Republic of the Philippines Special Proceedings No.

Special Proceedings No. 2706-R entitled Intestate Estate of the Deceased Don Filemon Sotto denying
SUPREME COURT the administrator’s motion to require Matilde to turn over the four real properties to the Estate of Sotto.
Manila
The fifth is this case. It seems that the disposition by the Court of the previous cases did not yet satisfy
FIRST DIVISION herein petitioners despite their being the successors-in-interest of two of the declared heirs of Filemon
who had been parties in the previous cases either directly or in privity. They now pray that the Court
G.R. No. 159691               June 13, 2013 undo the decision promulgated on November 29, 2002, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) declared
their action for the partition of the four properties as already barred by the judgments previously
rendered, and the resolution promulgated on August 5, 2003 denying their motion for reconsideration.
HEIRS OF MARCELO SOTTO, REPRESENTED BY: LOLIBETH SOTTO NOBLE, DANILO C.
SOTTO, CRISTINA C. SOTTO, EMMANUEL C. SOTTO, and FILEMON C. SOTTO; and
SALVACION BARCELONA, AS HEIR OF DECEASED MIGUEL BARCELONA, Petitioners, The principal concern here is whether this action for partition should still prosper notwithstanding the
vs. earlier rulings favoring Matilde’s exclusive right over the four properties.
MATILDE S. PALICTE, Respondent.
Antecedents
DECISION
Filemon had four children, namely: Marcelo Sotto (Marcelo), Pascuala Sotto-Pahang (Pascuala),
BERSAMIN, J.: Miguel Barcelona (Miguel), and Matilde. Marcelo was the administrator of the Estate of Sotto. Marcelo
and Miguel were the predecessors-in-interest of petitioners.
We start this decision by expressing our alarm that this case is the fifth suit to reach the Court dividing
the several heirs of the late Don Filemon Y. Sotto (Filemon) respecting four real properties that had In June 1967, Pilar Teves (Pilar) and other heirs of Carmen Rallos (Carmen), the deceased wife of
belonged to Filemon' s estate (Estate of Sotto ). Filemon, filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu City a complaint against the Estate of Sotto
(Civil Case No. R-10027) seeking to recover certain properties that Filemon had inherited from
Carmen, and damages. The CFI rendered judgment awarding to Pilar and other heirs of Carmen
The first case (Matilde S. Palicte v. Hon. Jose O. Ramolete, et al., No. L-55076, September 21, 1987, damages of ₱233,963.65, among other reliefs. To satisfy the monetary part of the judgment, levy on
154 SCRA 132) held that herein respondent Matilde S. Palicte (Matilde), one of four declared heirs of execution was effected against six parcels of land and two residential houses belonging to the Estate
Filemon, had validly redeemed the four properties pursuant to the assailed deed of redemption, and of Sotto. The levied assets were sold at a public auction. Later on, Matilde redeemed four of the
was entitled to have the title over the four properties transferred to her name, subject to the right of the parcels of land in her own name (i.e., Lots No. 1049, No. 1051, No. 1052 and No. 2179-C), while her
three other declared heirs to join her in the redemption of the four properties within a period of six sister Pascuala redeemed one of the two houses because her family was residing there. On July 9,
months. 1980, the Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Cebu executed a deed of redemption in favor of Matilde, which
the Clerk of Court approved.
The second was the civil case filed by Pascuala against Matilde (Civil Case No. CEB-19338) to annul
the former’s waiver of rights, and to restore her as a co-redemptioner of Matilde with respect to the On July 24, 1980, Matilde filed in Civil Case No. R-10027 a motion to transfer to her name the title to
four properties (G.R. No. 131722, February 4, 1998). the four properties. However, the CFI denied her motion, and instead declared the deed of redemption
issued in her favor null and void, holding that Matilde, although declared in Special Proceedings No.
The third was an incident in Civil Case No. R-10027 (that is, the suit brought by the heirs of Carmen 2706-R as one of the heirs of Filemon, did not qualify as a successor-in-interest with the right to
Rallos against the Estate of Sotto) wherein the heirs of Miguel belatedly filed in November 1998 a redeem the four properties. Matilde directly appealed the adverse ruling to the Court via petition for
motion for reconsideration praying that the order issued on October 5, 1989 be set aside, and that review, and on September 21, 1987, the Court, reversing the CFI’s ruling, granted Matilde’s petition
they be still included as Matilde’s co-redemptioners. After the trial court denied their motion for for review but allowed her co-heirs the opportunity to join Matilde as co-redemptioners for a period of
reconsideration for its lack of merit, the heirs of Miguel elevated the denial to the CA on certiorari and six months before the probate court (i.e., RTC of Cebu City, Branch 16) would grant her motion to
prohibition, but the CA dismissed their petition and upheld the order issued on October 5, 1989. transfer the title to her name.1
Thence, the heirs of Miguel came to the Court on certiorari (G.R. No. 154585), but the Court
dismissed their petition for being filed out of time and for lack of merit on September 23, 2002. The other heirs of Filemon failed to exercise their option granted in the decision of September 21,
1987 to join Matilde as co-redemptioners within the six-month period. Accordingly, on October 5,
The fourth was The Estate of Don Filemon Y. Sotto, represented by its duly designated Administrator, 1989, the trial court issued an order in Civil Case No. R-10027 approving Matilde’s motion to transfer
Sixto Sotto Pahang, Jr. v. Matilde S. Palicte, et al. (G.R. No. 158642, September 22, 2008, 566 SCRA the title of the four lots to her name, and directing the Register of Deeds of Cebu to register the deed
142), whereby the Court expressly affirmed the ruling rendered by the probate court in Cebu City in of redemption and issue new certificates of title covering the four properties in Matilde’s name.
It appears that Pascuala, who executed a document on November 25, 1992 expressly waiving her Following the denial by the RTC of their motion for reconsideration,6 petitioners appealed the dismissal
rights in the four properties covered by the deed of redemption, changed her mind and decided to file of Civil Case No. CEB-24293 to the CA, which promulgated its judgment on November 29, 2002
on September 23, 1996 in the RTC in Cebu City a complaint to seek the nullification of her waiver of affirming the dismissal.7 After the CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration,8 they brought this
rights, and to have herself be declared as a co-redemptioner of the four properties (Civil Case No. present appeal to the Court.
CEB-19338). However, the RTC dismissed Civil Case No. CEB-19338 on the ground of its being
barred by laches. Pascuala then assailed the dismissal of Civil Case No. CEB-19338 in the CA In the meantime, the Estate of Sotto, through the administrator, moved in the probate court (Special
through a petition for certiorari (C.A.-G.R. SP No. 44660), which the CA dismissed on November 21, Proceedings No. 2706-R) to require Matilde to account for and turn over the four properties that
1997. Undeterred, Pascuala appealed the dismissal of her petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 131722), but allegedly belonged to the estate, presenting documentary evidence showing that Matilde had effected
the Court denied due course to her petition on February 4, 1998 because of her failure to pay the the redemption of the four properties with the funds of the estate in accordance with the express
docket fees and because of her certification against forum shopping having been signed only by her authorization of Marcelo.9 The probate court granted the motion, but subsequently reversed itself upon
counsel. Matilde’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, the Estate of Sotto appealed (G.R. No. 158642), but the
Court promulgated its decision on September 22, 2008 adversely against the Estate of Sotto.10
In November 1998, the heirs of Miguel filed a motion for reconsideration in Civil Case No. R-10027 of
the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 16, praying that the order issued on October 5, 1989 be set aside, and Issue
that they be included as Matilde’s co-redemptioners. After the RTC denied the motion for
reconsideration for its lack of merit on April 25, 2000, they assailed the denial by petition for certiorari
and prohibition (C.A.-G.R. SP No. 60225). The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition Petitioners insist that this action for partition was not barred by the prior judgment promulgated on
on January 10, 2002. Thereafter, they elevated the matter to the Court via petition for certiorari (G.R. September 21, 1987 in No. L-55076, because they were not hereby questioning Matilde’s right to
No. 154585), which the Court dismissed on September 23, 2002 for being filed out of time and for lack redeem the four properties but were instead raising issues that had not been passed upon in No. L-
of merit. 55076, or in any of the other cases mentioned by the CA; that the issues being raised here were,
namely: (a) whether or not the redemption of the four properties by Matilde was in accordance with the
agreement between her and Marcelo; and (b) whether or not the funds used to redeem the four
On September 10, 1999, the heirs of Marcelo, specifically: Lolibeth Sotto Noble, Danilo C. Sotto, properties belonged to the Estate of Sotto;11 that there could be no bar by res judicata because there
Cristina C. Sotto, Emmanuel C. Sotto, Filemon C. Sotto, and Marcela C. Sotto; and the heirs of was no identity of parties and causes of action between this action and the previous cases; that the
Miguel, namely: Alberto, Arturo and Salvacion, all surnamed Barcelona (herein petitioners), instituted captions of the decided cases referred to by the CA showed that the parties there were different from
the present action for partition against Matilde in the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 20 (Civil Case No. the parties here; and that it had not been shown that this action and the other cases were based on
CEB-24293).2 Alleging in their complaint that despite the redemption of the four properties having the same causes of action.12
been made in the sole name of Matilde, the four properties still rightfully belonged to the Estate of
Sotto for having furnished the funds used to redeem the properties, they prayed that the RTC declare
the four properties as the assets of the Estate of Sotto, and that the RTC direct their partition among The sole decisive question is whether or not the present action for partition was already barred by
the heirs of Filemon. prior judgment.

It is notable at this juncture that the heirs of Pascuala did not join the action for partition whether as Ruling
plaintiffs or defendants.3
The appeal lacks merit.
Instead of filing her answer, Matilde moved to dismiss the complaint,4 stating that: (a) petitioners had
no cause of action for partition because they held no interest in the four properties; (b) the claim was Petitioners argue here that the four properties be declared as part of the Estate of Sotto to be
already barred by prior judgment, estoppel and laches; (c) the court had no jurisdiction over the action; partitioned among the heirs of Filemon because the funds expended by Matilde for the redemption of
and (d) a similar case entitled Pahang v. Palicte (Civil Case No. 19338) had been dismissed with the properties came from the Estate of Sotto.
finality by Branch 8 of the RTC in Cebu City.
Their argument was similar to that made in The Estate of Don Filemon Y. Sotto v. Palicte,13 the fourth
On November 15, 1999, the RTC granted Matilde’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case to reach the Court, where the Court explicitly ruled as follows:
complaint,5 holding that Civil Case No. CEB-24293 was already barred by prior judgment considering
that the decision in G.R. No. 55076, the order dated October 5, 1989 of the RTC in Civil Case No. R- All these judgments and order upholding Matilde’s exclusive ownership of the subject properties
10027, and the decision in G.R. No. 131722 had all become final, and that the cases had involved the became final and executory except the action for partition which is still pending in this Court. The
same parties, the same subject matter, the same causes of action, and the same factual and legal judgments were on the merits and rendered by courts having jurisdiction over the subject matter and
issues. The RTC observed that it was bereft of jurisdiction to annul the rulings of co-equal courts that the parties.
had recognized Matilde’s exclusive ownership of the four properties.
There is substantial identity of parties considering that the present case and the previous cases What remains to be determined is whether Civil Case No. CEB-24293 and the previous cases
involve the heirs of Filemon. There is identity of parties not only when the parties in the case are the involved the same parties, the same subject matter, the same causes of action, and the same factual
same, but also between those in privity with them, such as between their successors-in-interest. and legal issues.
Absolute identity of parties is not required, and where a shared identity of interest is shown by the
identity of relief sought by one person in a prior case and the second person in a subsequent case, We find that, indeed, Civil Case No. CEB-24293 was no different from the previous cases as far as
such was deemed sufficient. parties, subject matter, causes of action and issues were concerned. In other words, Civil Case No.
CEB-24293 was an undisguised relitigation of the same settled matter concerning Matilde’s ownership
There is identity of causes of action since the issues raised in all the cases essentially involve the of the four properties.
claim of ownership over the subject properties. Even if the forms or natures of the actions are
different, there is still identity of causes of action when the same facts or evidence support and First of all, petitioners, as plaintiffs in Civil Case No. CEB-24293, were suing in their capacities as the
establish the causes of action in the case at bar and in the previous cases. successors-in-interest of Marcelo and Miguel. Even in such capacities, petitioners’ identity with the
parties in the previous cases firmly remained. In G.R. No. L-55076 (the first case), in which Matilde
Hence, the probate court was correct in setting aside the motion to require Matilde to turn over the was the petitioner while her brother Marcelo, the administrator of the Estate of Sotto, was one of the
subject properties to the estate considering that Matilde’s title and ownership over the subject respondents, the Court affirmed Matilde’s redemption of the four properties notwithstanding that it
properties have already been upheld in previous final decisions and order. This Court will not gave the other heirs of Filemon the opportunity to join as co-redemptioners within a period of six
countenance the estate’s ploy to countermand the previous decisions sustaining Matilde’s right over months. When the other heirs did not ultimately join as Matilde’s co-redemptioners within the period
the subject properties. A party cannot evade the application of the principle of res judicata by the mere allowed by the Court, the trial court in Civil Case No. R-10027 rightly directed the Register of Deeds to
expediency of varying the form of action or the relief sought, or adopting a different method of issue new certificates of title covering the properties in Matilde’s name. In Civil Case No. CEB-19338
presenting the issue, or by pleading justifiable circumstances. (the second case), the action Pascuala brought against Matilde for the nullification of Pascuala’s
waiver of rights involving the four properties, the trial court dismissed the complaint upon finding
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Orders dated 20 December 2002 and 2 June Pascuala barred by laches from asserting her right as Matilde’s coredemptioner. The CA and, later on,
2003 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 16, in SP. PROC. No. 2706-R. Costs the Court itself (G.R. No. 131722) affirmed the dismissal by the trial court. In Civil Case No. R-10027,
against petitioner. the trial court denied the motion of the heirs of Miguel (who are petitioners herein) to include them as
co-redemptioners of the properties on the ground of laches and res judicata. Again, the CA and, later
on, the Court itself (G.R. No. 154585) affirmed the denial. In G.R. No. 158642 (the fourth case), the
SO ORDERED. Court upheld the ruling of the probate court in Special Proceedings No. 2706-R denying the
administrator’s motion to require Matilde to turn over the four real properties to the Estate of Sotto.
For this the fifth case to reach us, we still rule that res judicata was applicable to bar petitioners’ action
for partition of the four properties. In all the five cases (Civil Case No. CEB-24293 included), an identity of parties existed because the
parties were the same, or there was privity among them, or some of the parties were successors-in-
Res judicata exists when as between the action sought to be dismissed and the other action these interest litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity.15 An absolute
elements are present, namely; (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) the former judgment must identity of the parties was not necessary, because a shared identity of interest sufficed for res judicata
have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (3) the former to apply.16 Moreover, mere substantial identity of parties, or even community of interests between
judgment must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and subsequent parties in the prior and subsequent cases, even if the latter were not impleaded in the first case, would
actions (i) identity of parties or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions; (ii) be sufficient.17 As such, the fact that a previous case was filed in the name of the Estate of Sotto only
identity of subject matter, or of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the was of no consequence.
same facts; and, (iii) identity of causes of action in both actions such that any judgment that may be
rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the Secondly, the subject matter of all the actions (Civil Case No. CEB-24293 included), was the same,
action under consideration.14 that is, Matilde’s right to the four properties. On the one hand, Matilde insisted that she had the
exclusive right to them, while, on the other hand, the other declared heirs of Filemon, like petitioners’
The first three elements were present. The decision of the Court in G.R. No. 55076 (the first case), the predecessors-in-interest, maintained that the properties belonged to the Estate of Sotto.
decision of the Court in G.R. No. 131722 (the second case), the order dated October 5, 1989 of the
RTC in Civil Case No. R-10027 as upheld by the Court in G.R. No. 154585 (the third case), and the And, lastly, a judgment rendered in the other cases, regardless of which party was successful, would
decision in G.R. No. 158642 (the fourth case) – all of which dealt with Matilde’s right to the four amount to res judicata in relation to Civil Case No. CEB-24293.
properties – had upheld Matilde’s right to the four properties and had all become final. Such rulings
were rendered in the exercise of the respective courts’ jurisdiction over the subject matter, and were
adjudications on the merits of the cases. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment or decree on the merits rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction is conclusive about the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits and
on all points and matters determined in the previous suit. The foundation principle upon which the Matilde’s exclusive right in the four properties. He was not unaware of the other cases in which the
doctrine rests is that the parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once; issue had been definitely settled considering that his clients were the heirs themselves of Marcelo and
that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, Miguel.  Moreover, he had represented the Estate of Sotto in G.R. No. 158642 (The Estate of Don
1âwphi1

so long as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with Filemon Y. Sotto v. Palicte).
them in law or estate.18
Under the circumstances, Atty. Mahinay appears to have engaged in the prejudicial practice of forum
Section 47 (b) Rule 39 of the Rules of Court institutionalizes the doctrine of res judicata in the concept shopping as much as any of his clients had been. If he was guilty, the Court would not tolerate it, and
of bar by prior judgment, viz: would sanction him. In this regard, forum shopping, according to Ao-as v. Court of Appeals,21 may be
committed as follows:
Section 47. Effect of judgments and final orders.—The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by
a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as As the present jurisprudence now stands, forum shopping can he committed in three ways: (1) filing
follows: multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not
having been resolved yet (litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action
xxxx and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (res judicata); and (3) filing
multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of
action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata). If the forum
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to shopping is not considered willful and deliberate, the subsequent cases shall he dismissed without
any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and prejudice on one of the two grounds mentioned above. However, if the forum shopping is willful and
their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with prejudice.
proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; and
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on
xxxx November 29, 2002; and ORDERS petitioners to pay the costs of suit.

The doctrine of res judicata is an old axiom of law, dictated by wisdom and sanctified by age, and The Court DIRECTS Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay to show cause in writing within ten days from notice
founded on the broad principle that it is to the interest of the public that there should be an end to why he should not be sanctioned as a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for committing
litigation by the same parties over a subject once fully and fairly adjudicated. It has been appropriately a clear violation of the rule prohibiting forum-shopping by aiding his clients in asserting the same
said that the doctrine is a rule pervading every well-regulated system of jurisprudence, and is put upon claims at least twice.
two grounds embodied in various maxims of the common law: one, public policy and necessity, which
makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation –interest reipublicae ut sit
finis litium; the other, the hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for one and the SO ORDERED.
same cause – nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa. A contrary doctrine would subject the
public peace and quiet to the will and neglect of individuals and prefer the gratification of the litigious LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public tranquillity and happiness.19 The Associate Justice
doctrine is to be applied with rigidity because:
WE CONCUR:
x x x the maintenance of public order, the repose of society, and the quiet of families require that what
has been definitely determined by competent tribunals shall be accepted as irrefragable legal truth. So MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
deeply is this principle implanted in xxx jurisprudence that commentators upon it have said, the res Chief Justice
judicata renders white that which is black and straight that which is crooked. Facit excurvo rectum, ex
albo nigrum. No other evidence can afford strength to the presumption of truth it creates, and no
argument can detract from its legal efficacy.20 TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
What we have seen here is a clear demonstration of unmitigated forum shopping on the part of
petitioners and their counsel. It should not be enough for us to just express our alarm at petitioners’ JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA*
disregard of the doctrine of res judicata. We do not justly conclude this decision unless we perform Associate Justice
one last unpleasant task, which is to demand from petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay, an
explanation of his role in this pernicious attempt to relitigate the already settled issue regarding