Case Digest (G.R. No. 158642)
Facts:
The Estate of Don Filemon Y. Sotto, G.R. No. 158642, September 22, 2008, the Supreme Court First Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arises from properties belonging to the estate of the late Don Filemon Y. Sotto. Filemon had four children: Marcelo Sotto (administrator of the estate), Pascuala Sotto Pahang, Miguel Barcelona, and Matilde S. Palicte. In June 1967 Pilar Teves and other heirs of Filemon’s deceased wife sued the estate in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16, in Civil Case No. R-10027; judgment awarding damages was rendered, and to satisfy the damages six parcels and two houses belonging to the estate were levied and sold at public auction on July 5, 1979.
Within the redemption period, Matilde redeemed four lots (Lot Nos. 1049, 1051, 1052, and 2179‑C) and a Deed of Redemption was executed on July 9, 1980. The trial court, however, declared the Deed of Redemption null and void on the ground that Matilde was not a proper successor‑in‑interest to redeem. Matilde sought relief from this Court in Palicte v. Ramolete and Sotto, G.R. No. L‑55076 (21 Sept. 1987), in which this Court reversed and validated Matilde’s redemption but gave the other heirs six months to join as co‑redemptioners.
The other heirs failed to join. Accordingly, on October 5, 1989, the RTC in Civil Case No. R‑10027 ordered the Register of Deeds to issue titles in Matilde’s name. Subsequent litigation followed: Pascuala signed a waiver in 1992 but later filed for nullification (Civil Case No. CEB‑19338) which was dismissed for laches; appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 44660) and a subsequent petition to this Court (G.R. No. 131722) were unsuccessful. The heirs of Miguel sought inclusion as co‑redemptioners in 1998; the RTC denied relief (25 Apr. 2000) on laches and res judicata, the Court of Appeals denied relief (CA‑G.R. SP No. 60225), and this Court dismissed their petition (G.R. No. 154585) for procedural defaults (23 Sept. 2002).
In September 1999 the heirs of Marcelo and Miguel filed a partition action (Civil Case No. CEB‑24293) which was dismissed (15 Nov. 1999) and the dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CV No. 68239 (29 Nov. 2002), the latter holding the action barred by prior judgment; that CA decision was pending before this Court at the time.
Meanwhile the estate (through Marcelo as administrator) filed a motion in the probate proceedings of SP. PROC. No. 2706‑R (RTC Branch 16) to require Matilde to turn over and account for the subject properties, alleging the estate furnished the funds for redemption and that Matilde held the lots in trust (citing Art. 1455 of the Civil Code). On July 23, 2002 the probate court granted the estate’s motion and ordered turnover, conveyances, and accounting. Matilde moved for reconsideration; the probate court reversed itself and set aside the July 23, 2002 order in an Order dated December 20, 2002, taking judicial notice of the Court of Appeals’ decision in CA‑G.R. CV No. 68239 which favored Matild...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the Court’s decision in G.R. No. L‑55076 res judicata as to the estate’s motion for accounting or surrender of the subject properties in the probate court?
- Does the Court of Appeals’ decision in CA‑G.R. CV No. 68239, in which the petitioner was not a party and which was subject to a pending motion for reconsideration, constitute res judicata as to the estate’s motion for accounting o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)