Almayri v. Pabale Digest

Almayri v. Pabale

G.R. No. 151243 April 30, 2008

Ponente: Chico-Nazario, J.:

Facts:

1. Almayri petitions the court for the setting aside of the CA decision. 

2. Cesnando Fernando, representing S.M. Fernando Realty Corp filed an action for Specific Performance with Damages (Civil Case) against Nelly Nave who owns a parcel of land which the former alleged was the subject of a 'Kasunduan ng Pagbibilihan'. However, Nave allegedly reneged on their agreement when she refused to accept the partial payment of Fernando. The said lot was instead sold to the Pabale siblings.

3.  Subsequently, the civil proceedings were suspended by virtue of a guardianship proceedings. In June 1988, Nave was declared therein to be incompetent.

4. The lower court declared the nullity of the two sale agreements on the ground that Nave was found incompetent since 1980. The Pabale siblings intervened. The Court of Appeals granted the appeals of both Fernando and the Pabale siblings and upheld the validity of the Deed of Sale executed by Nelly Nave dated February 20,  1984. Hence this petition.

4. Petitioner alleged that since Nave was judicially determined to be an incompetent, all contracts that she subsequently entered into should be declared null and void.

Issue: Whether or not the declaration of incompetency constitutes res judicata 

RULING: No. There was no identity of parties and issues between the special proceeding on the guardianship of Nave and the civil case. The decision on the former on her incompetency should not therefore bar by conclusiveness of judgement the finding in the latter case (civil case) that Nave was competent and had capacity when she entered into the contract of sale over the subject lot in favor of the Pabale siblings.

Herein, the Court expounded on the difference between the two rules on res judicata, namely; 1) bar by previous judgment, and 2) conclusiveness of judgement. Bar by previous judgement means that the judgement in the first case will bar the second case due to the identity of parties, subject-matter, and cause of action. While a bar by virtue of conclusiveness of judgement bars the re-litigation in a second case of a fact or question already settled in a previous case. Hence, even of there is identity of parties, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgement can be conclusive only as to the those matters actually controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved