Case Summary (G.R. No. L-61255)
Key Dates
Execution of deed of sale with assumption of mortgage: September 30, 1986. Annotation of unpaid vendor’s lien: March 18, 1988. Initial suit (Civil Case No. G‑1936) filed: February 1988; amended: April 19, 1993; appeal resulting in dismissal as to Benelda Estate: March 1, 2001. Compromise agreement among Chus, Cunanans, and Cool Town Realty: December 2, 1999; RTC partial approval: January 25, 2000. Second suit (Civil Case No. 12251) filed by petitioners: April 30, 2001; amended complaint: February 4, 2002. CA decision dismissing Civil Case No. 12251 for res judicata: November 19, 2002; Supreme Court decision culminating in the present denial of the petition: September 12, 2011.
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution (as the case decision date is post‑1990). Rules of Court, in particular Section 4, Rule 2 (prohibition against splitting a single cause of action). Civil Code provisions on compromise agreements (Articles 2028 and 2036). Principles and prior jurisprudence on compromise agreements, res judicata, splitting of causes of action, privity, and identity of parties/subject matter/cause of action as articulated in the decision.
Factual Background: Contract and Side Agreement
Spouses Manuel and Catalina Chu executed a deed of sale with assumption of mortgage conveying five parcels to Trinidad N. Cunanan for P5,161,090.00, accompanied by a side agreement acknowledging that only P1,000,000 had been paid to the Chus, and allocating other payments (P1,600,000 to creditors, balance of P2,561.90 due within three months with interest on defaults). The side agreement stipulated that legal ownership would remain with the Chus until full payment and compliance.
Subsequent Transfers and Encumbrances
Cunanan obtained title transfers in her name and encumbered the lots as security for loans without paying the full purchase price to the Chus. Two lots were transferred to Spouses Amado and Gloria Carlos (later sold to Benelda Estate), and other lots were assigned to Cool Town Realty despite an annotated unpaid vendor’s lien on some lots.
Procedural History: First Action (Civil Case No. G‑1936)
The Chus filed Civil Case No. G‑1936 in February 1988 to recover unpaid balances from the Cunanans and later amended the complaint (April 19, 1993) to seek annulment of the deed and cancellation of TCTs, impleading Cool Town Realty and the Registry of Deeds. Benelda Estate was later impleaded when it acquired two lots. Benelda Estate moved to dismiss; the RTC denied the motion; the CA annulled the denial as tainted with grave abuse and dismissed the case as against Benelda Estate; the Supreme Court later affirmed the dismissal as to Benelda Estate in G.R. No. 142313 (March 1, 2001).
Compromise Agreement and RTC Approval
On December 2, 1999, the Chus, the Cunanans, and Cool Town Realty entered into a compromise agreement in which the Cunanans transferred their 50% share in “all the parcels of land situated in Saguin, San Fernando Pampanga now registered in the name of defendant, COOL TOWN REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION” to the Chus “for and in consideration of the full settlement of their case.” The agreement contained a broad waiver clause where parties waived “any and all their respective claims against each other as alleged in the pleadings” in the case. The RTC approved the compromise in a partial decision dated January 25, 2000.
Procedural History: Second Action (Civil Case No. 12251) and Motions to Dismiss
Petitioners filed Civil Case No. 12251 on April 30, 2001, seeking cancellation of TCTs of two lots in Benelda Estate’s name and issuance of new TCTs to them, with damages. The amended complaint (February 4, 2002) added the Cunanans as defendants. The Cunanans moved to dismiss on grounds of prior judgment (res judicata) and payment/waiver via compromise. Benelda Estate moved to dismiss for forum shopping, res judicata, and failure to state a cause of action. The Carloses asserted failure to state a cause of action, res judicata, and prescription. The RTC denied the motions; rehearing was denied; the Cunanans filed certiorari in the CA.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals granted the petition for certiorari, annulled the RTC orders denying motions to dismiss, and dismissed the amended complaint in Civil Case No. 12251. The CA held that the compromise agreement ended the legal controversy arising from the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage covering all five parcels; Civil Case No. 12251 involved the same legal right as Civil Case No. G‑1936; and the filing of Civil Case No. 12251 violated the prohibition against splitting a single cause of action, rendering it subject to dismissal by res judicata.
Issue Presented
Whether Civil Case No. 12251 was barred by res judicata despite (a) the compromise agreement not expressly naming Benelda Estate as a party and (b) the compromise agreement not expressly referring to the specific lots later registered in Benelda Estate’s name.
Supreme Court Ruling: Denial of Petition; Application of Res Judicata
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the CA. It reasoned that a compromise agreement is a contract with the effect and authority of res judicata between the contracting parties; it should be construed according to the intention of the parties as expressed in the agreement read as a whole. The language of the compromise—transferring all rights in a 50% share of “all the parcels” and the waiver of “any and all their respective claims against each other as alleged in the pleadings”—manifested the parties’ intent to settle all claims arising from the original case, which sought to enforce or rescind the entire deed covering all five lots.
Analysis of Splitting of Cause of Action and Rule 2, Section 4
The Court emphasized the prohibition against splitting a single cause of action: Section 4, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court precludes instituting two or more suits based on the same cause of action, and the filing or judgment in one is ground for dismissal of others. The Chus’ prosecution of Civil Case No. 12251 for relief related to two of the lots constituted an im
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-61255)
Case Caption, Report and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 673 Phil. 12, First Division, G.R. No. 156185, decision promulgated September 12, 2011; writ of certiorari review of Court of Appeals decision promulgated November 19, 2002 (CA-G.R. SP No. 72558).
- Subject of review: Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioners' amended complaint in Civil Case No. 12251, RTC, Branch 41, San Fernando City, Pampanga, on the ground that it was barred by res judicata.
- The Supreme Court (per Justice Bersamin) considered whether Civil Case No. 12251 was barred by res judicata despite the compromise agreement not expressly naming Benelda Estate and not expressly referencing the two lots then registered in Benelda Estate’s name.
- Disposition at Supreme Court level: petition for review denied; the Court affirmed the CA decision dismissing Civil Case No. 12251; petitioners ordered to pay costs; concurrence by Corona, C.J. (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ.; Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. noted as penning the CA decision.
Factual Background — Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage and Side Agreement
- On September 30, 1986, Spouses Manuel and Catalina Chu executed a deed of sale with assumption of mortgage covering five parcels of land in Saguin, San Fernando City, Pampanga, registered under TCT Nos. 198470-R, 198471-R, 198472-R, 198473-R, and 199556-R, in favor of Trinidad N. Cunanan for the consideration of P5,161,090.00.
- A “side agreement” contemporaneous with the deed provided that Cunanan had paid only P1,000,000.00 to the Chus despite the deed acknowledging receipt of P5,161,090.00; that P1,600,000.00 was to be paid directly to Benito Co and to Security Bank and Trust Company (SBTC), in whose favor the five lots were mortgaged; and that Cunanan would pay the balance of “P2,561.90.00” within three months, with a one-month grace period subject to 3%/month interest on any remaining unpaid amount.
- The parties stipulated in the side agreement that ownership of the lots would remain with the Chus as vendors and would be transferred to Cunanan only upon complete payment of the total consideration and compliance with the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage.
Special Power of Attorney and Subsequent Transfers
- The Chus executed a special power of attorney authorizing Cunanan to borrow P5,161,090.00 from any banking institution, to mortgage the five lots as security, and to deliver the proceeds to the Chus net of the balance of the mortgage obligation and the downpayment.
- Cunanan transferred title of the five lots to her name without the Chus’ knowledge and borrowed against the lots as security without paying the balance of the purchase price to the Chus.
- Cunanan later transferred two of the lots to Spouses Amado and Gloria Carlos on July 29, 1987.
- On March 18, 1988, the Chus caused annotation of an unpaid vendor’s lien on three of the lots.
- Despite the annotation, Cunanan assigned the remaining three lots to Cool Town Realty on May 25, 1989.
Civil Case No. G-1936 (First Action) — Claims, Amendments, and Early Appeals
- In February 1988, the Chus commenced Civil Case No. G-1936 in the RTC to recover the unpaid balance from Spouses Fernando and Trinidad Cunanan.
- On April 19, 1993, the Chus amended the complaint in G-1936 to seek annulment of the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage and of the TCTs issued pursuant thereto, and to recover damages; they impleaded Cool Town Realty and the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Pampanga in addition to the Cunanans.
- Because the Carloses had sold the two lots to Benelda Estate in 1995, the Chus further amended Civil Case No. G-1936 to implead Benelda Estate as an additional defendant.
- Benelda Estate filed an answer with a motion to dismiss, alleging among other things that it acted in good faith as purchaser for value, had exerted efforts to verify titles, and found no defect.
- The RTC denied Benelda Estate’s motion to dismiss; Benelda Estate sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals, which annulled the RTC’s denial for grave abuse of discretion and dismissed G-1936 as to Benelda Estate.
- The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal as to Benelda Estate on March 1, 2001, in G.R. No. 142313 (Chu, Sr. v. Benelda Estate Development Corporation).
Compromise Agreement Among Chus, Cunanans and Cool Town Realty
- On December 2, 1999, the Chus, the Cunanans, and Cool Town Realty entered into a compromise agreement.
- Material provisions of the compromise agreement included:
- The Cunanans transferred to the Chus “their 50% share on all the parcels of land situated in Saguin, San Fernando Pampanga now registered in the name of defendant, COOL TOWN REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,” as evidenced by the corresponding TCTs.
- The plaintiffs and the defendant(s) declared they were “waiving, abandoning, surrendering, quitclaiming, releasing, relinquishing any and all their respective claims against each other as alleged in the pleadings they respectively filed in connection with this case.”
- The RTC approved the compromise agreement in a partial decision dated January 25, 2000.
- The Court of Appeals’ record excerpts reflect the compromise agreement language and that the agreement was presented as settling “their case” and “any and all” claims in the pleadings.
Civil Case No. 12251 (Second Action) — Filing, Amendments, Motions to Dismiss, RTC Rulings
- On April 30, 2001, Catalina Chu and her children (petitioners herein) filed Civil Case No. 12251 against the Carloses and Benelda Estate seeking cancellation of the TCTs of the two lots in Benelda Estate’s name, issuance of new TCTs in their favor, and damages.
- The petitioners amended their complaint in Civil Case No. 12251 on February 4, 2002 to implead the Cunanans as additional defendants.
- Motions to dismiss filed in Civil Case No. 12251:
- Cunanans moved to dismiss on grounds of (a) bar by prior judgment and (b) claim had been paid, waived, and abandoned.
- Benelda Estate moved to dismiss on grounds of (a) forum shopping, (b) bar by prior judgment, and (c) failure to state a cause of action.
- The Carloses raised affirmative defenses: (a) failure to state a cause of action, (b) res judicata or bar by prior judgment, and (c) bar by statute of limitations.
- On April 25, 2002, the RTC denied the motions to dismiss, holding:
- The amended complaint stated a cause of action against all defendants.
- The action was not barred by res judicata because there was alleged lack of identity of parties and subject matter between Civil Case Nos. G-1936 and 12251.
- The Cunanans did not establish that the petitioners had waived, abandoned, or been paid their claim by virtue of the compromise agreement, noting the compromise agreement involved only the three parcels registered in the name of Cool Town Realty (as the RTC understood it).
- The Cunanans’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on May 31, 2002.
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Decision (SP-72558)
- The Cunanans filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals on September 2, 2002 (SP-72558), assailing the RTC’s denial of their motion to dismiss and its denial of reconsideration.
- On November 19, 2002, the Court of Appeals granted the petition for certiorari, nullified the challenged RTC orders, and rendered a new order dismissing the Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. 12251.
- The CA’s reasoning included that the compromise agreement had ended the legal controversy between the parties with respect to the cause of action arising from the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage covering all five parcels; that G-1936 and 12251 involved violation by the Cunanans of the same legal right; and that filing Civil Case No. 12251 contravened the rule against splitting of a cause of action, rendering 12251 subject to dismissal based on res judicata.
- The CA’s dispositive language: the petition for certiorari was “GIVEN DUE COURSE” and the writ “GRANTED,” the RTC orders “ANNULLED and SET ASIDE,” and a new order “DISMISSING the Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. 12251.” No costs were imposed by the CA.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- Was Civil Case No. 12251 barred by res judicat