Title
Heirs of Casino, Sr. vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, Malaybalay Branch, Bukidnon
Case
G.R. No. 204052-53
Decision Date
Mar 11, 2020
Spouses defaulted on a DBP loan, leading to foreclosure. Son claimed ownership post-transfer, but SC ruled res judicata barred his claim, affirming prior judgment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 207246)

Applicable Law

The relevant constitutional and legal framework applicable to this case is rooted in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, alongside relevant provisions pertaining to res judicata from the Civil Code.

Background Facts

The central issue originated from a loan secured by a real estate mortgage obtained by spouses Baldomero and Leonarda Casiao from DBP in 1975. After their default, DBP executed an extrajudicial foreclosure, leading to the cancellation of the original land titles and subsequent issuance of new Transfer Certificates of Title. The legal proceedings included a civil case filed by Baldomero against DBP, seeking annulment of the mortgage and foreclosure, which was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in 1990. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) and later by the Supreme Court, making it final.

Property Transfer and Legal Actions

In 1994, Baldomero executed a document transferring all his rights in the properties to his son, Aurio. In 1997, DBP sold a parcel of the property, Kibulay, to Green River. Following the sale, DBP and Green River sought a writ of possession from the RTC, which became contested by Aurio's claim of ownership, resulting in further legal action involving competing claims over the same properties.

Claims of Ownership and Legal Proceedings

Aurio’s complaint for quieting of title was filed after he claimed ownership of the Kibulay property. DBP countered that Aurio's claims were barred by res judicata due to the previous dismissal of a related case, Civil Case No. 1465. The RTC dismissed Aurio's complaint, leading to an appeal to the CA. The CA found no merit in Aurio’s arguments regarding ownership, res judicata, and the validity of tax declarations as proof of ownership.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling

The CA ruled that Aurio's claims were indeed barred by res judicata, noting the substantial identity of the parties and the subject matter between the original case and Aurio's complaint. The CA also identified grave abuse of discretion by the RTC when it allowed execution pending appeal in favor of Aurio.

Legal Principle of Res Judicata

Res judicata is defined as a matter adjudged, preventing the relitigation of cases once a final judgment has been reached. The Court articulated that the elements of res judicata were met: a final and executory judgment by a competent court, identity and privity of parties involved, and the same cause of action. The identity of parties included Aurio, who acted not only as a heir but also as a successor-in-interest due to the conveyance of property rights.

Legal Interpretation of Ownership

The discussion clarified that mere tax dec

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.