G.R. No. 249434 . March 15, 2023
RENE MANUEL R. JOSE, PETITIONER, VS. ELIZABETH QUESADA-JOSE, FOR HERSELF AS HEIR, AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF CO-HEIRS, CHILDREN OF DECEASED LUIS MARIO JOSE, NAMELY: NATHANIEL SEAN P. JOSE, NAOMI CELENA P. JOSE-CHOKR, NEILL EMMANUEL Q. JOSE, AND NICHOLAS MATTHEW Q. JOSE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Rene Manuel R. Jose and the deceased Luis Mario Jose are sons of spouses Domingo and Emilia Jose. In 1996, Domingo was sued as a solidary debtor by TIDCORP. Pending appeal, Domingo sought help from petitioner and his wife, Cynthia, to settle the case by ceding a portion of their 23-hectare Antipolo property, which was covered by TCT No. N-50023 in Cynthia’s name. A compromise agreement was approved, conveying 109,234 sq. m. to TIDCORP. The property was subdivided, resulting in TCT No. R-19951 issued to TIDCORP, and TCT Nos. R-19952 and R-19953 issued to Cynthia married to petitioner. Petitioner demanded payment from Domingo for the value of the ceded property. On July 4, 2005, Domingo executed a Deed of Revocation claiming he and Emilia were the real owners. On December 1, 2005, petitioner and Cynthia filed a Complaint for sum of money and damages against Domingo before the RTC Manila (Civil Case No. 05-114001, the collection case). Upon Domingo’s death, Luis was substituted as defendant. Luis claimed the 1978 sale of the Antipolo property to Cynthia was simulated to hide it from creditors, and that his parents remained the true owners. On February 13, 2008, while the collection case was pending, Luis filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale and Cancellation of TCT Nos. R-19952 and R-19953 against petitioner and Cynthia before the RTC Antipolo (Civil Case No. 08-8406, the annulment case). On December 22, 2014, the RTC Manila decided the collection case, ruling the 1978 sale was valid and not simulated, and ordered Luis to pay petitioner. Luis appealed to the CA. In the annulment case, petitioner moved to dismiss based on litis pendentia, citing the pending collection case. The RTC Antipolo granted the dismissal. Respondents appealed to the CA, which reversed the RTC Antipolo, ordered the remand of the annulment case for further proceedings, and held that litis pendentia did not apply because the causes of action and reliefs sought in the two cases were different. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court’s dismissal of the annulment case on the ground of litis pendentia.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution. The Court held that litis pendentia does not apply as the two cases involve different causes of action and seek different reliefs. The collection case (Civil Case No. 05-114001) is a personal action for sum of money based on an implied contract to reimburse, with the primary issue being the validity of the 1978 sale. The annulment case (Civil Case No. 08-8406) is a real action to recover ownership and nullify titles, with the primary issue being the simulation of the sale. The relief sought in the collection case is payment of a sum of money, while in the annulment case, it is the declaration of nullity of the sale and cancellation of titles. The Court also ruled that the collection case judgment did not constitute res judicata on the annulment case because the causes of action are different. Furthermore, the Court found that the defense of simulation of the sale, while raised in the collection case, was not a compulsory counterclaim that needed to be asserted therein; it could be pursued in a separate action. The annulment case was the proper direct proceeding to attack the certificates of title. The case was remanded to the RTC Antipolo for further proceedings.