GR 49833; (February, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 49833 February 15, 1990
JUANITO RAMOS, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, Judge, Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, Branch II, and SPOUSES BERTOLO HINOG and DELA PAZ CORTES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the heirs of Manuel Ramos, initially filed Civil Case No. OZ-642. Their original and first amended complaints sought to annul a 1960 Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Manuel Ramos in favor of respondent spouses, but only insofar as it affected the conjugal share of the widow, Agapita Vda. de Ramos. They prayed for the cancellation of the corresponding title and asked to be declared owners of only 23 hectares out of the 46-hectare property, expressly not questioning the validity of the sale over the late husband’s half.
Subsequently, petitioners moved to admit a second amended complaint in OZ-642, which was denied by the trial court. This proposed pleading radically altered their claim, now seeking annulment of the entire deed based on alleged mistake and fraud, asserting that the transaction was intended as a mortgage, not a sale, and demanding recovery of the entire 46 hectares. After denial, petitioners filed a new and separate complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. OZ-731, embodying the exact allegations of the rejected second amended complaint, but now captioned as an action for “reconveyance and/or legal redemption.”
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed Civil Case No. OZ-731 on the ground of litis pendentia.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing OZ-731. For litis pendentia to apply, three requisites must concur: (1) identity of parties; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (3) identity such that a judgment in one case would constitute res judicata in the other. These requisites are not present.
The rights asserted and the causes of action in the two cases are separate and distinct. Civil Case No. OZ-642 is an action for annulment of instrument focused solely on the widow’s lack of consent to the alienation of her conjugal share, affecting only 23 hectares. The other heirs are not indispensable parties to this particular claim. In contrast, Civil Case No. OZ-731, involving all the heirs, is anchored on the alleged fraud or mistake in the execution of the deed itself (that it was a mortgage, not a sale), affecting the validity of the transaction over the entire 46-hectare property.
Consequently, the evidence required for each case differs materially. OZ-642 hinges on proving the widow’s non-consent, while OZ-731 depends on proving the fraudulent or mistaken nature of the instrument. A judgment in one case would not constitute res judicata in the other, as the legally significant facts and issues are not identical. The proper procedural recourse was not dismissal but potential consolidation of the cases for expeditious resolution. The challenged orders were set aside.