Case Digest (G.R. No. 97547)
Facts:
Diwa v. Donato, G.R. No. 97547, July 29, 1994, Supreme Court Second Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Rolando T. Diwa and Blesida G. Diwa sued respondents Arnold L. Donato and Napoleon L. Donato over a residential-commercial lot registered as T-16000 in Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Petitioners alleged that the Donato siblings, as surviving heirs/partners after the death of Adoracion Donato, sold the lot to petitioners in November 1986 for P504,000, delivered possession, and that petitioners paid part of the purchase price (receipts showing P168,000 paid to Arnold and another P168,000 to Napoleon). Petitioners deposited the remaining P168,000 with the court when conflicting claims arose between the two brothers over entitlement to the balance.Initially petitioners filed an action styled “Complaint for Interpleader and Execution of Registerable Deed of Sale With Damages,” docketed Civil Case No. 3892 before RTC, Tuguegarao, Branch 4 (presided by Judge Plaridel L. Villacete). The trial court dismissed that complaint on December 29, 1988, holding interpleader was the improper remedy; the Supreme Court (Third Division) issued a Resolution on September 20, 1989 affirming dismissal for lack of merit and advising that the proper remedy would be an action for specific performance or breach of contract.
Thereafter petitioners filed Civil Case No. 4117-(Tug ’90) in RTC, Tuguegarao, Branch 1 (presided by Judge Roger A. Domagas), for Specific Performance (Execution of Registerable Deed of Sale and Delivery of Certificate of Title) With Damages. The new complaint largely repeated the prior allegations, adding an explicit allegation that petitioners had partially complied and were willing to comply fully, hence could compel conveyance. On January 8, 1990 the trial court dismissed Civil Case No. 4117 with prejudice on the ground of res judicata, reasoning that the Supreme Court’s earlier Resolution constituted an adjudication on the merits; on January 31, 1991 the trial court denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration and reiterated that specific performance would be barred by the Statute of Frauds and that the receipts were not sufficient written contracts.
Petitioners filed a petition for cert...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC err in dismissing Civil Case No. 4117 on the ground of res judicata based on the Supreme Court’s prior Resolution in the interpleader case?
- Was specific performance an available remedy here — i.e., was there a contract sufficient to compel conveyance and does the Statute of Frauds (Art. 1403(2)(e), Civil Code) bar specific performance giv...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)