G.R. No. 152862 - Reyes-De Leon vs. Del Rosario

The case originated from an action for partition filed in the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Cebu City (Civil Case No. CEB-17236) by Pantaleon U. del Rosario and his son, respondent Vicente B. del Rosario.
Petitioner's name, Teresita S. Reyes-de Leon, an heir of the late spouses Pantaleon S. del Rosario and Ceferina Llamas, was impleaded as a defendant in the partition action.
Several parcels of land were involved, collectively identified as Tupas Properties, Asinan Properties, Figueroa Property, Barili Properties, Mambaling Properties, Negros Properties, and Other Properties.

Plaintiffs in the partition action claimed that petitioner executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of respondent covering all of her shares in the properties to be partitioned.
In her Answer dated November 10, 1998, petitioner denied executing a deed of sale in favor of respondent, admitting only that she had sold her shares in the Asinan and Negros properties to her father (Pantaleon U. del Rosario) and to the late Vicente S. del Rosario.
An alleged deed of absolute sale purportedly executed on January 20, 1985, was the basis of respondent’s claim over all of petitioner’s shares in the estate inherited from Ceferina Llamas, which petitioner contended was fraudulently altered to include other properties.

In December 1999, petitioner filed a separate Complaint for declaration of nullity of the deed of sale, with damages sought for alleged moral injuries, claiming that the disputed deed was invalid.
The nullity action was initiated after petitioner discovered in August 1996 that respondent, by asserting the deed of sale, was claiming all of her shares over her inherited properties.
Along with the filing of the nullity complaint, petitioner moved for the suspension of the partition proceedings.

On January 19, 2000, Judge Montecillo of the partition court granted petitioner’s motion to suspend the partition proceeding, on the ground that the cause of action in the nullity suit might affect the determination of ownership in the partition case.
The partition court later ordered both the submission of a list of uncontested properties and the partition of an agreed-upon portion of the estate during a preliminary conference held on July 29, 2000.
On August 15, 2000, the Complaint for declaration of nullity was dismissed by Branch 6 of RTC Cebu, with judicial reasoning that the issue of ownership should be determined in the partition case to avoid multiplicity of suits.

Respondent raised objections by filing a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that petitioner should have raised the issue of nullity as a compulsory counterclaim in the partition case, rather than filing a separate action.
Respondent contended that the concurrent nullity suit and partition action, involving the same parties, facts, and disputed deed, amounted to forum shopping and litis pendentia.
The parties agreed that the issues of forum shopping and litis pendentia were determinative, as the determination of ownership and the validity of the deed would be intertwined in both cases.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the August 15, 2000 order was denied on February 19, 2002, by Judge Anacleto L. Caminade.
While the petition for review was pending in the Supreme Court, petitioner died and was subsequently substituted by her heirs, Michael Alain Reyes de Leon and Isidro de Leon.

Whether raising the defense of inexistence or nullity of the deed of sale in the partition case precludes petitioner from instituting a separate action for declaration of nullity, thereby constituting forum shopping and multiplicity of suits.
Whether the final January 19, 2000 suspension order of the partition proceedings—and the subsequent denial of motion for reconsideration—should be adversely affected by the dismissal of the nullity action.
Whether the issues raised in the separate nullity action are fundamentally the same as those in the partition case, thus rendering them as compulsory counterclaims that must be resolved in a single proceeding.
Whether the principles of res judicata apply in this situation, meaning that the determination of the disputed deed of sale in one action would bind the parties and preclude a separate litigation on the same matter.