Sample Position-Paper

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF NEGROS ORIENTAL

7TH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 41
Dumaguete City
-oo0oo-
HEIRS OF PRIMITIVO ABEJERO,

Namely: BUENA A. PAJUNAR, ET. AL.,
Plaintiffs, CIVIL CASE NO. 14134
-versus- FOR: DECLARATION OF

NULLITY, ETC.
ALEJANDRA TINAMBACAN, ET. AL.,
Defendants.
X-----------------------------/
POSITION PAPER
COME NOW, the Answering Defendants Spouses Gandola, by the undersigned
counsel, to the Honorable Court, respectfully submit their Position Paper, as follows:
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF CASE
This is a case for “Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Reconveyance & Damages
with Prelim. Injunction & TRO” filed by the alleged Heirs of Primitivo Abejero, namely:
Buena Abejero Pajunar, Victoria Abejero-Bernas, Rosario Abejero, Juditha Abejero Calasang,
Arturo Abejero, Annaliza Abejero and Araceli Abejero as plaintiffs, and against Alejandra
Tinambacan, Milagros Entia, Paterno Etia, Basilisa Entia, Victor Entia, Restituto Entia, Danilo
Entia, Mary Jane Entia,, Natividad Entia and Raymundo Tindac, Primo and Consorcia Entia,
Florencia Entia and Arturo Apenas, Alberta & Raymund Eumague, Venancia & Ernesto
Tinaytina, Concordia A. Partosa, Crisanta A. Partosa, Alejandra Abejero and Spouses Rolando
& Rapunzel Gandola, Spouses Senia Partosa, as defendants.
Page two
The plaintiffs sought to annul the “Declaration of Heirship and Sale” and Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 8587.
In the Affirmative Defenses in their answer, the Answering Defendants Spouses
Rolando & Rapunzel Gandola, raised the issue of “Res Judicata” - that the cause of action is
barred by prior judgment, because there was already a previous case involving the same
parties, the same subject matter, and cause of action, where the court of competent jurisdiction
rendered judgment on the merits which has become final and executory.
The previous case was docketed as Civil Case No. 12947, originally for Partition and
Damages. It was later on amended to include additional plaintiff, and further amended to add
another cause of action which was “Annulment of Title”. A decision was rendered in the said
case, which had become final.
It is submitted that the prior case has the same parties, the same issues and subject
matter, hence, the cause of action of this instant case is barred by a prior judgment.
ISSUES
WHETHER OR NOT THE CAUSE OF ACTION IS BARRED BY A PRIOR
JUDGMENT;
ARGUMENTS
There is res judicata where the following four essential conditions concur, viz : 1) there
must be a final judgment or order; 2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties; 3) it must be a
Page three
judgment or order on the merits; and 4) there must be, between the two cases identity of
parties, subject matter and cause of action. (Dela Rama vs. Mendiola, 401 SCRA 704).
The Decision in Civil Case No. 12947 dated March 21, 2007, is final and executory.
Said decision was rendered by the court (RTC-41) having jurisdiction over the subject matter
and over the parties. The decision was reached after the parties in the said case have presented
their respective evidence.
There is identity of parties in this case and in the previous case, Civil Case No. 12947.
The plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 12947 were Heirs of Primitivo Abejero namely: Sps. Victoria
Abejero and Charlie Bernas, Sps. Buena Abejero and Benito Pajunar, Sps. Juditha Abejero and
Amador Calasang, Sps. Arturo Abejero and Marianita Abejero, Corazon Abejero, Rosario
Abejero, Anliza Abejero and Araceli Abejero, while the defendants were Rolando Gandola and
Sps. Alejandra Abejero and Claudio Mananita. If the plaintiffs in the prior case are compared
to the plaintiffs in this present case, it is clear that they are the same persons, only their
respective spouses were not included in this present case. The defendants in the previous case
were again impleaded in this present case together with some additional defendants. The
defendants in the previous case who were also impleaded in this present case are among others,
the answering defendants spouses Gandola who represented substantial and the same interests.
Answering Defendants Spouses Rolando
Page four
and Rapunzel Gandola who were also made defendants in the previous case (Civil Case No.
12947) are the registered owners of the land subject matter of this case and of the previous case
to the exclusion of the additional defendants.
“Only substantial identity is necessary to warrant the application of res judicata
– the addition or elimination of some parties does not alter the situation.” (Dela Rama
vs. Mendiola, 401 SCRA 704).
“There is identity of parties where the parties in both actions are the same or
there is privity between them or they are successors-in-interests by title subsequent to
the commencement of the action, litigating for the same thing and under the same title
and in the same capacity.” (Taganas vs. Emuslan, 410 SCRA 237).
“The doctrine of res judicata applies not only to the same parties but also to their
successors-in-interests.” (Fernadez vs. Esidto, 395 SCRA 1).

The subject matter of this case is a parcel of land located at Mayabon, Zamboanguita,
Negros Oriental known as Lot No. 2080, Pls-847, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
FT-8587, in the name of Answering Defendants Spouses Rolando and Rapunzel Gandola. It is
also the subject matter of the previous case, Civil Case No. 12947.
“On the issue of identity of subject matter, the subject of an action is defined as
the matter or thing with respect to which the controversy has arisen.” (Taganas vs.
Emuslan, 410 SCRA 237)
Page five
The cause of action in this case is Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Reconveyance
& Damages with Preliminary Injunction &TRO.
The cause of action in the previous case, Civil Case No. 12947, after the complaint was
amended was Partition, Annulment of Title and Damages. In both cases, the ultimate result is
the declaration of nullity of Transfer Certificate of Title No. FT-8587, and the recovery of 1/3
portion of the land.
“When material facts or questions in issue in a former action were conclusively
settled by a judgment rendered therein, such facts or questions constitute res judicata
and may not again be litigated in a subsequent action between the same parties or their
privies regardless of the form of the latter.
“The philosophy behind the rule on res judicata prohibits the parties from
litigating the same issue more than once.”
“Even if one case is a specific civil action for declaratory relief and the second
case is a civil action for specific performance, the difference in form and nature of the
two actions is immaterial.” (Dela Rama vs. Mendiola, 401 SCRA 704).
This case therefore should be dismissed. – “Res judicata is an absolute bar to a
subsequent action for the same cause.” (State Investment Trust, Inc. vs. Delta Motors
Corporation, 400 SCRA 509).
Page six
PRAYER
WHEREFORE premises considered it is respectfully prayed that this case should be
dismissed.
Answering defendants further pray for other reliefs and remedies although not expressly
prayed for herein.
Respectfully submitted.
Dumaguete City, June 17, 2009.
ATTY. EDMUND F.DY

Counsel for the Defendants
Suite 16 E & J Limquiaco Bldg.
Dr. V. Locsin St., Dumaguete City
I.B.P. #728433; 12-24-2008
P.T.R. #9252639; 01-05-2009
All issued at Dumaguete City
Roll No. 32821; 05-08-1984
MCLE No. II-0013372; 10-22-2008
Copy furnished:
Atty. Rafael C. Orillana

Plaza Milagros Bldg., Dumaguete City

Sample Position-Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample Position-Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample Position-Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF NEGROS ORIENTAL

HEIRS OF PRIMITIVO ABEJERO,

-versus- FOR: DECLARATION OF

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF CASE

This is a case for “Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Reconveyance & Damages

& Rapunzel Gandola, Spouses Senia Partosa, as defendants.

Certificate of Title No. 8587.

In the Affirmative Defenses in their answer, the Answering Defendants Spouses

case, which had become final.

WHETHER OR NOT THE CAUSE OF ACTION IS BARRED BY A PRIOR

subject matter and the parties; 3) it must be a

their respective evidence.

Answering Defendants Spouses Rolando

to the exclusion of the additional defendants.

“Only substantial identity is necessary to warrant the application of res judicata

vs. Mendiola, 401 SCRA 704).

there is privity between them or they are successors-in-interests by title subsequent to

successors-in-interests.” (Fernadez vs. Esidto, 395 SCRA 1).

Emuslan, 410 SCRA 237)

The cause of action in this case is Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Reconveyance

& Damages with Preliminary Injunction &TRO.

portion of the land.

“When material facts or questions in issue in a former action were conclusively

privies regardless of the form of the latter.

litigating the same issue more than once.”

Corporation, 400 SCRA 509).

WHEREFORE premises considered it is respectfully prayed that this case should be

prayed for herein.

Dumaguete City, June 17, 2009.

ATTY. EDMUND F.DY

Atty. Rafael C. Orillana

You might also like