|
the United abangan clan, inc., represented by
cristituto f. abangan VS. yolanda c. sabellano-sumagang, ernesto tiro, basilisa
cabellon-moreno, martin c. tabura, jr., romualdo c. tabura, rolando cabellon,
represented by rolando
cabellon, and the honorable
city civil registrar of cebu city, G.R. No. 186722, June 18, 2012
|
:
|
|
“x x x.
The
sole issue before this Court is whether or not the instant petition was
properly dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia.
Litis pendentia,
as a ground for the dismissal of an action, refers to a situation in which
another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of
action, and the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious.[1]
In order to successfully invoke the rule, the movant must prove the existence
of the following requisites: (a) the identity of parties, or at least like
those representing the same interest in both actions; (b) the identity of
rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts;
and (c) the identity of the two (2) cases, such that the judgment that may be
rendered in the pending case would, regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res judicata in the other.[2]
The crucial
consideration in litis pendentia is
the identity and similarity of the issues under litigation.[3]
As early as in J. Northcott & Co.,
Inc. v. Villa-Abrille, we ruled: “One of the recognized tests of such
identity is to discover whether a judgment in the prior action would be
conclusive as to the liability sought to be enforced in the second and would
operate as a bar to the latter. In other words, if a final judgment in the
prior action, be it of whatsoever character it may, would support the plea of res judicata in the second, the two
suits may be considered identical; otherwise not.”[4]
There is no identity
and similarity between the first and the second petitions with respect to the
issues under litigation. The action in the prior Petition (SP. PROC. No.
16171-CEB) involves a judicial declaration of heirship, while the main issue in
the present one (SP. PROC. No. 16180-CEB) pertains to a cancellation of entry
in the civil register. An action for declaration of heirship (declaracion de herederos) refers to a
special proceeding in which a person claiming the status of heir seeks prior
judicial declaration of his or her right to inherit from
a decedent.[5] On
the other hand, an action for cancellation of entry in the civil register
refers to a special proceeding whereby a substantial change affecting the civil
status of a party is sought through the amendment of the entry in the civil
register.[6]
In the former, what is established is a party’s right of succession to the
decedent; in the latter, among those settled are the issues of nationality,
paternity, filiation, legitimacy of the marital status, and registrability of
an event affecting the status or nationality of an individual. Because the
respective subject matters in the two actions differ, any decision that may be
rendered in one of them cannot constitute res
judicata in the other. A judicial declaration of heirship is inconclusive
on the fact of occurrence of an event registered or to be registered in the
civil register, while changes in the entries in the civil register do not in
themselves settle the issue of succession.
X x x.”
[1]
Bangko Silangan Development Bank v. Court
of Appeals, 412 Phil. 755 (2001).
[2]
Mariscal v. Court of Appeals, 370
Phil. 52 (1999).
[3]
Id.
[4]
J.
Northcott & Co., Inc. v. Villa-Abrille, 41 Phil. 462, 465 (1921).
[5]
See Suiliong & Co. v. Chio-Taysan,
12 Phil. 13 (1908); Cabuyao v. Caagbay,
95 Phil. 614 (1954); Marabiles v. Quito,
100 Phil. 64 (1956).
[6] Republic v. Medina, 204 Phil. 615 (1982)
