G.R. No. 181962 ; January 16, 2012
CEFERINO S. CABREZA, JR., BJD HOLDINGS CORP., represented by ATTY. MANUEL DULAY, Petitioners, vs. AMPARO ROBLES CABREZA, Respondents.

FACTS

On January 3, 2001, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Branch 70, declared the marriage between Ceferino Cabreza, Jr. and Amparo Cabreza void ab initio and ordered the dissolution and liquidation of their conjugal partnership. Their only conjugal property was their conjugal home. On May 26, 2003, the RTC granted Ceferino’s motion to sell the property, an Order which became final after the Supreme Court dismissed Amparo’s petition questioning it on technicalities. On October 2, 2003, the RTC granted Ceferino’s Omnibus Motion, authorizing him to sign a Deed of Absolute Sale for the property on behalf of Amparo in favor of BJD Holdings Corporation. The RTC later issued a Writ of Possession. Amparo filed a motion to hold the writ in abeyance, arguing the conjugal dwelling should be adjudicated to her under Article 129 of the Family Code, but the RTC denied it and the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the denial. Amparo elevated this to the Supreme Court ( G.R. No. 171260 ), which denied her petition on September 11, 2009, ruling her arguments should have been raised when she questioned the May 26, 2003 Order. This decision became final on January 5, 2010.
Meanwhile, on January 26, 2005, during the pendency of her CA petition (which led to G.R. No. 171260 ), Amparo filed a separate Complaint with the RTC of Pasig, Branch 67 (Civil Case No. 70269) seeking to annul the Deed of Absolute Sale for lack of her consent. RTC Branch 67 dismissed this Complaint on grounds of litis pendentia and forum shopping. Amparo appealed to the CA, which reversed the dismissal, finding no litis pendentia and ordering a trial on the merits. Ceferino’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting him to file the present Petition for Review ( G.R. No. 181962 ) arguing the CA erred in reversing the dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the dismissal of Amparo’s Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale on the ground of litis pendentia.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the Petition, finding merit in Ceferino’s arguments. The Court held that the requisites for litis pendentia were present, warranting the dismissal of Amparo’s Complaint before RTC Branch 67.
The requisites for litis pendentia are: (1) identity of parties or representation in both cases; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts and the same basis; and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment in the other action would amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.
First, there was identity of parties. Second, there was substantial identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. Amparo sought to prevent the sale and maintain ownership of the conjugal dwelling in both her Petition to nullify the Writ of Possession (which culminated in G.R. No. 171260 ) and her Complaint to annul the Deed of Sale. In both, she theorized that the RTC’s orders directing the sale improperly modified its final decision and that the dwelling should be adjudicated to her under Article 129 of the Family Code. The same evidence—the RTC’s October 2, 2003 Order authorizing the sale—would defeat both actions. The same defense would also be used in both cases. Third, a final judgment on the merits in the Petition to nullify the Writ of Possession would bar a subsequent judgment on the Complaint to annul the Deed of Sale based on res judicata. At the time Amparo filed her Complaint with RTC Branch 67, her Petition impugning the Writ of Possession was pending before the CA. The CA’s eventual decision upholding the Writ of Possession necessarily upheld the validity of the Deed of Sale it implemented. Conversely, had the CA nullified the Writ, the Complaint to annul the Deed would have been barred. Therefore, the CA erred in not applying litis pendentia. The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s Decision and reinstated the RTC Branch 67’s Order dismissing Amparo’s Complaint.