Case Digest (G.R. No. 68053)
Facts:
Laura Alvarez, Flora Alvarez and Raymundo Alvarez v. The Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court and Jesus Yanes, Estelita Yanes, Antonio Yanes, Rosario Yanes, and Iluminado Yanes, G.R. No. 68053, May 07, 1990, Supreme Court Third Division, Fernan, C.J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns Lots Nos. 773 (later subdivided into Lots 773‑A and 773‑B) of the cadastral survey of Murcia, Negros Occidental, originally registered under Original Certificate of Title No. R0‑4858 (8804) in the name of the heirs of Aniceto Yanes (OCT issued October 9, 1917). Aniceto was survived by Rufino, Felipe and Teodora; the private respondents in this case are descendants of Rufino and Felipe. Over time portions of Lot 773 were transferred: in 1938 Fortunato D. Santiago obtained transfer certificates covering parts of Lot 773; Santiago sold the parcels to Monico B. Fuentebella, Jr. in 1955; following Fuentebella’s death his administratrix, Arsenia Vda. de Fuentebella, sold the lots in 1958 to Rosendo Alvarez, and Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) were issued to Alvarez in 1958.
In 1960 (Civil Case No. 5022) Teodora and the children of Rufino (the Yaneses) sued Santiago, Arsenia, Alvarez and the Register of Deeds for reconveyance and possession of Lots 773 and 823, and for an accounting of produce. During that suit Alvarez sold the property to Dr. Rodolfo Siason (sale dated November 13, 1961). In November 1962 the Yaneses filed a manifestation renouncing any claim against Arsenia Vda. de Fuentebella. On October 11, 1963 the Court of First Instance in Civil Case No. 5022 rendered judgment ordering Alvarez to reconvey Lots 773 and 823 and to deliver possession to the plaintiffs. Execution of that judgment was frustrated because Lot 773 had been subdivided and Siason held TCTs to Lots 773‑A and 773‑B and was not a party to Civil Case No. 5022.
After unsuccessful execution efforts and a cadastral proceeding that refused to compel Siason to surrender his titles (the cadastral court on September 4, 1965 found Siason a purchaser in good faith and refused to enforce surrender), the Yaneses filed a new action for recovery of real property with damages (Civil Case No. 8474, filed February 21, 1968) naming Siason, the Alvarezes and the Register of Deeds as defendants, and praying for cancellation of Siason’s TCTs or, if reconveyance could not be effected, for monetary relief (P45,000 plus damages and attorney’s fees).
In its July 8, 1974 decision in Civil Case No. 8474, the trial court found Siason to be a buyer in good faith and dismissed the case against him and the Register of Deeds, but held that Alvarez’s sale to Siason was effected without prior court approval and, on equitable grounds, ordered defendants Laura, Flora and Raymundo Alvarez (children/heirs of Rosendo) to pay the plaintiffs P20,000 representing the actual value of Lots 773‑A and 773‑B, plus additional sums for actual damages, moral damages and attorney’s fees. The Alvarezes appealed.
The Intermediate Appellate Court (Fourth Civil Cases Division) in its August 31, 1983 decision (ponente Porfirio V. Sison, JJ. Abdulwahid A. Bidin, Marcelino R. Veloso and Desiderio P. Jurado concurring) affirmed the trial court insofar as it ordered joint and several payment of P20,000 for the actual value of the lots, but reversed the awards of P2,000 (actual damages), P5,000 (moral damages) and P2,000 (attorney’s fees). The appellate court denied a motion for reconsideration on May 30, 1984.
The Alvarezes (petitioners) sought relief in this Court by a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45) challenging the Intermediate Appellate Court’s...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the final judgment in Civil Case No. 5022 operate as res judicata and bar relitigation of the Yaneses’ rights to Lots 773‑A and 773‑B in the subsequent suit (Civil Case No. 8474)?
- Were the defenses of prescription and estoppel timely and properly invoked by the petitioners in the trial court?
- Did the Yaneses’ November 6, 1962 manifestation (waiver as to Arsenia Vda. de Fuentebella) make Rosendo Alvarez a privy or otherwise bind him to that waiver?
- Could the liabilities arising from Rosendo Alvarez’s sale of the lots be transmitted to his heirs...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)