Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
the
SC
made
the
ff.
be
required.
Held
When Amor and Victoria filed Civil Case No. Q93-18138, and argued that Rafael did not have the
authority to enter into the compromise agreement, they
collaterally attacked the judgment in Civil Case No. Q26392 which approved the compromise agreement.
This cannot be done.
The judgment in Civil Case No. Q-26392 has
become final and executory. What Amor and Victoria
should have done was to either timely appeal the
decision to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, or to seasonably file a petition
for relief from judgment under Rule 38. A party who fails
to acquire complete relief from a decision of a court has
various remedies to correct it. A party may move for a
correction or clarification of judgment, or even seek its
modification through ordinary appeal. This they did not
do. There must, therefore, be an end to litigation.
Furthermore, even if we limit ourselves to the
issue of whether or not res judicata applies, still the
Court of Appeals decision must be reversed.
Res judicata exists when the following elements
are present:
(a) the former judgment must be final;
(b) the court which rendered judgment had jurisdiction
over the parties and the subject matter;
(c) it must be a judgment on the merits;
of Makati, Branch 59, docketed as Civil Case No. 961372. He sought to hold Bliss Development Corporation
and petitioner Arreza liable for reimbursement to him of
P1,706,915.58 representing the cost of his acquisition
and improvements on the subject property with interest
at 8% per annum.
Petitioner Arreza filed a Motion to Dismiss the
case, citing as grounds res adjudicata or conclusiveness
of the judgment in the interpleader case as well as lack
of cause of action.
The motion was denied for lack of merit, so
Arreza filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals alleging that the Orders dated February 4 and
March 20, 1997, were issued against clear provisions of
pertinent laws, the Rules of Court, and established
jurisprudence such that respondent court acted without
or in excess of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The petition was also dismissed for lack of
merit. The Court of Appeals said that the decision
invoked by the petitioner as res adjudicata resolved only
the issue of who between Edgar H. Arreza and Montano
Diaz has the better right over the property under
litigation. It did not resolve the rights and obligations of
the parties. The action filed by Montano M. Diaz against
Bliss Development Corporation, et al. seeks principally
the collection of damages in the form of the payments
Diaz made to the defendant and the value of the
improvements he introduced on the property matters
that were not adjudicated upon in the previous case for
interpleader.
Issues:
WON Diazs claims are barred by res judicata
YES
Held:
Respondent claims that there is no identity of
causes of action between Civil Case No. 94-2086, the
prior case, and Civil Case No. 96-1372, the present case
subject of this petition, as the former involved a
complaint for interpleader while the latter now involves
an action for a sum of money and damages. He avers
that a complaint for interpleader is nothing more than the
determination of rights over the subject matter involved.
In its assailed decision, respondent Court of
Appeals pointed out that the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure provide that in a case for interpleader, the
court shall determine the respective rights and
obligations of the parties and adjudicate their respective
claims. The appellate court noted, however, that the
defendants in that interpleader case, namely Diaz and
Arreza, did not pursue the issue of damages and
reimbursement although the answer of respondent Diaz
did pray for affirmative relief arising out of the rights of a
buyer in good faith.
ISSUES:
WON the trial court erred in rendering summary
judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee and against
defendants-appellants, jointly and severally. NO
Arguments of P Husband:
1. Since the law forbids a suit being initiated (filed)
or maintained unless such earnest efforts at
compromise appear (cf. NCC 222), the showing
that efforts in question were made is a condition
precedent to the existence of the cause of
action.
2. Complaint is one for support in arrears therefore
it is subject to compromise and not within NCC
2035s prohibition
Held: No. No compromise is allowed for future support
Ratio:
Applicability of NCC 222 (now FC 151)
While we agree that petitioner's position represents a
correct statement of the general rule on the matter, we
are nevertheless constrained to hold that the Court of
Appeals and the Court of First Instance committed no
error in refusing to dismiss the complaint, for on its face,
the same involved a claim for future support that under
Article 2035 of the Civil Code of the Philippines can not
be subject of a valid compromise, and is, therefore,
outside the sphere of application of Article 222 of the
Code upon which petitioner relies. Even P-Hubbys
answer assailing the validity of his marriage is noncompromisable under NCC 2035.
Since no valid compromise is possible on these issues,
a showing of previous efforts to compromise them would
be superfluous.
Re. Nature of Complaint: Support in Arrears v Future
Support
It may be that the complaint asks for both future support
and support in arrears, as petitioner contends. But, the
possibility of compromise on the latter does not negate
the existence of a valid cause of action for future
support, to which Article 222 can not apply.
MALICDEM vs Flores
FACTS: On August 3, 1993, Dr. Apolinario G. Bautista,
the former dean of Pangasinan State University (PSU), 1
entered into a "contract of agreement" with respondent
Romeo Flores and a certain Francisco Lotivio. In the
contract, Dr. Bautista, as PSU's representative,
allowed them to lease the canteen building and
general merchandise store for a monthly rental of
P1,200. The contract also obligated them to "shoulder in
advance the cost of the required repair/renovation of the
said building." The P1,200 rent was to be deducted from
the cost of the repair/renovation until the amount they
spent therefor was paid. The term of the contract was
six years "subject to extension by agreement of the
parties."
Sept 12, 1999, Flores informed the new dean,
petitioner Dr. Melanio Malicdem, of his intention to
renew the lease contract. Dr Malicdem notified
ISSUES:
WON MTD was properly dismissed (YES)
WON TC failed to state reason for dismissal (No)
WON there was a cause of action stated (YES)