Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Co Ownership Cases

Co Ownership Cases

|Views: 7|Likes:
Published by annceline

More info:

Published by: annceline on Dec 05, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Republic of the Philippines
G.R. No. L-10423 January 21, 1958 AMADO P. JALANDONI and PAZ RAMOS,
plaintiffs-appellants, vs.
 ANGELA MARTIR-GUANZON, in her own behalf and as Judicial Adminisrtratix of the TestateEstate of the late spouses Hilarion and Ligoria Martir, and ANTONIO GUANZON,
 Marcos S. Gomez, Ildefonso S. Villanueva and Jose Ur. Carbonell for appellants.Villanueva and Villanueva for appellees.
 Appeal by the spouses Amado P. Jalandoni and Paz Ramos from an order of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros dismissing her complaint in Civil Case No. 3586 of said court.It appears that on January 9, 1947, the appellant spouses began a suit (Case No. 573) against the appellees Antonio Guanzon, eta al., for partition of lots Nos. 130-A, 130-B and 130-F of the Murcia Cadastre, as well as lotsNos. 1288 and 1376 of the Bogo Cadastre, and for recovery of damages caused by the defendants' unwarrantedrefusal to recognize plaintiffs' right and partition said lots, as was to account for and deliver plaintiff's share in thecrops obtained during the agricultural years from 1941-1942 to 1946-1947. By decision of February 22, 1955, theCourt of First Instance of Negros Occidental held for plaintiffs and ordered the partition of the lands involved, butdenied their claim for damages because of failure to "prove the exact and actual damages suffered by them.The decision having become final because none of the parties appealed therefrom, the plaintiffs instituted thepresent action (No. 3586 of the same Court of First Instance) on August 26, 1955, seeking recovery from thedefendants of the following amounts: (1) P20,000 as moral and exemplary damages due to suffering, anguish andanxiety occasioned by the defendant's refusal to partition of the properties involved in the proceeding case; (2)P55,528.20 as share of the products of the property from 1947 (when the preceeding case No. 573 was filed) until1955 when judgment was rendered therein (3) P4,689.54 as land taxes due unpaid on the properties involved; and(4) P2,500 for attorney's fees.Upon motion of defendant's, the court a quo dismissed the second complaint for failure to state a cause of action;and after their motion to reconsider was denied, plaintiffs appealed to this Court on points of law. We find the dismissal to have been correctly entered. Except as concomitant to physical injuries, moral andcorrective damages (allegedly due to suffering, anguish and axiety caused by the refusal of defendants in 1941 topartition the common property) were not recoverable under the Civil Code of 1899 which was the governing law atthe time. Recovery of such damages was established for the first time in 1950 by the new Civil Code, and actionnot be made to apply retroactively to acts that occurred character of these damages. The rule is expressly laiddown by paragraph 1 of Article 2257 of the new Code. ART. 2257. Provision of this Code which attach a civil sanction or penalty or a deprivation of rights to acts orommissions which were not penalized by the former laws, are not applicable to those who, when said laws were inforce may have executed the act or incurred in the ommission forbidden or condemmned by this Code.xxx xxx xxx.
 As to the value of the plaintiff's share in the products of the land during the time that the former action waspending (which are the damages claimed under the second cause of action), their recovery is now barred by theprevious judgment. These damages are but the result of the original cause of action, viz., the continuing refusal by defendants in 1941 to recognize the plaintiffs' right to an interest in the property. In the same way that plaintiffsclaimed for their share of the produce from 1941 to 1947, these later damages could have been claimed in the firstaction, either in the original complaint (for their existence could be anticipated when the first complaint was filed)or else by supplemental plaeding. To allow them to be recovered by subsequent suit would be a violation of therule against multiplicity of suits, and specifically of sections 3 and 4 of Rules 2 of the Rules of Court, against thesplitting of causes of action, since these damages spring from the same cause of action that was pleading in theformer case No. 573 between the same parties (Blossom & Co. vs. Manila Gas Corporation, 55 Phil. 26; Santos vs.Moir, 36 Phil. 350; Pascua vs. Sideco, 24 Phil 26; Bachrach Motor Co. vs. Icarangal, 68 Phil. 287).That the former judgment did not touch upon these damages is not material to its conclusive effect; between thesame parties, with the same subject matter and cause of action, a final judgment on the merits is conclusive notonly the questions actually contested and determined, but upon all matters that
might have been
litigated anddecided in the former suit, i.e., all matters properly belonging to the subject of the controversy and within thescope of the issue (Penalosa vs. Tuason, 22 Phil. 312; National Bank vs. Barretto, 52 Off. Gaz., 182; Miranda vs.Tianco, 96 Phil., 526, 51 Off. Gaz., [3] 1366). Hence, the rejection of plaintiffs' claim for damages in Case No. 573imports denial of those who claimed, since there are a mere continuation of the former. Annent the land taxes allegedly overdue and unpaid, it is readily apparent that, taxes beein due to the government,plaintiffs have no right to compel payment thereof to themselves. The case could be otherwise if plaintiffs had paidthe taxes to stave of forfeiture of the common property of tax delinquency; in that event, they could compelcontribution. But the complaint does not aver any such tax payment.Little need be said concerning the claim for attorney's fees under the fourth cause of action. If they be fees for thelawyer's services in the former case, they are barred from recovery for the reasons already given; if for services inthe present case, there is no jurisdiction therefor, since no case is made out for the plaintiffs.The order of dismissal appealed from is affirmed. Costs against plaintiffs-appellants. So ordered.
 Bengzon, Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, and  Felix, JJ.,
Republic of the Philippines
G.R. No. L-63025 November 29, 1991RAMON C. ONG,
, vs.
The instant petitioner for
seeks are reversal of the decision
of herein public respondent Court of  Appeals dated October 24, 1977 in CA-G.R. No. 47063-R and its resolution dated January 14, 1983 denying hereinpetitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The Court of Appeals narrates the facts thus:The record shows that on November 16, 1961, Ramon C. Ong filed a complaint against defendants Arsenio Caminoas Deputy Sheriff of Camarines Norte and Francisco Boix, to annul the auction sale of a parcel of land, allegedly owners conjugally by plaintiff and his former wife Teodora B. Ong, awarded in favor of Boix, as highest bidder, inan auction sale conducted on October 10, 1958 by the Deputy Sheriff of Camarines Norte, herein defendantCamino, pursuant to a writ of execution dated August 8, 1958 (Exhibits "C", "2-A") issued by the Court of FirstInstance of Manila, Branch IV, to enforce its decision in Civil Case No. 33396, entitled, "Francisco Boix, Plaintiff  vs. Teodora B. Ong and Ramon C. Ong, Defendants" wherein judgment was rendered to wit: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff, ordering the defendant Teodora B. Ong to pay tothe plaintiff the sum P2,827.83, with interest of 8%
per annum
on the sum of P1,000.00 from September 5, 1955,on the sum of P827.83 from December 30, 1955 plus 15% on the total amount of P2,827.83 as attorney's fees; andthe further amount of P2,503 with interest at 6%
per annum
from date of the filing of the complaint, and the costsof the suit. (Exhibit "1")The title to the property, in favor of the execution-creditor Boix was duly registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Camarines Norte (Exhibit "4").chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library It is not disputed that plaintiff's wife, Teodora B. Ong conducted her own logging business in Camarines Sur. Infurtherance of her business operation, on August 18, 1955, she secured from Francisco Boix a loan in the amountof P2,827.83. Unfortunately, because of mismanagement, Teodora defaulted in her obligation. This promptedBoix to file a complaint, based on the promissory notes executed by Teodora, to collect the sum legally due plusinterest against Teodora and Ramon Ong, the latter being joined as husband of the former. Defendant-spouses were declared in default and judgment was rendered, as aforesaid, in favor of Boix.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library  After the aforementioned decision became final and executory, Boix moved to execute the judgment. The motion was granted and a corresponding writ of execution, dated August 8, 1958 (Exhibits "C", "2-A"), was issued. Accordingly, the Sheriff of Camarines Norte levied and attached a parcel of land situated at Diego Linan St., Daet,Camarines Norte, declared under Tax No. 05378 in the sole name of Teodora B. Ong, subject-parcel of herein suit.In a notice of levy on Execution dated August 22, 1958 (Exhibit "2-B"), and notice of Public Auction sale datedSeptember 10, 1958 (Exhibit "2-C"), auction sales was held on October 10, 1958 and as already mentioned,defendant Boix was adjudged highest bidder. A writ of possession was issued to place the execution-creditor in

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->