Case Digest (G.R. No. 181962)
Facts:
Ceferino S. Cabreza, Jr., BJD Holdings Corp. v. Amparo Robles Cabreza, G.R. No. 181962, January 16, 2012, the Supreme Court Second Division, Sereno, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ceferino S. Cabreza, Jr. (Ceferino) and respondent Amparo R. Cabreza (Amparo) were adjudged to have a marriage void ab initio by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig Branch 70, in JDRC Case No. 3705 on January 3, 2001; that decision ordered dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership in accordance with Article 129 of the Family Code and became final. Following finality, RTC Branch 70 issued a May 26, 2003 Order authorizing the sale of the conjugal home and distribution of proceeds; Amparo's attempt to challenge that Order in an earlier Supreme Court petition (docketed as G.R. No. 162745) was dismissed on procedural grounds (May 24, 2004 dismissal, final July 23, 2004).
Pursuant to the May 26, 2003 directive, Ceferino filed an Omnibus Motion seeking (1) approval of a Deed of Absolute Sale, (2) authority to sign the deed for and on behalf of Amparo, and (3) writs to remove occupants. RTC Branch 70 granted the Omnibus Motion on October 2, 2003, explicitly approving the attached Deed of Absolute Sale and empowering Ceferino to execute it for Amparo; the order also directed that occupants vacate upon consummation of the sale. A writ of possession and related orders followed (including a May 12, 2004 order).
While implementation of those orders proceeded, Amparo sought relief several times. She moved to hold the writ of possession in abeyance and argued entitlement to adjudication of the conjugal dwelling under Article 129(9) as the spouse with whom a majority of the children resided; RTC Branch 70 denied that motion and the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the denial. Amparo then filed a petition with the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 171260 to nullify the writ of possession; the Supreme Court Third Division denied that petition on September 11, 2009 (decision became final January 5, 2010), reasoning that allowing the petition would impermissibly modify the already final May 26, 2003 RTC order and that factual disputes (e.g., existence of another conjugal property) were not proper in a Rule 45 petition.
During the pendency of appellate litigation, on January 26, 2005 Amparo filed a separate Complaint in RTC Pasig Branch 67 (Civil Case No. 70269) to annul the Deed of Absolute Sale for lack of her consent. RTC Branch 67 dismissed that complaint with prejudice on the grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping (Resolution dated May 5, 2005). On appeal, the CA Thirteenth Division reversed that dismissal in CA‑G.R. CV No. 86511 and remanded the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the dismissal by RTC Branch 67 of Amparo's Complaint for declaration of nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale on the ground of litis pendentia and forum shopping?
- Does res judicata bar Amparo's Complaint given the Supreme Court's earlier dismissal of her petit...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)