CASE DIGEST

03 Selga vs. Brar

Legal Method

Court Supreme Court, First Division

Citation G.R. No. 175151
Date September 21, 2011
Petitioner Tobias Selga and Ceferina Garancho Selga
Respondent Sony Entierro Brar
Ponente J. Leonardo-De Castro

Relevant topic/s Res Judicata

Prepared by GD Baltazar

FACTS:
 Francisco Entierro (Francisco) died intestate on March 7, 1979, and left behind a parcel of land, identified as
Lot 1138-A, located in Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental.
 On May 15, 1985, Francisco’s spouse, Basilia Tabile (Basilia) and legitimate children, Esteban, Herminia,
Elma, Percival and Gilda, executed a Deed of Sale with Declaration of Heirship. In the said Deed, Basila et al.
declared themselves to be Francisco’s only heirs who inherited the subject property; and at the same time,
sold the subject property to petitioners, spouses Tobias Selga and Ceferina Selga for 120k. By reason of said
sale, TCT-10273 in Francisco’s name was cancelled and replaced by TCT-134408 in petitioners’ names.

RTC BRANCH 55:

 Seven years later, respondent Sony Entierro Brar filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale with Damages
against petitioners, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 276. Respondent claimed that she was one of the
legitimate children of Francisco and Basilia, and that she had been preterited and illegaly deprived of her
rightful share.
 One of the allegations of respondent was that as one of the co-heirs, she is legally entitled to redeem the said
property from the petitioners for the same price paid by the latter.
 The RTC Branch 55 rendered the following judgement in the Civil Case No. 276:
o Respondent is one of the legitimate children and thus, is entitled to inherit and share in the subject lot;
o The Deed of Sale with Declaration of Heirship was annulled;
o Ordered the respondent to legally redeem the lot for the price of 52k;
o Ordered the petitioners to account to the respondent her share in the produce of the land in question
from May 15, 1985 up to the time her share have been ordered delivered to her.
 Upon Francisco’s death, half of the property was inherited by Basilia while the other half was inherited by his
children, pro indiviso. The property relation of the heirs was governed by the provisions on co-ownership.
 Upon the declaration of the annulment of sale, the sharing was declared as 1/11 for the respondent and 10/11
for the petitioner spouses.

 Unsatisfied, respondent filed an appeal of the judgement of RTC Branch 55 before the CA. However,
respondent subsequently moved to withdraw her appeal.
 In a Letter dated August 11, 1997, respondent informed the petitioners that she was exercising her right to
redeem petitioners’ 10/11 share in the property. This was countered by petitioners’ counsel saying that the
redemption is devoid of complete merit, that the respondent pleaded redemption as a cause of action in the
RTC case but the RTC did not see fit to grant you the right of redemption.

RTC BRANCH 56:

 Respondent then instituted on January 21, 1998 at RTC Branch 56 a Complaint for Legal Redemption with
Damages (Civil Case No. 573). In their Answer with Counterclaim, petitioners invoked the defenses of res
judicata and/or forum shopping.
 RTC Branch 56 agreed with the petitioners that the present action, Civil Case 573, is barred by res judicata in
view of the finality of the decision in Civil Case 276 involving the same parties. Although the prior case was
entitled annulment of sale with damages, yet, the averments in the complaint and the relief’s sought for
included the legal redemption which is the subject matter of the present action.

COURT OF APPEALS:
 Respondent appealed the Decision of Branch 56. The Court of Appeals promulgated its decision which
reversed and set aside the Decision of RTC Branch 56 in Civil Case 573.
 As a rule, co-heirs or co-owners of undivided property are required to notify in writing the other/s of the actual
sale of the former’s share in the co-ownership. And within one month or 30 days from notice, a co-heir or co-
owner who wish to redeem such property must make a claim for the reconveyance of the same by either
Page 1 of 3
CASE DIGEST
03 Selga vs. Brar
Legal Method
consignation in court or offer to repurchase by tendering the vendor payment of the redemption money. No
such notice was given to the respondent.
 What had become final and conclusive in Civil Case 276 is only with respect to the filiation of the respondent
and her right to inherit, but not as to her right to redeem the property.

ISSUE-HELD-RATIO:

ISSUE AND HELD RATIO

W/N Civil Case 573 GENERAL DISCUSSION ON RES JUDICATA
before Branch 56 is  Res judicata means “a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a
barred by the final thing or matter settled by judgment.”
judgment of Civil Case  It is for the interest of the public that there should be an end to litigation by the
276 rendered by parties over a subject fully and fairly adjudicated. The doctrine of res judicata is a
Branch 55. YES. rule that pervades every well-regulated system of jurisprudence and is founded
upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of the common law namely:
1. Public policy and necessity – It would be the interest of the State that there be
an end to litigation.
2. The hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same
cause.
 Res judicata has two concepts:
1. Bar by prior judgment under Rule 39, Section 47b – the judgment or final as to
any matter that could have been raised in relation thereto is conclusive between
the parties…
2. Conclusiveness of judgment under Rule 39, Section 47c – that only is deemed
to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon
its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily
included therein or necessary thereto.
 The four essential requisites of res judicata:
a. Finality of former judgment;
b. The court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties;
c. It must be a judgment on the merits; and
d. There must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject
matter and causes of action.

RESOLVING THE ISSUE

 It is not disputed that the Decision dated May 8, 1996 of RTC Branch 55 in Civil
Case 276 had become final and executory. Petitioners no longer appealed the said
decision, while respondent withdrew her appeal of the same before the CA.
 There is also no question that RTC Branch 55 had jurisdiction over the subject
matter and parties in Civil Case 276 and that the Decision was a judgment on the
merits, meaning, one rendered after a consideration of the evidence or stipulations
submitted by the parties at the trial of the case.
 Controversy arises on the fourth requisite: the identity of the parties, subject matter
and causes of action. There is identity of parties as both cases were instituted by
respondent against petitioners. There is also identity of subject matter as both cases
involved the respondent’s rights and interests over the subject property. Finally,
there is identity of causes of action.
 Sec. 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as “the act or omission
by which a party violates the right of another.” The cause of action in both cases is
the sale of the entire subject property by Basilia et al., to petitioners without
respondent’s knowledge and consent.
 The annulment of the sale of respondent’s share in the subject property and the
claim for damages should not be mistaken to be the causes of action but they were
the remedies and reliefs prayed for by the respondent to redress the wrong
allegedly committed against her.
 In her Complaint in Civil Case 276, respondent already alleged her right to
redemption and prayed, among others, the RTC Branch 55 to order respondent
legally entitled to redeem the subject property. The Decision of Branch 55 neither
discussed her right of redemption nor ordered in its decretal portion.

Page 2 of 3
CASE DIGEST
03 Selga vs. Brar
Legal Method
 All matters within the issues raised in Civil Case 276 were passed upon by the
court. Resultantly, the silence of the Decision in Civil Case 276 regarding the right
of redemption does not mean that RTC Branch 55 did not take cognizance of the
same, but rather, that RTC Branch 55 did not deem respondent entitled to said right.
 Therefore, Civil Case 573 before RTC Branch 56 should be dismissed, being barred
by res judicata, given the final and executory Decision dated May 8, 1996 of RTC
Branch 55 in Civil Case 276. The Court stresses that res judicata, in the concept of
bar by prior judgment, renders the judgment or final order conclusive between the
parties and their privies, not just with respect to a matter directly adjudged, but also
any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto.

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated May 31, 2006 and Resolutions dated
September 28, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 72987 are SET ASIDE. The Decision dated July 27,
2001 of Branch 56 of the Regional Trial Court of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, dismissing Civil Case No. 573
is REINSTATED.

Page 3 of 3