G.R. No.

L-68053 May 7, 1990

LAURA ALVAREZ, FLORA ALVAREZ and RAYMUNDO ALVAREZ, petitioners,
vs.
!E !ONORA"LE #NERMED#AE A$ELLAE %OUR and &E'U' YANE', E'EL#A YANE',
ANON#O YANE', RO'AR#O YANE', and #LUM#NADO YANE', respondents.
Francisco G. Banzon for petitioner.
Renecio R. Espiritu for private respondents.

FERNAN, C.J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of: (a) the decision of the Fourth Civil
Cases Division of the Intermediate ppellate Court dated ugust !", "#$! in C%&.'. C( )o. *++,+
entitled -.esus /anes et al. v. Dr. 'odolfo 0iason et al.- affirming the decision dated .ul1 $, "#23 of
the Court of First Instance of )egros 4ccidental insofar as it ordered the petitioners to pa1 5ointl1 and
severall1 the private respondents the sum of 6,7,777.77 representing the actual value of 8ots )os.
22!% and 22!%9 of the cadastral surve1 of :urcia, )egros 4ccidental and reversing the su;5ect
decision insofar as it awarded the sums of 6,,777.77, 6*,777.77 and 6,,777.77 as actual damages,
moral damages and attorne1<s fees, respectivel1 and (;) the resolution of said appellate court dated
:a1 !7, "#$3, den1ing the motion for reconsideration of its decision.
The real properties involved are two parcels of land identified as 8ot 22!% and 8ot 22!%9 which were
originall1 known as 8ot 22! of the cadastral surve1 of :urcia, )egros 4ccidental. 8ot 22!, with an
area of "*+,*3# s=uare meters, was registered in the name of the heirs of niceto /anes under
4riginal Certificate of Title )o. '4%3$*$ ($$73) issued on 4cto;er #, "#"2 ;1 the 'egister of Deeds
of 4ccidental )egros (>?h. ).
niceto /anes was survived ;1 his children, 'ufino, Felipe and Teodora. @erein private respondents,
>stelita, Iluminado and .esus, are the children of 'ufino who died in "#+, while the other private
respondents, ntonio and 'osario /anes, are children of Felipe. Teodora was survived ;1 her child,
.ovita (.ovito) li;.
1
It is not clear wh1 the latter is not included as a part1 in this case.
niceto left his children 8ots 22! and $,!. Teodora cultivated onl1 three hectares of 8ot $,! as she
could not attend to the other portions of the two lots which had a total area of around twent1%four
hectares. The record does not show whether the children of Felipe also cultivated some portions of
the lots ;ut it is esta;lished that 'ufino and his children left the province to settle in other places as a
result of the out;reak of Aorld Aar II. ccording to >stelita, from the -.apanese time up to peace
time-, the1 did not visit the parcels of land in =uestion ;ut -after li;eration-, when her ;rother went
there to get their share of the sugar produced therein, he was informed that Fortunato 0antiago,
Fuente;ella (6uentevella) and lvareB were in possession of 8ot 22!.
(
It is on record that on :a1 "#, "#!$, Fortunato D. 0antiago was issued Transfer Certificate of Title )o.
'F ,+#3 (,#2#2) covering 8ot 22!% with an area of !2,$"$ s=uare meters.
3
TCT )o. 'F ,+#3
descri;es 8ot 22!% as a portion of 8ot 22! of the cadastral surve1 of :urcia and as originall1
registered under 4CT )o. $$73.
The ;igger portion of 8ot 22! with an area of ""$,$!" s=uare meters was also registered in the name
of Fortunato D. 0antiago on 0eptem;er +, "#!$ Cnder TCT )o. 'T%,+#* (,$"#, ).
)
0aid transfer
certificate of title also contains a certification to the effect that 8ot 22!%9 was originall1 registered
under 4CT )o. $$73.
4n :a1 !7, "#**, 0antiago sold 8ots 22!% and 22!%9 to :onico 9. Fuente;ella, .r. in consideration
of the sum of 62,777.77.
5
Conse=uentl1, on Fe;ruar1 ,7, "#*+, TCT )os. T%"#,#" and T%"#,#, were
issued in Fuente;ella<s name.
6
fter Fuente;ella<s death and during the settlement of his estate, the administratri? thereof (rsenia
'. (da. de Fuente;ella, his wife) filed in 0pecial 6roceedings )o. 3!2! in the Court of First Instance
of )egros 4ccidental, a motion re=uesting authorit1 to sell 8ots 22!% and 22!%9.
7
91 virtue of a court
order granting said motion,
8
on :arch ,3, "#*$, rsenia (da. de Fuente;ella sold said lots for
6+,777.77 to 'osendo lvareB.
9
@ence, on pril ", "#*$ TCT )os. T%,!"+* and T%,!"++ covering
8ots 22!% and 22!%9 were respectivel1 issued to 'osendo lvareB.
10
Two 1ears later or on :a1 ,+, "#+7, Teodora /anes and the children of her ;rother 'ufino, namel1,
>stelita, Iluminado and .esus, filed in the Court of First Instance of )egros 4ccidental a complaint
against Fortunato 0antiago, rsenia (da. de Fuente;ella, lvareB and the 'egister of Deeds of
)egros 4ccidental for the -return- of the ownership and possession of 8ots 22! and $,!. The1 also
pra1ed that an accounting of the produce of the land from "#33 up to the filing of the complaint ;e
made ;1 the defendants, that after court approval of said accounting, the share or mone1 e=uivalent
due the plaintiffs ;e delivered to them, and that defendants ;e ordered to pa1 plaintiffs 6*77.77 as
damages in the form of attorne1<s fees.
11
During the pendenc1 in court of said case or on )ovem;er "!, "#+", lvareB sold 8ots 22!%, 22!%9
and another lot for 6,*,777.77 to Dr. 'odolfo 0iason.
1(
ccordingl1, TCT )os. !7#"# and !7#,7 were
issued to 0iason,
13
who thereafter, declared the two lots in his name for assessment purposes.
1)
:eanwhile, on )ovem;er +, "#+,, .esus /anes, in his own ;ehalf and in ;ehalf of the other plaintiffs,
and assisted ;1 their counsel, filed a manifestation in Civil Case )o. *7,, stating that the therein
plaintiffs -renounce, forfeit and =uitclaims (sic) an1 claim, monetar1 or otherwise, against the
defendant rsenia (da. de Fuente;ella in connection with the a;ove%entitled case.-
15
4n 4cto;er "", "#+!, a decision was rendered ;1 the Court of First Instance of )egros 4ccidental in
Civil Case )o. *7,,, the dispositive portion of which reads:
A@>'>F4'>, 5udgment is rendered, ordering the defendant 'osendo lvareB to
reconve1 to the plaintiffs lots )os. 22! and $,! of the Cadastral 0urve1 of :urcia,
)egros 4ccidental, now covered ;1 Transfer Certificates of Title )os. T%,!"+* and T%
,!"++ in the name of said defendant, and thereafter to deliver the possession of said
lots to the plaintiffs. )o special pronouncement as to costs.
04 4'D>'>D.
16
It will ;e noted that the a;ove%mentioned manifestation of .esus /anes was not mentioned in the
aforesaid decision.
@owever, e?ecution of said decision proved unsuccessful with respect to 8ot 22!. In his return of
service dated 4cto;er ,7, "#+*, the sheriff stated that he discovered that 8ot 22! had ;een
su;divided into 8ots 22!% and 22!%9D that the1 were -in the name- of 'odolfo 0iason who had
purchased them from lvareB, and that 8ot 22! could not ;e delivered to the plaintiffs as 0iason was
-not a part1 per writ of e?ecution.-
17
The e?ecution of the decision in Civil Case )o. *7,, having met a hindrance, herein private
respondents (the /aneses) filed on .ul1 !", "#+*, in the Court of First Instance of )egros 4ccidental
a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title and for a declaration of nullit1 of TCT )os. T%
,!"+* and T%,!"++ issued to 'osendo lvareB.
18
Thereafter, the court re=uired 'odolfo 0iason to
produce the certificates of title covering 8ots 22! and $,!.
>?pectedl1, 0iason filed a manifestation stating that he purchased 8ots 22!%, 22!%9 and +*$, not
8ots 22! and $,!, -in good faith and for a valua;le consideration without an1 knowledge of an1 lien or
encum;rances against said properties-D that the decision in the cadastral proceeding
19
could not ;e
enforced against him as he was not a part1 theretoD and that the decision in Civil Case )o. *7,, could
neither ;e enforced against him not onl1 ;ecause he was not a part1%litigant therein ;ut also ;ecause
it had long ;ecome final and e?ecutor1.
(0
Finding said manifestation to ;e well%founded, the cadastral
court, in its order of 0eptem;er 3, "#+*, nullified its previous order re=uiring 0iason to surrender the
certificates of title mentioned therein.
(1
In "#+$, the /aneses filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of an alias writ of e?ecution in Civil
Case )o. *7,,. 0iason opposed it.
((
In its order of 0eptem;er ,$, "#+$ in Civil Case )o. *7,,, the
lower court, noting that the /aneses had instituted another action for the recover1 of the land in
=uestion, ruled that at the 5udgment therein could not ;e enforced against 0iason as he was not a
part1 in the case.
(3
The action filed ;1 the /aneses on Fe;ruar1 ,", "#+$ was for recover1 of real propert1 with
damages.
()
)amed defendants therein were Dr. 'odolfo 0iason, 8aura lvareB, Flora lvareB,
'a1mundo lvareB and the 'egister of Deeds of )egros 4ccidental. The /aneses pra1ed for the
cancellation of TCT )os. T%"#,#" and "#,#, issued to 0iason (sic) for ;eing null and voidD the
issuance of a new certificate of title in the name of the /aneses -in accordance with the sheriffs return
of service dated 4cto;er ,7, "#+*D- 0iason<s deliver1 of possession of 8ot 22! to the /anesesD and if,
deliver1 thereof could not ;e effected, or, if the issuance of a new title could not ;e made, that the
lvareB and 0iason 5ointl1 and severall1 pa1 the /aneses the sum of 63*,777.77. The1 also pra1ed
that 0iason render an accounting of the fruits of 8ot 22! from )ovem;er "!, "#+" until the filing of the
complaintD and that the defendants 5ointl1 and severall1 pa1 the /aneses moral damages of
6,7,777.77 and e?emplar1 damages of 6"7,777.77 plus attorne1<s fees of 63, 777.77.
(5
In his answer to the complaint, 0iason alleged that the validit1 of his titles to 8ots 22!% and 22!%9,
having ;een passed upon ;1 the court in its order of 0eptem;er 3, "#+*, had ;ecome res
judicata and the /aneses were estopped from =uestioning said order.
(6
4n their part, the lvareB
stated in their answer that the /aneses< cause of action had ;een -;arred ;1 res judicata, statute of
limitation and estoppel.-
(7
In its decision of .ul1 $, "#23, the lower court found that 'odolfo 0iason, who purchased the
properties in =uestion thru an agent as he was then in :e?ico pursuing further medical studies, was a
;u1er in good faith for a valua;le consideration. lthough the /aneses were negligent in their failure to
place a notice of lis pendens -;efore the 'egister of Deeds of )egros 4ccidental in order to protect
their rights over the propert1 in =uestion- in Civil Case )o. *7,,, e=uit1 demanded that the1 recover
the actual value of the land ;ecause the sale thereof e?ecuted ;etween lvareB and 0iason was
without court approval.
(8
The dispositive portion of the decision states:
I) (I>A 4F T@> F4'>&4I)& C4)0ID>'TI4), 5udgment is here;1 rendered in
the following manner:
. The case against the defendant Dr. 'odolfo 0iason and the 'egister of Deeds are
(sic) here;1 dismmissed,
9. The defendants, 8aura, Flora and 'a1mundo, all surnamed lvareB ;eing the
legitimate children of the deceased 'osendo lvareB are here;1 ordered to pa1 5ointl1
and severall1 the plaintiffs the sum of 6,7,777.77 representing the actual value of
8ots )os. 22!% and 22!%9 of :urcia Cadastre, )egros 4ccidentalD the sum of
6,,777.77 as actual damages suffered ;1 the plaintiffD the sum of 6*,777.77
representing moral damages and the sum of 6,.777 as attorne1<s fees, all with legal
rate of interest from date of the filing of this complaint up to final pa1ment.
C. The cross%claim filed ;1 the defendant Dr. 'odolfo 0iason against the defendants,
8aura, Flora and 'a1mundo, all surnamed lvareB is here;1 dismissed.
D. Defendants, 8aura, Flora and 'a1mundo, all surnamed lvareB are here;1
ordered to pa1 the costs of this suit.
04 4'D>'>D.
(9
The lvareB appealed to the then Intermediate ppellate Court which in its decision of ugust !",
"#$!
30
affirmed the lower court<s decision -insofar as it ordered defendants%appellants to pa1 5ointl1
and severall1 the plaintiffs%appellees the sum of 6,7,777.77 representing the actual value of 8ots
)os. 22!% and 22!%9 of the cadastral surve1 of :urcia, )egros 4ccidental, and is reversed insofar
as it awarded the sums of 6,,777.77, 6*,777.77 and 6,,777.77 as actual damages, moral damages
and attorne1<s fees, respectivel1.-
31
The dispositive portion of said decision reads:
A@>'>F4'>, the decision appealed from is affirmed insofar as it ordered
defendants%appellants to pa1 5ointl1 and severall1 the plaintiffs% appellees the sum of
6,7,777.77 representing the actual value of 8ots )os. 22!% and 22!%9 of the
cadastral surve1 of :urcia, )egros 4ccidental, and is reversed insofar as it awarded
the sums of 6,,777.77, 6*,777.77 and 6,,777.77 as actual damages, moral
damages and attorne1<s fees, respectivel1. )o costs.
04 4'D>'>D.
3(
Finding no cogent reason to grant appellants motion for reconsideration, said appellate court denied
the same.
@ence, the instant petition. ln their memorandum petitioners raised the following issues:
". Ahethere or not the defense of prescription and estoppel had ;een timel1 and
properl1 invoked and raised ;1 the petitioners in the lower court.
,. Ahether or not the cause andEor causes of action of the private respondents, if
ever there are an1, as alleged in their complaint dated Fe;ruar1 ,", "#+$ which has
;een docketed in the trial court as Civil Case )o. $323 supra, are forever ;arred ;1
statute of limitation andEor prescription of action and estoppel.
!. Ahether or not the late 'osendo lvareB, a defendant in Civil Case )o. *7,,,
supra and father of the petitioners ;ecome a priv1 andEor part1 to the waiver (>?hi;it
3%defendant 0iason) in Civil Case )o. $323, supra where the private respondents had
un=ualifiedl1 and a;solutel1 waived, renounced and =uitclaimed all their alleged
rights and interests, if ever there is an1, on 8ots )os. 22!% and 22!%9 of :urcia
Cadastre as appearing in their written manifestation dated )ovem;er +, "#+,
(>?hi;its -3- 0iason) which had not ;een controverted or even impliedl1 or indirectl1
denied ;1 them.
3. Ahether or not the lia;ilit1 or lia;ilities of 'osendo lvareB arising from the sale of
8ots )os. 22!% and 22!%9 of :urcia Cadastre to Dr. 'odolfo 0iason, if ever there is
an1, could ;e legall1 passed or transmitted ;1 operations (sic) of law to the petitioners
without violation of law and due process .
33
The petition is devoid of merit.
s correctl1 ruled ;1 the Court of ppeals, it is powerless and for that matter so is the 0upreme Court,
to review the decision in Civil Case )o. *7,, ordering lvareB to reconve1 the lots in dispute to herein
private respondents. 0aid decision had long ;ecome final and e?ecutor1 and with the possi;le
e?ception of Dr. 0iason, who was not a part1 to said case, the decision in Civil Case )o. *7,, is the
law of the case ;etween the parties thereto. It ended when lvareB or his heirs failed to appeal the
decision against them.
3)
Thus, it is a?iomatic that when a right or fact has ;een 5udiciall1 tried and determined ;1 a court of
competent 5urisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should ;e conclusive upon the parties and
those in privit1 with them in law or estate.
35
s consistentl1 ruled ;1 this Court, ever1 litigation must
come to an end. ccess to the court is guaranteed. 9ut there must ;e a limit to it. 4nce a litigant<s
right has ;een ad5udicated in a valid final 5udgment of a competent court, he should not ;e granted an
un;ridled license to return for another tr1. The prevailing part1 should not ;e harassed ;1 su;se=uent
suits. For, if endless litigation were to ;e allowed, unscrupulous litigations will multipl1 in num;er to
the detriment of the administration of 5ustice.
36
There is no dispute that the rights of the /aneses to the properties in =uestion have ;een finall1
ad5udicated in Civil Case )o. *7,,. s found ;1 the lower court, from the uncontroverted evidence
presented, the /aneses have ;een illegall1 deprived of ownership and possession of the lots in
=uestion.
37
In fact, Civil Case )o. $323 now under review, arose from the failure to e?ecute Civil Case
)o. *7,,, as su;5ect lots can no longer ;e reconve1ed to private respondents /aneses, the same
having ;een sold during the pendenc1 of the case ;1 the petitioners< father to Dr. 0iason who did not
know a;out the controvers1, there ;eing no lis pendens annotated on the titles. @ence, it was also
settled ;e1ond =uestion that Dr. 0iason is a purchaser in good faith.
Cnder the circumstances, the trial court did not annul the sale e?ecuted ;1 lvareB in favor of Dr.
0iason on )ovem;er "", "#+" ;ut in fact sustained it. The trial court ordered the heirs of 'osendo
lvareB who lost in Civil Case )o. *7,, to pa1 the plaintiffs (private respondents herein) the amount
of 6,7,777.77 representing the actual value of the su;divided lots in dispute. It did not order
defendant 0iason to pa1 said amount.
38
s to the propriet1 of the present case, it has long ;een esta;lished that the sole remed1 of the
landowner whose propert1 has ;een wrongfull1 or erroneousl1 registered in another<s name is to ;ring
an ordinar1 action in the ordinar1 court of 5ustice for reconve1ance or, if the propert1 has passed into
the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for damages.
39
-It is one thing to protect an innocent
third part1D it is entirel1 a different matter and one devoid of 5ustification if deceit would ;e rewarded ;1
allowing the perpetrator to en5o1 the fruits of his nefarious decided s clearl1 revealed ;1 the
undeviating line of decisions coming from this Court, such an undesira;le eventualit1 is precisel1
sought to ;e guarded against.-
)0
The issue on the right to the properties in litigation having ;een finall1 ad5udicated in Civil Case )o.
*7,, in favor of private respondents, it cannot now ;e reopened in the instant case on the prete?t that
the defenses of prescription and estoppel have not ;een properl1 considered ;1 the lower court.
6etitioners could have appealed in the former case ;ut the1 did not. The1 have therefore foreclosed
their rights, if an1, and the1 cannot now ;e heard to complain in another case in order to defeat the
enforcement of a 5udgment which has longing ;ecome final and e?ecutor1.
6etitioners further contend that the lia;ilit1 arising from the sale of 8ots )o. 22!% and 22!%9 made ;1
'osendo lvareB to Dr. 'odolfo 0iason should ;e the sole lia;ilit1 of the late 'osendo lvareB or of
his estate, after his death.
0uch contention is untena;le for it overlooks the doctrine o;taining in this 5urisdiction on the general
transmissi;ilit1 of the rights and o;ligations of the deceased to his legitimate children and heirs. Thus,
the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code state:
rt. 223. 0uccession is a mode of ac=uisition ;1 virtue of which the propert1, rights
and o;ligations to the e?tent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are
transmitted through his death to another or others either ;1 his will or ;1 operation of
law.
rt. 22+. The inheritance includes all the propert1, rights and o;ligations of a person
which are not e?tinguished ;1 his death.
rt. "!"". Contract stake effect onl1 ;etween the parties, their assigns and heirs
e?cept in case where the rights and o;ligations arising from the contract are not
transmissi;le ;1 their nature, or ;1 stipulation or ;1 provision of law. The heir is not
lia;le ;e1ond the value of the propert1 received from the decedent.
s e?plained ;1 this Court through ssociate .ustice ..9.8. 'e1es in the case of Estate of Hemady
vs. Luzon urety !o." #nc.
)1
The ;inding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the deceased part1 is not altered ;1
the provision of our 'ules of Court that mone1 de;ts of a deceased must ;e
li=uidated and paid from his estate ;efore the residue is distri;uted among said heirs
('ule $#). The reason is that whatever pa1ment is thus made from the state is
ultimatel1 a pa1ment ;1 the heirs or distri;utees, since the amount of the paid claim
in fact diminishes or reduces the shares that the heirs would have ;een entitled to
receive.
Cnder our law, therefore. the general rule is that a part1<s contractual rights and
o;ligations are transmissi;le to the successors.
The rule is a conse=uence of the progressive -depersonaliBation- of patrimonial rights
and duties that, as o;served ;1 (ictorio 6olacco has characteriBed the histor1 of
these institutions. From the 'oman concept of a relation from person to person, the
o;ligation has evolved into a relation from patrimon1 to patrimon1 with the persons
occup1ing onl1 a representative position, ;arring those rare cases where the
o;ligation is strictl1 personal, i.e., is contracted intuitu personae, in consideration of
its performance ;1 a specific person and ;1 no other.
??? ??? ???
6etitioners ;eing the heirs of the late 'osendo lvareB, the1 cannot escape the legal conse=uences
of their father<s transaction, which gave rise to the present claim for damages. That petitioners did not
inherit the propert1 involved herein is of no moment ;ecause ;1 legal fiction, the monetar1 e=uivalent
thereof devolved into the mass of their father<s hereditar1 estate, and we have ruled that the
hereditar1 assets are alwa1s lia;le in their totalit1 for the pa1ment of the de;ts of the estate.
)(
It must, however, ;e made clear that petitioners are lia;le onl1 to the e?tent of the value of their
inheritance. Aith this clarification and considering petitioners< admission that there are other
properties left ;1 the deceased which are sufficient to cover the amount ad5udged in favor of private
respondents, we see no cogent reason to distur; the findings and conclusions of the Court of
ppeals.
A@>'>F4'>, su;5ect to the clarification herein a;ove stated, the assailed decision of the Court of
ppeals is here;1 FFI':>D. Costs against petitioners.
04 4'D>'>D.
Gutierrez" $r." Feliciano and !ortes" $$." concur.
Bidin $." too% no part.