G.R. No. 139274 ; October 23, 2001
QUEZON PROVINCE, represented by its Governor, WILFRIDO L. ENVERGA, and LIWAYWAY R. LAREZA, in her capacity as Municipal Treasurer of General Nakar, Quezon, petitioners, vs. HON. ABELIO M. MARTE, in his capacity as presiding judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Infanta, Quezon and GREEN SQUARE PROPERTIES CORPORATION, represented by its President, ROMEO G. ROXAS, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Green Square Properties Corporation acquired, via a deed of sale confirmed by the RTC of Bulacan, rights over a vast tract of land from the estate of Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. The deed indicated the land was part of the area covered by Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136. In a prior final and executory Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 106496 (Engracio San Pedro, et al. v. Court of Appeals), this very Titulo was declared null and void. The Court ordered all lands covered by it excluded from the estate’s inventory and prohibited any person acting for the estate from exercising acts of possession or ownership over them.
Subsequently, the Municipal Treasurer of General Nakar refused Green Square’s tender of real estate tax payment for the subject land. Green Square then filed a complaint for quieting of title and mandamus to compel acceptance of the payment, arguing the refusal cast a cloud on its title. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint, primarily on the ground of res judicata, citing the final judgment in G.R. No. 106496. The RTC denied the motion, reasoning that the present case involved the propriety of accepting tax payments, not ownership, and that Green Square’s status as an innocent purchaser should be determined in a full trial.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss, as the complaint is barred by res judicata due to the Supreme Court’s prior judgment in G.R. No. 106496.

RULING

Yes, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the RTC’s orders, and directed the dismissal of the civil case. The doctrine of res judicata bars the action. The elements are present: the prior judgment in G.R. No. 106496 was final; it was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; it was a judgment on the merits; and there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the two cases. Green Square, as a successor-in-interest to the San Pedro estate, is privy to the parties bound by the prior judgment. Crucially, Green Square’s own complaint anchored its claim on Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136, the very title nullified in G.R. No. 106496. The Court emphasized that a party cannot evade res judicata by merely varying the form of action, such as framing the case as one for mandamus to accept tax payments. The refusal to accept payment stemmed directly from the cloud on title created by the void titulo. Since no rights can be derived from the null title, Green Square had no valid claim to the property upon which to base its action for quieting of title or mandamus. The RTC’s disregard of the conclusive final judgment constituted grave abuse of discretion.