GR L 23140; (September, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23140 September 29, 1966
MARTA MENDOZA and HILARIO NONATO, petitioners, vs. FELISA DIAZ and DAVID LIWANAG, respondents.
FACTS
In the settlement of the estate of Felix Enriquez, his widow, Felisa Diaz, received a usufruct over seventeen parcels of land. On May 29, 1933, she exchanged properties with an heir, Santos Solapco, acquiring usufruct over portions of parcels A, B, and C and all of parcel D. On June 15, 1933, she leased most of the seventeen parcels, along with parcels A, B, C, and D, to Santos Solapco. In November 1933, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila recovered a lot from Solapco in a court case, resulting in Felisa Diaz being held liable to Solapco for P4,000. Solapco died in 1934. On May 15, 1936, Felisa Diaz sued Solapco’s widow, Marta Mendoza (who later married Hilario Nonato), in the Justice of the Peace Court for rentals and lease cancellation. The case was dismissed by the Court of First Instance on jurisdictional grounds, and its records were lost during the war. On August 29, 1946, the Nonato-Mendoza spouses executed an affidavit claiming ownership of nine parcels and obtained new tax declarations. They later sold one lot to the Unsay-Manalo spouses (1948) and five lots (three from the affidavit) to the Tuason sisters (1951). On September 9, 1954, Felisa Diaz, with her second husband David Liwanag, filed an amended complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal for collection of rentals, return of possession of ten parcels, cancellation of tax declarations, and annulment of sales. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint and ordered plaintiffs to pay the Nonato-Mendoza spouses P4,900. On first appeal, the Court of Appeals remanded the case for new trial to determine the value of the lot recovered by the Archbishop and the precise annual rentals. After new trial, the trial court ruled in favor of Felisa Diaz, declaring the parcels subject to her usufruct, ordering the Nonato-Mendoza spouses and the buyers to turn over possession (with the buyers retaining naked ownership), directing the cancellation of the fraudulent tax declarations, and ordering payment of back rentals. The Nonato-Mendoza spouses appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decision. They then appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the properties described in the complaint are identical to the properties over which Felisa Diaz had usufruct and which were leased to Santos Solapco.
2. Whether the action to recover possession and rentals is barred by prescription.
3. Whether Felisa Diaz should pay the Nonato-Mendoza spouses P4,900.
RULING
1. YES. The Supreme Court ruled that the identity of the properties was already resolved in the first appeal to the Court of Appeals, which found the properties leased to Solapco were “exactly the same” as those in the Nonato-Mendoza spouses’ affidavit. This constitutes the law of the case and cannot be re-litigated. Furthermore, the appellants admitted this identity in their answer to the amended complaint.
2. NO. The Supreme Court ruled that the issue of prescription was also resolved in the first appeal to the Court of Appeals. The remand for determination of annual rentals and the lot’s value was precisely to implement the finding that the right to recover had not prescribed.
3. NO. The Supreme Court ruled that the P4,900 (P4,000 debt for the recovered lot and P900 for taxes) had already been deducted by the trial court from the rentals due from the Nonato-Mendoza spouses. Therefore, Felisa Diaz should not pay this amount again.
The appealed decision of the Court of Appeals was AFFIRMED, with costs against the appellants.