Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 92 views

    Civil Procedure Cases

    Uploaded by

    FeBrluado
    The Supreme Court ruled that the decision granting the petition for issuance of a new owner's duplicate title has attained conclusiveness of judgment and res judicata. The decision was a final judgment rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties. As the petition was not contested and became final, the disposition was a judgment on the merits. There was also identity of parties between the first and second cases, making the ruling in the first case conclusive upon the parties in the second case under the principle of res judicata.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Civil Procedure Cases

    Uploaded by

    FeBrluado
    92 views6 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the decision granting the petition for issuance of a new owner's duplicate title has attained conclusiveness of judgment and res judicata. The decision was a final judgment rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties. As the petition was not contested and became final, the disposition was a judgment on the merits. There was also identity of parties between the first and second cases, making the ruling in the first case conclusive upon the parties in the second case under the principle of res judicata.

    Original Description:

    Digests

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the decision granting the petition for issuance of a new owner's duplicate title has attained conclusiveness of judgment and res judicata. The decision was a final judgment rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties. As the petition was not contested and became final, the disposition was a judgment on the merits. There was also identity of parties between the first and second cases, making the ruling in the first case conclusive upon the parties in the second case under the principle of res judicata.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    92 views6 pages

    Civil Procedure Cases

    Uploaded by

    FeBrluado
    The Supreme Court ruled that the decision granting the petition for issuance of a new owner's duplicate title has attained conclusiveness of judgment and res judicata. The decision was a final judgment rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties. As the petition was not contested and became final, the disposition was a judgment on the merits. There was also identity of parties between the first and second cases, making the ruling in the first case conclusive upon the parties in the second case under the principle of res judicata.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    G.R. NO.

    176628

    MARCH 19, 2012

    PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY vs. PHILIPPINE GOLF DEVELOPMENT


    & EQUIPMENT, INC.,

    Rule 47

    FACTS

    PTA, an agency of the Department of Tourism entered into a contract


    with Atlantic Erectors, Inc. (AEI) for the construction of the Intramuros Golf
    Course Expansion Projects.

    Since AEI was incapable of constructing the golf course aspect of the
    project, it entered into a sub-contract agreement with PHILGOLF. The sub-
    contract agreement also provides that PHILGOLF shall submit its progress
    billings directly to PTA and, in turn, PTA shall directly pay PHILGOLF.

    PHILGOLF filed a collection suit against PTA for the construction of the
    golf course PTA failed to answer the complaint. Hence the RTC rendered a
    judgment of default.

    PTA seasonably appealed the case to the CA. But before the appeal of
    PTA could be perfected, PHILGOLF already filed a motion for execution pending
    appeal with the RTC to which the court granted.

    PTA filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, imputing grave abuse of
    discretion on the part of the RTC for granting the motion for execution pending
    appeal. The CA ruled in favor of PTA and set aside the order granting the
    motion for execution pending appeal. PTA then filed petition for annulment of
    judgment grounded on the negligence of PTAs counsel.

    ISSUES

    1. Whether or not the negligence of PTAs counsel amounted to an extrinsic


    fraud warranting an annulment of judgment.

    2. Whether or not should not be bound by the inactions or negligence of its


    counsel.

    3. Whether or not there were no other available remedies left for PTA but a
    petition for annulment of judgment.

    HELD

    1. Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the
    litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the
    unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by
    fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent. The records reveal
    that the judgment of default was sent via registered mail to PTAs
    counsel. However, PTA never availed of the remedy of a motion to lift the
    order of default. Since the failure of PTA to present its evidence was not a
    product of any fraudulent acts committed outside trial, the RTC did not
    err in declaring PTA in default.

    2. The Rules of Court specifically provides for deadlines in actions before


    the court to ensure an orderly disposition of cases. PTA cannot escape
    these legal technicalities by simply invoking the negligence of its counsel.
    This practice, if allowed, would defeat the purpose of the Rules on
    periods since every party would merely lay the blame on its counsel to
    avoid any liability. The rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even
    mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique[,]and
    unless such acts involve gross negligence that the claiming party can
    prove, the acts of a counsel bind the client as if it had been the latters
    acts.

    3. PTAs appropriate remedy was only to appeal the RTC decision.


    Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is recourse
    equitable in character and allowed only in exceptional cases where the
    ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
    appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of
    petitioner.
    G.R. NO. 192975

    NOVEMBER 12, 2012

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the REGIONAL


    EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DENR, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 3, vs.
    ROMAN CATHOLIC OF ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA

    G.R. NO. 192994

    SAMAHANG KABUHAYAN NG SAN LORENZO KKK, INC., vs. ROMAN


    CATHOLIC OF ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA

    Rule 47

    FACTS

    Petitioner Republic filed a complaint for cancellation of titles and


    reversion against respondent RCAM and several others. The complaint alleged
    that RCAM appears as a registered owner of 8 parcels of land in Obando,
    Bulacan.

    RCAM sold those 8 parcels of land to the other named defendants. The
    lands were later on certified by the Bureau of Forestry as falling within the
    unclassified lands of the public domain and declared alienable and disposable.

    The KKK, occupants of the subject property filed a complaint-in-


    intervention. During the course of pre-trial, the RCAM filed a motion to dismiss
    assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC over the complaint. The RTC denied the
    motion for being premature. The matter was elevated to the CA on certiorari
    alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. The CA held that
    while reversion suits are allowed under the law, the same should be instituted
    before the CA because the RTC cannot nullify a decision rendered by a co-equal
    land registration court.

    The CA further applied equitable estoppels against the State and


    considered it barred from filing a reversion suit. Republic petitioned the SC
    contending that they do not seek annulment of judgment of the RTC acting as
    Land Registration Court but the nullification of the subject titles.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the action filed by the
    Republic

    HELD

    In this case, the material averments in the complaint before the RTC,
    show that their action is one for cancellation of titles and reversion, not for
    annulment of judgment of the RTC. The complaint alleged that the parcels of
    land which are subject matter of the action, were not subject of the CFIs
    judgment in the relevant prior land registration case.

    Hence, petitioners pray that the certificates of titles of RCAM be cancelled


    which will not necessitate the annulment of said judgment. Clearly, Rule 47 of
    the RC on annulment of judgment finds no application in the instant case. The
    RTC may properly take cognizance of the reversion suits which do not call for
    an annulment of judgment of the RTC acting as a Land Registration Court.

    Actions for cancellation of titles and reversion, like the present case,
    belong to the class of cases that involve title to, or possession of, real property,
    or any of interest therein and where the assessed value of the property exceeds
    P20,000.00, fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC. Consequently, no grave
    abuse of discretion excess of jurisdiction can be attributed to the
    RTC in denying the RCAMs motion to dismiss.

    Moreover, it should be stressed that the only incident before the CA for
    resolution was the propriety of RCAMs motion to dismiss, thus, it was
    premature for the CA at this stage to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppels
    as the parties have not presented any evidence that would support such
    finding.
    G.R.NO. 158916

    MARCH 19, 2014

    HEIRS OF CORNELIO MIGUEL vs. HEIRS OF ANGEL MIGUEL

    Rule 39

    FACTS

    This involves properties that were donated to the respondent from


    petitioners father Cornelio Miguel.

    Respondent filed a petition for the issuance of a new owners duplicate of


    an Original Certificate of Title which was allegedly eaten and destroyed by white
    ants.

    The court granted the petition, which was not contested or appealed and
    became final and executory.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not the decision has attained conclusiveness of judgment and
    res judicata.

    HELD

    Yes. The following are the elements of res judicata:

    (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;

    (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction
    over the subject matter and the parties;

    (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and

    (4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of
    parties, subject matter, and causes of action.

    Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, res judicata embraces two concepts:

    (1) bar by prior judgment as enunciated in Section 47(b) of the said Rule
    and

    (2) conclusiveness of judgment as explained in Section 47(c) of the same


    Rule. Should identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action be
    shown in the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect as a bar by prior
    judgment would apply.

    If as between the two cases, only identity of parties can be shown, but
    not identical causes of action, then res judicata as conclusiveness of
    judgment applies.

    You might also like