G.R. No. 179025 - Cebu State College of Science and Technology vs. Misterio

On December 31, 1956, Asuncion Sadaya (deceased mother of respondents) executed a Deed of Sale for Lot 1064 (4,563 sq.m.), located in Lahug, Cebu City, covered by TCT No. 13086, in favor of Sudlon Agricultural High School (SAHS).
The Deed contained a suspensive condition granting the vendor a right to repurchase the property after SAHS “ceases to exist or transfers its school site elsewhere” paying P9,130.00.
On May 22, 1957, TCT No. 13086 was cancelled; TCT No. 15959 was issued in the name of SAHS with the vendor’s right to repurchase annotated on the title.

On March 18, 1960, the Provincial Board of Cebu donated 41 parcels of land (covering 104.5441 hectares of Banilad Friar Lands Estate) to SAHS, subject to conditions:

On June 10, 1983, Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 412 was enacted, converting Cebu School of Arts and Trades and consolidating it with several schools including SAHS into Cebu State College of Science and Technology (CSCST). All personnel, properties, and obligations of SAHS were transferred to CSCST.

Province of Cebu attempted to recover the 41 donated parcels arguing that SAHS had no juridical personality to accept the donation, rendering the deed void.
On August 19, 1988, respondents (heirs of Asuncion Sadaya) notified the Governor of Cebu of their intention to repurchase the subject property based on the Deed of Sale’s stipulation (the occurrence of the suspensive condition).
Respondents formally informed CSCST on March 13, 1990, of their intention to exercise the right to repurchase, but were advised by CSCST personnel that SAHS still existed, only under a different name.

On December 23, 1993, respondents filed a Complaint for Nullity of Sale and/or Redemption before RTC Branch 18, Cebu City, asserting:

SAHS had no juridical personality in 1956 and could not acquire property, rendering the Deed null and void.
SAHS ceased to exist with enactment of BP Blg. 412, activating the right to repurchase.

On November 29, 1995, RTC ruled in favor of respondents, declaring the Deed null and void and ordering CSCST to reconvey the property upon payment of P9,130.00.

Petitioner (CSCST) appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).
While pending appeal, respondents filed a Motion for Injunction and amended their complaint to include CSCST’s alleged abandonment of the land and intent to transfer school site.
On October 3, 1997, CSCST executed a Deed for Reversion, ceding the subject property to the Province of Cebu; TCT No. 146351 was issued in province’s name.
On July 31, 2000, the CA ruled that respondents’ right to repurchase had prescribed (expired) in June 1987, four years from the effectivity of BP Blg. 412.
In 2005, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA ruling, holding that respondents failed to exercise their right within four years from June 10, 1983.

On February 5, 2001, respondents filed an Amended Complaint against CSCST, Province of Cebu, and Register of Deeds, asserting that CSCST’s transfer of school site triggered their right of redemption under the second suspensive condition.
Petitioners argued the second complaint was barred by litis pendentia, res judicata, forum shopping, prescription, and lacked cause of action.
On October 1, 2002, RTC dismissed the complaint on grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping.
On July 25, 2007, the CA reversed the RTC dismissal, ruling that although parties and reliefs were identical, there was no identity of cause of action because the first complaint was based on cessation of SAHS’s existence, while the second was on school site transfer.

CSCST filed a petition for review under Rule 45, arguing that the second complaint was barred by litis pendentia and lacked cause of action.
Petitioner asserted that the transfer of school site was in furtherance of educational purpose and did not trigger the right to repurchase.

Whether the filing of the second complaint by respondents is barred by litis pendentia, res judicata, and forum shopping, considering the first complaint pending before the courts.

Whether respondents have a valid cause of action based on the transfer of the school site by the petitioner triggering the right to repurchase under the Deed of Sale.

Application of Article 1606 of the New Civil Code regarding the period to exercise the vendor’s right to repurchase and its effect on respondents’ right under the second suspensive condition.