G.R. No. L-46899. May 21, 1941.
TEOFILA CONLU VIUDA DE HERNAEZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. DOMINADOR L. JISON, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiffs, heirs of the deceased Rosendo Hernaez, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental to declare null and void the adjudication of Hacienda Panaogao to Jose Hernaez (another heir) and the subsequent titles derived therefrom, and to secure a new certificate of title in their favor. The property was part of Rosendo Hernaez’s estate settled in Civil Case No. 2568. In the project of partition approved on January 5, 1929, Hacienda Panaogao was adjudicated to Jose Hernaez, subject to a usufruct in favor of the widow and the condition that he pay a mortgage debt to Talisay-Silay Milling Co. The partition also stipulated that each heir’s share would be encumbered for any debt owed to the estate. Jose Hernaez’s debt to the estate was fixed at P12,683.85 (later reduced to P10,701.61), declared a preferred lien on the property in Alunan vs. Veloso. Another lien of P8,383.37 in favor of the plaintiffs was also annotated on the title. Jose Hernaez sold his hereditary rights to Eleuteria Ch. Veloso, but this sale was later annulled in Gaston vs. Veloso for fraud and lack of consideration. Through subsequent attachments and sales, the property eventually passed to the defendants, with all encumbrances annotated on the titles and assumed by each successive vendee. The plaintiffs demanded payment of the encumbrances from the defendants and, upon refusal, filed Civil Case No. 7000 to compel payment of the principal sums and interest. While that case was pending appeal in the Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs filed the present action to recover ownership of the hacienda, alleging violation of the conditions of the adjudication to Jose Hernaez. The defendants pleaded the pendency of Civil Case No. 7000 in abatement of this action. The lower court sustained the plea and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the present action should be abated due to the pendency of another suit (Civil Case No. 7000) between the same parties for the same cause.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment dismissing the complaint based on the plea of lis pendens. For a plea of lis pendens to be sustained, the two actions must be between the same parties, based on the same cause of action, involve the same issues, and be capable of authorizing the same relief. The test is whether a judgment in the first action would be conclusive upon the parties and operate as a bar to the second action, or whether the same evidence would support both actions. Here, Civil Case No. 7000 and the present action involve the same parties and the same property, Hacienda Panaogao. In Civil Case No. 7000, the plaintiffs sought to enforce payment of the encumbrances on the property (specific performance). In the present action, they seek to annul the adjudication and recover ownership based on the alleged violation of the partition conditions. The Court held that the partition was an absolute transfer of ownership, and the stipulated encumbrances did not provide that non-payment would void the partition. The plaintiffs’ remedy was specific performance, which they were already pursuing in Civil Case No. 7000. Regardless of the outcome in Civil Case No. 7000, that judgment would constitute res adjudicata and bar the instant proceedings. Therefore, the plea of lis pendens was properly sustained, and the complaint was correctly dismissed. Costs were imposed on the plaintiffs-appellants.