court to execute the deed.

ISSUES:

1. Whether petitioners opposition/objection as regards to the question of private

respondents citizenship was barred by reason of res judicata?

2. Whether petitioner has the capacity to institute the suit

3. Whether the RTC erred in ordering the branch clerk of court to execute the deed of
sales on the strength of the implementation of the writ of execution

RULING:

1. Yes. The objection of petitioner was barred. Res judicata is applicable in the
case. Firstly, in the complaint filed by respondent Concepcion as plaintiff, she
categorically averred that she was a Filipino citizen. However, the petitioner did not
raise against Ramonas qualifications to own lands in the Philippines during trial or
before finality of the RTC judgment. The petitioner did not deny or disprove the
averment of Filipino citizenship. Now, when the final decision of RTC is already being
implemented, the petitioner would thwart the execution by assailing the directive of the
RTC on the ground that Ramona was disqualified from owning land in the Philippines.
Hence, petitioner deemed to have waived the objection, pursuant to Sec. 1 Rule 9 of
the ROC: Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the
answer are deemed waived. In every action, parties and counsels are enjoined to
present all available defences and objections in order that the matter in issue can
finally be laid to rest. Without the rule, there will be no end to a litigation, because a
dissatisfied litigant may simply raise new or additional issue in order to prevent, defeat or
delay implementation of an already final and executory judgment. Secondly, the
present case has not been the only recourse taken by the petitioner and her counsel to
assail the citizenship of Ramona and her qualification to acquire lands in the Philippines
as the petitioner had instituted several actions such as an administrative case filed
against the counsel of Ramona for disbarment.
2
 CASES PENNED BY JUSTICE LUCAS BERSAMIN 2013

For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action, the ff requisites must
be complied with: a.) the former judgment must be final; b.) it must have been
rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; c.) it must
be a judgment on the merits; d.) there must be between the first and second actions
identity of parties, identity of the subject matter and identity of cause of action. Under
res judicata, a final judgment or decree on the merits rendered by the court of
competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later
suits and on all points and matters determined in the previous suits. The principle is
founded upon which the doctrine rests is that the parties ought not to be permitted to
litigate the same issues more than once; that when the a right or fact has been
judicially tried and determined by the court, so long as it remains unreversed, should be
conclusive upon parties and their privies.

2. No, petitioner lacked the capacity to institute suit to question the citizenship of
Ramona. Under Sec. 7 of BP 185, the Solicitor General or his representative shall institute
escheat proceedings against its violators.

3. No, RTC did not err. The deed of absolute sale executed by the branch clerk of court
was valid as found by the CA petitioner did not comply with the notice of the sheriff of
the implementation of the judgment thru the writ of execution; and that her non-
compliance then justified the RTCs orders to the branch clerk of court to execute the
deed to implement the final judgment rendered by the RTC. The fact that the petitioner
and her counsel maneuvered to thwart or delay the inevitable execution of the
judgment warranted the RTCs directing the clerk of court execute the deed of
absolute sale to implement the judgment. Such deliberate refusal called for RTC to
order the branch clerk of court to execute the deed in favour of Ramona, which move
was authorized by Rule 39, Section 10 of the ROC, to wit: If a judgment directs a party
to execute a conveyance of land, personal property or to deliver deeds xxx, and the
party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may direct the act to be done
at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court and
the act when so done shall have like effect as if done by the party.