Heirs of Timbang Daromimbang Dimaampao vs. Atty. Abdullah Alug

A final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive upon the parties and their privies, and bars any subsequent action that would produce a judgment inconsistent with it. Under res judicata, identity of causes of action exists when the relief sought in a later suit would contradict the prior adjudication. Heirs are in privity with their predecessor as to property they would acquire by inheritance. Additionally, an action upon a written contract must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues, which, in the case of a registered sale, runs from the date of its annotation on the certificate of title.

Cota Dimaampao was the registered owner of a 157,738-square-meter parcel of land in Marawi City covered by OCT No. RP-355 and Homestead Patent No. 47201. He had been married to Timbang Daromimbang Dimaampao under Muslim rites; the marriage later ended in divorce. Timbang and their two daughters remained on the land. On April 10, 1978, Cota executed a deed of sale over the land in favor of respondents Alug, Balt, and Pangarungan, and an affidavit of adverse claim was annotated on the title the following day. Civil Case No. 2410, filed by Cota and respondents against Timbang’s brother Sheik Pangandaman Daromimbang and others, assailed a competing deed of sale. The case concluded with a final judgment declaring Cota the true owner and the 1978 sale to respondents valid. Decades later, petitioners—grandchildren and heirs of Timbang—filed the present action seeking to nullify the sale, alleging the land was Timbang’s exclusive property by dowry or, alternatively, conjugal property in which Timbang held an undivided half interest.

• The Property and Title: The subject lot, located in Madaya, Marawi City, with an area of 157,738 square meters, is covered by OCT No. RP-355 and Homestead Patent No. 47201. The title was issued in the names of spouses Cota Dimaampao and Timbang Daromimbang Dimaampao, who were married under Muslim rites. The lot was allegedly part of the dowry given by Cota to Timbang.

• The 1978 Sale and Prior Litigation: On April 10, 1978, Cota executed a Deed of Sale transferring the subject land to respondents Alug, Balt, and Pangarungan. An Affidavit of Adverse Claim attaching the deed was registered and annotated on OCT No. RP-335 on April 11, 1978. Civil Case No. 2410, entitled “Cota Dimaampao, et al. v. Sheik Pangandaman Daromimbang, et al.,” was subsequently filed before the RTC Lanao del Sur, Branch 9, to determine which of two purported deeds of sale executed by Cota—one to Sheik Daromimbang (Timbang’s brother) and the other to herein respondents—was valid. After trial, the RTC decided on November 21, 2000 that Cota and respondents were the true and lawful owners, and the sale to respondents was valid. The CA affirmed on July 8, 2003, expressly finding that respondents were not buyers in bad faith. A petition for review to the Supreme Court was denied on February 23, 2004, and an Entry of Judgment was made on April 22, 2004.

• Petitioners’ Claim in the Instant Case: Petitioners, grandchildren and heirs of Timbang, asserted that they are the owners pro indiviso and lawful possessors of the subject land by inheritance. They alleged that Cota had no right to sell the land because it was given as dowry to Timbang, making it Timbang’s exclusive property; alternatively, if conjugal, Timbang was entitled to a half share that Cota could not alienate. They claimed respondents were buyers in bad faith who were aware of petitioners’ continuous possession in the concept of owners.

• Respondents’ Defenses: Respondents denied the claim of ownership and possession, asserting that they had owned and possessed the land since 1978. They invoked res judicata based on Civil Case No. 2410, prescription, laches, the Statute of Frauds, and the rule on judicial stability.

• Finality of the RTC Order and Prohibited Pleading: Petitioners maintained that respondents’ filing of a Manifestation with Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration was a prohibited pleading under the Rules of Court; thus, the RTC Order dated March 6, 2006 became final and executory and could no longer be challenged via certiorari before the CA.

• Res Judicata Not Applicable: Petitioners argued that the parties in the instant case are entirely different from those in Civil Case No. 2410—they were never impleaded in that case. They further contended there is no identity of causes of action because the main issue in the earlier case was the genuineness of competing deeds of sale, while the present suit questions ownership based on dowry or conjugal partnership rights, and whether respondents were purchasers in bad faith.

• Factual Issues Requiring Trial: Petitioners insisted that the issues of whether the subject land was given as dowry, whether it was conjugal property, and whether respondents were buyers in bad faith are factual matters that can only be resolved after a full-blown trial on the merits, not summarily dismissed.

• Res Judicata and Conclusiveness of Judgment: Respondents countered that the validity of the 1978 deed of sale and Cota’s ownership had been conclusively determined with finality in Civil Case No. 2410; the complaint therefore violated the rule on judicial stability and constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a final judgment.

• Prescription and Laches: Respondents argued that the action was barred by prescription under Article 1144(1) of the Civil Code, the deed of sale having been executed in 1978 and the complaint filed only in 2005—well beyond the ten-year prescriptive period. They also raised laches and estoppel.

• Statute of Frauds: Respondents contended that the claim of dowry lacked a written memorandum or agreement and was thus unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

• Finality and Certiorari: Whether the RTC Order dated March 6, 2006 became final and executory because respondents’ motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration was a prohibited pleading, thereby barring the CA from entertaining the petition for certiorari.

• Res Judicata: Whether the complaint was barred by res judicata due to the final judgment in Civil Case No. 2410, considering the alleged absence of identity of parties and causes of action.

• Prescription: Whether petitioners’ action for nullification of the deed of sale and quieting of title had prescribed.

• Finality and Certiorari: The RTC Order denying respondents’ special and affirmative defenses was interlocutory because it did not finally dispose of the case—it expressly directed the parties to proceed with pre-trial and trial. As an interlocutory order, it was always under the court’s control and could be modified or rescinded before final judgment; the fifteen-day period for appeal does not govern motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders. Hence, the order never became final and could be challenged via certiorari. The petition before the CA was timely filed within the 60-day reglementary period.

• Res Judicata: All requisites of res judicata were satisfied. The judgment in Civil Case No. 2410 was final, rendered by a court with jurisdiction, and on the merits. Identity of parties existed: although petitioners were not named parties, they are the grandchildren and heirs of both Cota and Timbang and stand in privity with their grandparents regarding the property they would inherit. Identity of causes of action was present: the issues of Cota’s ownership and the validity of the 1978 sale were directly adjudicated in the prior case. A judgment annulling the deed of sale in the present action would be fundamentally inconsistent with the prior final declaration that Cota was the owner and the sale was valid. The earlier decision, having determined ownership and the validity of the sale, also settled that respondents were not buyers in bad faith. Thus, res judicata operated both as a bar by prior judgment and by conclusiveness of judgment.

• Prescription: The action prescribed. The deed of sale was notarized on April 10, 1978, and the affidavit of adverse claim was annotated on the title on April 11, 1978, serving as constructive notice to the whole world. Under Article 1144(1) of the Civil Code, an action upon a written contract must be filed within ten years from accrual. The complaint, filed only in 2005, was filed beyond the prescriptive period.

• Interlocutory Order vs. Final Judgment — A final judgment or order completely disposes of the case, leaving nothing more for the court to do; an interlocutory order does not finally dispose of the case and indicates that further proceedings are required. Interlocutory orders are not appealable and may only be reviewed on appeal from the final judgment; they remain under the court’s control and may be modified or rescinded upon sufficient grounds at any time before final judgment. A motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order is not subject to the fifteen-day period for appeal. This principle precluded petitioners’ claim that the RTC’s order had attained finality.

• Res Judicata: Bar by Prior Judgment and Conclusiveness of Judgment — The requisites of res judicata are: (1) the prior judgment must be final; (2) the court that rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the judgment must be on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. When all four requisites are present, res judicata operates as a “bar by prior judgment.” When only identity of parties exists but the causes of action differ, res judicata operates as “conclusiveness of judgment,” precluding relitigation of specific issues already determined. Heirs are in privity with their predecessor-in-title with respect to the property they would acquire by inheritance.

• Identity of Causes of Action Test — One test of identity of causes of action is whether the judgment sought in the subsequent case will be inconsistent with the prior judgment. If no inconsistency would result, the prior judgment cannot operate as a bar.

• Prescription for Actions upon Written Contracts — Under Article 1144(1) of the Civil Code, an action upon a written contract must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues. Registration of a deed of sale under the Torrens system constitutes notice to the whole world and starts the running of the prescriptive period.

• ”A final judgment or order on the merits, rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, is conclusive in a subsequent case between the same parties and their successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity.” — The Court’s restatement of the substantive core of res judicata.

• ”One test of identity of causes of action is whether or not the judgment sought in a subsequent case will be inconsistent with the prior judgment. If no inconsistency will result, the prior judgment cannot be held to be a bar.” — The dispositive test applied to confirm identity of causes of action.

• ”When a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate.” — The principle grounding conclusiveness of judgment even when causes of action are not identical.

• Denso (Phils.), Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 232 Phil. 256 (1987) — Distinguished a final judgment from an interlocutory order; held that a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order is not subject to the reglementary period for appeal. Followed.

• Ley Construction and Development Corporation v. Union Bank of the Philippines, 389 Phil. 788 (2000) — Reiterated that an interlocutory order is always under the court’s control and may be modified before final judgment. Followed.

• Investment, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 231 Phil. 302 (1987) — Ruled that an interlocutory order may be questioned on appeal only as part of an appeal from the final judgment. Cited.

• Firestone Ceramics, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 522 (1999) and Antonio v. Sayman Vda. de Monje, 631 SCRA 471 (2010) — Enumerated the requisites of res judicata and distinguished between bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment. Applied.

• Swan v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 114 (1992) — Articulated the inconsistency test for identity of causes of action. Applied.

• Church Assistance Program, Inc. v. Judge Sibulo, 253 Phil. 404 (1989) — Held that a judicially determined right or fact remains conclusive upon the parties and their privies as long as the judgment is unreversed. Applied.

• Section 1, Rule 41, Rules of Court — Enumerates orders that are non-appealable, including interlocutory orders. Because the RTC order fell under this category, the proper remedy was a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.

• Article 1144(1), Civil Code — Prescribes a ten-year period for actions upon a written contract. Counting from the registration of the deed of sale in 1978, the complaint filed in 2005 was time-barred.

• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Special civil action for certiorari; available to correct grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing an interlocutory order. The CA properly granted certiorari upon finding that the RTC ignored the res judicata effect of a final judgment.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Mariano C. Del Castillo (Designated Acting Member), Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Bienvenido L. Reyes.