Case Digest (G.R. No. 159508)
Facts:
Juan B. Banez, Jr. v. Hon. Crisanto C. Concepcion, et al., G.R. No. 159508, August 29, 2012, Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is Juan B. Banez, Jr.; the respondents are Hon. Crisanto C. Concepcion, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Malolos City, Bulacan, and the Estate of the Late Rodrigo Gomez, represented by its administratrix Tsui Yuk Ying. The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was filed on September 4, 2003 to assail RTC orders of March 24, 2003 (setting aside a February 18, 2003 dismissal and reinstating Civil Case No. 722‑M‑2002), April 21, 2003 (denying reconsideration), and August 19, 2003 (denying second reconsideration and directing the filing of an answer).
The dispute traces to an earlier suit: on February 1, 1990 Leodegario B. Ramos sued Rodrigo Gomez (a.k.a. Domingo Ng Lim) in Valenzuela RTC (Civil Case No. 3287‑V‑90) seeking rescission and damages. Before final adjudication, the parties entered into a court‑approved compromise agreement on October 9, 1990 requiring, among other things, the segregation by survey of a 1,233 sq. m. portion from a larger tract and the execution and registration of a deed of absolute sale transferring that portion to Gomez; Ramos was to deliver the owners duplicate of the TCT; Ramos and his counsel (the petitioner Banez) also agreed monetary undertakings, guaranteed by post‑dated checks totaling P110,000.00.
Gomez died on November 7, 1990; his Estate (represented by Tsui) later performed the survey obligation but Ramos failed to register the deed of sale or to deliver the owners duplicate and, instead, caused the 1,233 sq. m. to be registered in Ramos’ name (TCT No. T‑13005‑P(M)). The Estate sued Ramos and petitioner for specific performance in Valenzuela RTC on July 6, 1995 (Civil Case No. 4679‑V‑95). The Valenzuela RTC dismissed that complaint on April 1, 1996 for improper venue and related grounds; the Court of Appeals affirmed on July 24, 2001 (CA‑G.R. CV No. 54231).
On September 20, 2002 the Estate filed Civil Case No. 722‑M‑2002 in the Valenzuela RTC to revive the October 9, 1990 judgment‑by‑compromise and to compel the execution of the deed of sale; petitioner was impleaded as a defendant. Petitioner moved to dismiss on January 8, 2003, alleging prescription, res judicata, lack of real party‑in‑interest, and that obligations had been paid. The RTC initially granted the motion on February 18, 2003 finding prescription, but on March 24, 2003 reversed itself — upon the Estate’s motion — and reinstated...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it set aside its dismissal and denied reconsideration of Civil Case No. 722‑M‑2002?
- Is Civil Case No. 722‑M‑2002 barred by prescription under Article 1144 of the Civil Code and related rules?
- Should Civil Case No. 722‑M‑2002 have been dismissed on other grounds urged by petitioner (res judicata, full satisfacti...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)