Case Digest (G.R. No. 126713)
Facts:
In Cruz v. Court of Appeals and Spouses Malolos, petitioners Adoracion E. Cruz, Thelma Debbie E. Cruz, Gerry E. Cruz, and Arnel E. Cruz (all “Cruz siblings”) are children and heirs of the late Delfin I. Cruz. On August 22, 1977, the surviving spouse and their four children executed a notarized Deed of Partial Partition (DPP), allotting specific parcels of land in Taytay, Rizal, to each heir. The next day, they executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) declaring themselves “common co-owners pro-indiviso” but agreeing that any sale proceeds of individually titled lots would be shared equally. Titles for seven parcels were thereafter issued to Nerissa Cruz Tamayo, annotated with the MOA. Spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos obtained a money judgment against Nerissa and, by execution sale in 1983, acquired her interests in those seven parcels. In 1985 the Cruz siblings filed a partition suit in the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, against the Maloloses over the same lands. On January 28, 1991,Case Digest (G.R. No. 126713)
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioners Adoracion E. Cruz, Thelma Debbie E. Cruz, Gerry E. Cruz and Arnel E. Cruz (the “Cruzes”) are children and heirs of the late Delfin I. Cruz, together with their sister Nerissa Cruz Tamayo.
- Private respondents Eliseo and Virginia Malolos obtained a money judgment against Nerissa and her husband Nelson Tamayo in Civil Case No. 31231 (₱126,529 plus interest and attorney’s fees), which became final in 1981.
- Deed of Partial Partition and Memorandum Agreement
- On August 22, 1977, the Cruzes and Nerissa executed a notarized Deed of Partial Partition (DPP), dividing several Taytay, Rizal parcels into equal shares. Nerissa received seven parcels, later titled under TCT Nos. 502603–502610.
- On August 23, 1977, the same parties executed a Memorandum Agreement (MOA) declaring co-ownership pro indiviso and obligating equal division of proceeds from any sale of allotted lots; this MOA was annotated on the titles.
- Execution Sale and Partition Case
- In November 1981, the sheriff levied on Nerissa’s seven titled parcels; in June 1983, they were sold at auction to the Malolos spouses for satisfaction of their judgment. Nerissa failed to redeem.
- The Malolos spouses secured cancellation/annotation orders over Nerissa’s duplicate titles. The Cruzes intervened, claiming co-ownership under the MOA, and in February 1987 filed Civil Case No. 961-A for partition against the Malolos spouses.
- In January 1991, the RTC of Antipolo rendered judgment ordering partition of the seven parcels among the five co-owners (the four Cruzes and the Malolos spouses), plus attorney’s fees and costs.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the partition complaint, holding that the DPP conferred absolute ownership on Nerissa and that the MOA only created an obligation to share sale proceeds; it also found petitioners estopped and res judicata inapplicable.
Issues:
- Validity and Effect of the MOA vis-à-vis the DPP
- Did the MOA novate, cancel or supersede the earlier DPP?
- Are the DPP and MOA materially and substantially incompatible?
- Existence of Co-ownership
- Did the MOA convert individual titled ownership into co-ownership of the seven parcels?
- Does annotation of the MOA on separate certificates of title establish co-ownership?
- Estoppel by Deed
- Are petitioners estopped from claiming co-ownership due to their prior acts (sales and mortgages) treating parcels as absolutely owned and unencumbered?
- Does the res inter alios acta rule bar the use of those transactions?
- Res Judicata
- Has the January 18, 1985 RTC Quezon City order on levy and annotation attained res judicata effect on co-ownership?
- Are the earlier money-collection case and the partition case identical in parties, cause and subject matter?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)