1 Heirs of Dimaampao Vs Alug

Personal property of:
C. Deseo
CivPro II 2024-2025
I
HEIRS OF DIMAAMPAO vs ALUG
G.R. No. 198223, February 18, 2015
Ponete: PERALTA, J.
DOCTRINE:
A final judgment or order - is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing
more to be done by the Court in respect thereto
Interlocutory - an order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end
the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their rights
and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain
to be done by the Court
FACTS:
Case- Petition for Review on Certiorari on assailed CA Decision
Petitioners are grandchildren and heirs of Timbang Daromimbang and Cota

Dimaampao. Petitioners alleged that Timbang and Cota got married in accordance
to Muslim rites and a parcel of land given to Timbang as one of the dowries. During
their marriage they applied for registration and titling which was approved on OCT
No. RP-355 in their names was issued. Cota and Timbang got divorced. Timbang
with their two daughters continued possession of the land while Cota contracted
another marriage. When Timbang died, their daughters continued in possession of
the land.
On April 10, 1978, Cota executed a deed of sale in favor of respondents over
the subject land. Petitioner claimed that this sale cast a cloud of doubt on their title.
A case for annulment of Deed of Sale executed by Cota was filed before RTC Lanao.
Respondents in their answer claimed that Deed of Sale was valid uphled by
RTC Lanao Del Sur Br 9 on the previous case (petitioner not party). In their Special
and Affirmative Defenses, respondents claimed that petitioners have no cause of
action against them because the latter's claim of dowry or donation by reason of
marriage was belied by the issuance of OCT No. RP-335 in Cota's name, that the
complaint violates judicial stability rule.
RTC Ruling:
March 6, 2006 - RTC denied the respondents’ affirmative defense and
scheduled the case for pre-trial.
May 2, 2006, respondents filed Manifestitaion that the above order was
received on April 17, 2006 and moved for time to file MR and to defer submission of
pre-trial brief and the pre trial schedule.
May 17, 2006 respondent filed the MR.
RTC Denied. Respondent filed Petition for Cirtiorari on CA.
CA Ruling:
Granted the Appeal, set aside the RTC Orders,
ISSUE/S:
Whether or Not Motion for Extension of time to File MR is allowed
Whether or Not CA decision is contrary to law and jurisprudence
RULING: YES.
Personal property of:
C. Deseo
CivPro II 2024-2025
Order Dated March 6, 2006 (denying Affirmative Defense) is an interlocutory
order and a motion for reconsideration thereof was not subject to the limiting fifteen-
day period of appeal prescribed for final judgments or orders.
The petition for certiorari was timely filed with the CA. The RTC Order dated
February 29, 2008 denying respondents' motion for reconsideration was received by
the latter on April 9, 2008. They had 60 days from receipt thereof to file the petition
for certiorari with the CA. The last day to file the petition fell on June 8, 2008, a
Sunday, while June 9 was declared a holiday, hence, the filing of the petition on the
next working day which was June 10, 2008 was still on time.
Res judicata is applicable in the instant case. A final judgment or decree on
the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the
parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in the
former suit.
RTC Lanao del Sur, Branch 9, had jurisdiction over the subject matter and
parties in Civil Case No. 2410 and its Decision dated November 21, 2000 was a
judgment on the merits, i.e., one rendered after the presentation of the parties'
evidence during the trial of the case; and that such decision had already become
final and executory and an entry of judgment had been made.
Decision of RTC Lanao Br 9 resolved that Cota was the owner of Subject
Land and could sell the same. Such decision was also affirmed by CA. The CA
Decision became final when SC denied the petition on Feb. 2004
FALLO:
DENIED the petition and Affirm CA Decisions
Additional notes:
The requisite essential of res judicata are:
(1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;
(2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties;
(3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and
(4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties,
subject matter, and causes of action.

1 Heirs of Dimaampao Vs Alug

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Heirs of Dimaampao Vs Alug

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

1 Heirs of Dimaampao Vs Alug

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personal property of:

Petitioners are grandchildren and heirs of Timbang Daromimbang and Cota

You might also like