Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 169454. December 27, 2007.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
480
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
481
can set up its nullity because they are directly affected by the
same. The subject of the deed being the land they are occupying,
its enforcement will definitely affect them.
482
quiet title are not technically suits in rem, nor are they, strictly
speaking, in personam, but being against the person in respect of
the res, these proceedings are characterized as quasi in rem. The
judgment in such proceedings is conclusive only between the
parties. Thus, respondents are not bound by the decision in
Petition Case No. U-920 as they were not made parties in the said
case. The rules on quieting of title expressly provide that any
declaration in a suit to quiet title shall not prejudice persons who
are not parties to the action. That respondents filed a subsequent
pleading in the same Petition Case No. U-920 after the decision
there had become final did not change the fact that said decision
became final without their being impleaded in the case. Said
subsequent pleading was dismissed on the ground of finality of
the decision. Thus, the RTC totally failed to give respondents
their day in court. As a result, they cannot be bound by its orders.
Generally accepted is the principle that no man shall be affected
by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a
case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
483
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
484
Book 3 of the same Code. Article 633 of that title provides that the
gift of real property, in order to be valid, must appear in a public
document. It is settled that a donation of real estate propter
nuptias is void unless made by public instrument. In the instant
case, the donation propter nuptias did not become valid. Neither
did it create any right because it was not made in a public
instrument. Hence, it conveyed no title to the land in question to
petitioners’ predecessors.
485
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
REYES, J.:
1
For Our review on certiorari is
2
the Decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA) reversing that of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 45, Anonas, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, in
an action for reconveyance and damages. The CA declared
respondents as rightful owners of one-half of the subject
property and directed petitioners to execute a registerable
document conveying the same to respondents.
The Facts
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 39-51. Dated January 26, 2005 in CA-G.R. CV No. 76200
entitled “Heirs of Fortunato Doronio v. Heirs of Marcelino Doronio, et al.”
Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justices
Roberto A. Barrios and Amelita G. Tolentino, concurring.
2 Records, pp. 344-356. Dated June 28, 2002 in Civil Case No. U-6498.
Penned by Judge Joven F. Costales.
486
3
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 352. The courts
below described it as follows:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
_______________
487
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
_______________
488
_______________
14 Id.
15 Civil Case No. U-6498.
489
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
RTC Decision
_______________
490
CA Disposition
“The court below described the property covered by OCT No. 352
as follows:
_______________
491
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
_______________
492
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
Issues
_______________
493
Our Ruling
_______________
29 Id., at p. 13.
30 Id., at p. 24.
31 Francisco, V.J., THE REVISED RULES OF COURT IN THE
PHILIPPINES, Vol. VII, Part II, 1991 ed., p. 389.
32 Id.
494
_______________
495
38
reject it. Consequently, the evidence that was not objected
to became property of the case, and all parties to the case
are considered amenable to any favorable 39
or unfavorable
effects resulting from the said evidence.
_______________
496
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
497
_______________
498
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
_______________
44 Id.; Mateo v. Lagua, G.R. No. L-26270, October 30, 1969, 29 SCRA
864, 870.
45 Rollo, p. 148.
46 Records, pp. 134-135.
47 Rollo, pp. 46-47.
499
According to petitioners,
53
the said final decision is one for
quieting of title. In
_______________
48 Id., at p. 144.
49 CIVIL CODE, Art. 1409.
50 Manotok Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45038, April 30,
1987, 149 SCRA 372, 377, citing Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines,
Vol. IV, 1973 ed., p. 604.
51 Arsenal v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-66696, July 14,
1986, 143 SCRA 40, 49, citing Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol.
IV, 1973 ed., p. 604.
52 Records, p. 14; Exhibit “C.” Entitled “For the Registration of a
Private Deed of Donation—The Heirs of Veronica Pico.”
53 Rollo, p. 143.
500
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
Suits to quiet title are not technically suits in rem, nor are
they, strictly speaking, in personam, but being against the
person in respect of the res, these proceedings are
character-
_______________
501
55
ized as quasi in rem. The judgment in 56
such proceedings is
conclusive only between the parties. Thus, respondents
are not bound by the decision in Petition Case No. U-920 as
they were not made parties in the57
said case.
The rules on quieting of title expressly provide that any
declaration in a suit to quiet title shall not prejudice
persons who are not parties to the action. 58
That respondents filed a subsequent pleading in the
same Petition Case No. U-920 after the decision there had
become final did not change the fact that said decision
became final without their being impleaded in the case.
Said subsequent pleading 59
was dismissed on the ground of
finality of the decision.
Thus, the RTC totally failed to give respondents their
day in court. As a result, they cannot be bound by its
orders. Generally accepted is the principle that no man
shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a
stranger, and strangers to a 60 case are not bound by
judgment rendered by the court.
Moreover, for the principle of res judicata to apply, the
following must be present: (1) a decision on the merits; (2)
by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the decision is
final; and (4) the two actions involve identical parties,
subject matter
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
_______________
502
61
and causes of action. The fourth element is not present in
this case. The parties are not identical because respondents
were not impleaded in Petition Case No. U-920. While the
subject matter may be the same property covered by OCT
No. 352, the causes of action are different. Petition Case
No. U-920 is an action for declaratory relief while the case
below is for recovery of property.
We are not persuaded by petitioners’ posture that the
only issue in this action for reconveyance is who has a
better right over the land; and 62
that the validity of the deed
of donation is beside the point. It is precisely the validity
and enforceability of the deed of donation that is the
determining factor in resolving the issue of who has a
better right over the property. Moreover, notwithstanding
procedural lapses as to the appropriateness of the remedies
prayed for in the petition filed before Us, this Court can
brush aside the technicalities in the interest of justice. In
some instances, this Court even suspended its own rules
and excepted a case from their operation 63
whenever the
higher interests of justice so demanded.
Moreover, although respondents did not directly raise
the issue of validity of the deed of donation at the
commencement
64
of the case before the trial court, it was
stipulated by the parties during the pre-trial conference.
In any event, this Court has authority to inquire into any
question necessary in
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
503
65
arriving at a just decision of a case before it. Though not
specifically questioned by the parties, additional issues
may also be included,66if deemed important for substantial
justice to be rendered.
Furthermore, this Court has held that although a
factual issue is not squarely raised below, still in the
interest of substantial justice, this Court is not prevented
from considering a pivotal factual matter. The Supreme
Court is clothed with ample authority to review palpable
errors not assigned as such if it finds that their 67
consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision.
A rudimentary doctrine on appealed cases is that this
Court is clothed with ample authority to review matters,
even if they are not assigned as errors on appeal, if it finds
that their consideration
68
is necessary at arriving at a just
decision of the case. Also, an unassigned error closely
related to an error properly assigned or upon which the
determination of the question raised by the error properly
assigned is dependent, will be considered by the appellate 69
court notwithstanding the failure to assign it as an error.
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
504
_______________
June 28, 1983, 123 SCRA 160, 183; Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa German
Airlines, G.R. No. L-28773, June 30, 1975, 64 SCRA 610, 633.
70 Valencia v. Locquiao, G.R. No. 122134, October 3, 2003, 412 SCRA
600, 611; Ortigas & Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 126102,
December 4, 2000, 346 SCRA 748, 755; Philippine Virginia Tobacco
Administration v. Gonzales, G.R. No. L-34628, July 30, 1979, 92 SCRA
172, 185.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
505
74
not made in a public instrument. Hence, it conveyed no
title to the land in question to petitioners’ predecessors.
Logically, then, the cancellation of OCT No. 352 and the
issuance of a new TCT No. 44481 in favor of petitioners’
predecessors have no legal basis. The title to the subject
property should, therefore, be restored to its original
owners under OCT No. 352.
Direct reconveyance to any of the parties is not possible
as it has not yet been determined in a proper proceeding
who among the heirs of spouses Simeon Doronio and
Cornelia Gante is entitled to it. It is still unproven whether
or not the parties are the only ones entitled to the
properties of spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante.
As earlier intimated, there are still things to be done before
the legal 75 share of all the heirs can be properly
adjudicated.
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
506
_______________
26, 1999, 313 SCRA 176, 183; Rosales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
137566, February 28, 2001, 353 SCRA 179.
77 Brusas v. Court of Appeals, supra; Jacob v. Court of Appeals , G.R.
No. 92159, July 1, 1993, 224 SCRA 189, 193-194.
78 Francisco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130768, March 21, 2002, 379
SCRA 638, 646; Bayoca v. Nogales, G.R. No. 138210, September 12, 2000,
340 SCRA 154, 169.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
507
SO ORDERED.
——o0o——
508
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/30
9/8/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 541
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d5673900d20cab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/30