Alvarez v. IAC, 185 SCRA 8, GR L-68053
Alvarez v. IAC, 185 SCRA 8, GR L-68053
Alvarez v. IAC, 185 SCRA 8, GR L-68053
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 68053, May 07, 1990 ]
LAURA ALVAREZ, FLORA ALVAREZ AND RAYMUNDO ALVAREZ,
PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT AND JESUS YANES, ESTELITA YANES,
ANTONIO YANES, ROSARIO YANES, AND ILUMINADO YANES,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
FERNAN, C.J.:
Aniceto Yanes
was survived by his children, Rufino, Felipe and Teodora. Herein
private
respondents, Estelita, Iluminado
and Jesus, are the children of Rufino who died in
1962 while
the other private respondents, Antonio and Rosario Yanes, are children of Felipe. Teodora
was
survived by her child, Jovita (Jovito)
Alib.[1]
It is not clear why the latter is not included
as a party in this case.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 1/10
8/9/2021 [ G.R. No. 68053, May 07, 1990 ]
Meanwhile, on November
6, 1962, Jesus Yanes, in his own behalf
and in behalf of the other
plaintiffs, and assisted by their counsel, filed a
manifestation in Civil Case No. 5022 stating
that the therein plaintiffs
"renounce, forfeit and quitclaims (sic) any claim, monetary or
otherwise,
against the defendant Arsenia Vda.
de Fuentebella in connection with the above -
entitled
case".[15]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 2/10
8/9/2021 [ G.R. No. 68053, May 07, 1990 ]
SO ORDERED."[16]
It will be noted that the above-mentioned manifestation of Jesus Yanes was not mentioned in
the aforesaid decision:
The execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 5022 having met a
hindrance, herein private
respondents (the Yaneses)
filed on July 31, 1965, in the Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title and for a
declaration of
nullity of TCT Nos. T-23165 and T-23166 issued to Rosendo Alvarez.[18]
Thereafter, the court
required Rodolfo Siason to
produce the certificates of title covering Lots 773 and 823.
In 1968, the Yaneses filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution
in
Civil Case No. 5022. Siason opposed it.[22]
In its order of September 28, 1968
in Civil Case
No. 5022, the lower court, noting that the Yaneses
had instituted another action for the
recovery of the land in question, ruled
that the judgment therein could not be enforced
against Siason
as he was not a party in the case.[23]
The action filed by the Yaneses on February 21, 1968 was for recovery of
real property with
damages.[24]
Named defendants therein were Dr. Rodolfo Siason,
Laura Alvarez, Flora
Alvarez, Raymundo Alvarez and
the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental. The Yaneses
prayed
for the cancellation of TCT Nos. T-19291 and 19292 issued to Siason (sic) for being
null and void; the issuance of a new
certificate of title in the name of the Yaneses
"in
accordance with the sheriff's, return of service dated October 20,
1965"; Siason's delivery of
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 3/10
8/9/2021 [ G.R. No. 68053, May 07, 1990 ]
possession of Lot
773 to the Yaneses; and if, delivery thereof could
not be effected, or, if the
issuance of a new title could not be made, that the
Alvarezes and Siason
jointly and severally
pay the Yaneses the sum of
P45,000.00. They also prayed that Siason render an accounting
of the fruits of Lot
773 from November 13, 1961
until the filing of the complaint; and that
the defendants jointly and
severally pay the Yaneses moral damages of P20,000.00
and
exemplary damages of P10,000.00 plus attorney's fees of P4,000.00.[25]
SO ORDERED."[29]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 4/10
8/9/2021 [ G.R. No. 68053, May 07, 1990 ]
SO ORDERED."[32]
1. Whether
or not the defense of prescription and estoppel had
been timely and
properly invoked and raised by the petitioners in the lower
court.
2. Whether
or not the cause and/or causes of action of the private respondents, if
ever
there are any, as alleged in their complaint dated February 21, 1968 which
has been docketed in the
trial court as Civil Case No. 8474 supra, are forever
barred by statute
of limitation and/or prescription of action and estoppel.
3. Whether
or not the late Rosendo Alvarez, a defendant in Civil
Case No.
5022, supra, and father of the petitioners become a privy
and/or party to the
waiver (Exhibit "4"-defendant Siason)
in Civil Case No. 8474, supra, where the
private respondents had
unqualifiedly and absolutely waived, renounced and
quitclaimed all their
alleged rights and interests, if ever there is any, on Lots Nos.
773-A and
773-B of Murcia Cadastre as appearing in their written manifestation
dated
November 6, 1962 (Exhibits "4:-Siason) which had not been controverted
or even impliedly or indirectly denied by
them.
4. Whether
or not the liability or liabilities of Rosendo
Alvarez arising from the
sale of Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of Murcia Cadastre
to Dr. Rodolfo Siason, if
ever there is any, could be
legally passed or transmitted by operations (sic) of law
to the petitioners
without violation of law and due process."[33]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 5/10
8/9/2021 [ G.R. No. 68053, May 07, 1990 ]
the lots in
dispute to herein private respondents.
Said decision had long become final and
executory
and with the possible exception of Dr. Siason, who
was not a party to said case, the
decision in Civil Case No. 5022 is the law of
the case between the parties thereto. It
ended
when Alvarez or his heirs failed to appeal the decision against them.[34]
Under the circumstances, the trial court did not annul the sale
executed by Alvarez in favor
of Dr. Siason on
November 11, 1961 but in fact sustained it.
The trial court ordered the heirs
of Rosendo
Alvarez who lost in Civil Case No. 5022 to pay the plaintiffs (private
respondents
herein) the amount of P20,000.00 representing the actual value of
the subdivided lots in
dispute. It did
not order defendant Siason to pay said amount.[38]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 6/10
8/9/2021 [ G.R. No. 68053, May 07, 1990 ]
estate,
and we have ruled that the hereditary assets are always liable in their
totality for the
payment of the debts of the estate.[42]
SO ORDERED.
TSN, October 17, 1973, pp.
4-5.
[1]
TSN, December 11, 1973, pp
11 & 55.
[2]
Exhibits 26 and 28.
[3]
Exhibit 27.
[4]
Exhibit B-Alvarez.
[5]
Exhibits 23 and 24-Siason.
[6]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 8/10
8/9/2021 [ G.R. No. 68053, May 07, 1990 ]
Record on Appeal, p. 25.
[16]
Exhibit E.
[17]
Cad. Case No. 6; Exhibit 3.
[18]
Cad. Case No. 6.
[19]
Exhibit 5.
[20]
Exhibit 6.
[21]
Exhibit 78.
[22]
Exhibit 9.
[23]
Civil Case No. 8474
[24]
Record on Appeal, pp. 8-9.
[25]
Record on Appeal, p. 36.
[26]
[27] Ibid.,
p. 63.
[28] Ibid,
pp. 95-99.
Record on Appeal, pp. 100-101.
[29]
Porfirio V. Sison, J., ponente. Abdulwahid A. Bidin, Marcelino R. Veloso and Desiderio P.
[30]
Jurado, JJ.
concurring.
[31] Rollo, p. 32.
[32] Rollo, p. 32.
[33] Rollo, p. 119.
[34] Rollo, p. 27.
Miranda v. C.A.,
141 SCRA 302 [1986].
[35]
Ngo Bun Tiong v. Judge Sayo,
G.R. No. 45825, June 30, 1988.
[36]
Record on Appeal, pp. 24-25.
[37]
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 9/10
8/9/2021 [ G.R. No. 68053, May 07, 1990 ]
[40] Ibid.
100 Phil. 388.
[41]
Lopez vs. Enriquez, 16 Phil. 336 (1910).
[42]
This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 10/10