Tobias Selga vs Sony Entierro Brar

673 Phil. 581 Sep 21, 2011

Leonardo-De Castro, J.,

Facts:

Francisco Entierro died intestate and left behind a parcel of land. His wife, Basilia and legitimate children
sold the said parcel of land to the spouses Selga. A few years later, Sony, a legitimate daughter of
Francisco filed a complaint for annulment of sale with damages, alleging that she was left out of her
rightful share as one of Francisco’s legal heirs. She further allege that she is legally entitled to redeem the
subject property for the price Selga has paid Basilia et. al. She prayed that the RTC render judgment in
her favor that:

1. Sony be declared as one of the legitimate children and legal heir of Francisco and is legally
entitled to inherit a share over the subject parcel of land.
2. The deed of sale executed between the Selgas and Basilia et. al be declared null and void by
reason of her (Sony) being illegally preterited as one of the heirs.
3. Her right to redeem the property be ordered at a price at the time of sale.
4. An accounting of her share in the produce of the subject land be ordered to the the Selgas.
5. A sum of money be paid to her by way of attorney’s fee and the cost of the suit.

The RTC rendered a decision in her favor to wit:

1. A relocation survey was ordered to establish the location and respective share of the parties.
2. A new TCT be issued in the name of Selga and in Sony name in proportion to her share.
3. Ordering the Selgas to account for Sony’s share in the produce of the land.
4. Ordering the Selgas to pay for the price of the suit and the attorney’s fee.

Sony was not satisfied with the result and filed her appeal to the CA but later withdrew the same. The
RTC’s decision later attained finality.

Subsequently, Sony notified Selga that she is opting to exercise her right to redeem the property but the
latter denied the demand alleging that the RTC did not grant the right to redeem, as the RTC’s decision is
silent on her right to redemption. She filed another complaint for legal redemption against the Selgas. In
the latter’s defense, they argued that the complaint is barred by Res Judicata as this was among the cause
of action already decided earlier by the RTC which became final.

Issue:

 Whether or not the present action is barred by Res Judicata

Held:
 Yes, it is barred by Res Judicata.

Yes. The Court ruled that the case (Civil Case No. 573) satisfies the four essential requisites of
res judicata: (1) finality of the former judgement (Civil Case No. 276); (2) court rendered it had
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) judgment on the merits; and (4) identiy of
parties, subject matter and causes of actions. It was not disputed that the first three requisites were
present in the Civil Case No. 573. With regard the fourth requisite, a close study of the said
complaint reveal that Brar’s right to redeem the Selga’s share in the subject property also arose
from its sale to the Selgas by the co-heirs and co-owners of Marina, alleged to be without her
knowledge or consent. Therefore, it is the same cause of action as in Civil Case No. 276.

Even if Brar argue that the decision in Civil Case No. 276 was silent about his right to redeem,
the silence of the decision does not mean that the Court then did not take cognizance of the same,
rather, it did not deem him entitled to the said right. If at all, any error committed by the said
Court could only be reviewed or corrected on appeal. Albeit Brar filed initially an appeal of its
judgement, Brar withdrew the same eventually, which made the decision in Civil Case No. 276
final and executory. Hence, Civil Case No. 573 is dismissed, being barred by res judicata.