Skip to main content

Abangan vs Sabellano-Sumagang G.R. No. 186722|June 18, 2012

CASE DIGEST

Abangan vs Sabellano-Sumagang

G.R. No. 186722|June 18, 2012

Topic: Action for judicial declaration of heirship; what is established;

Synopsis:

The Supreme Court heard a Petition for Review on Certiorari involving the cancellation of the entry in the Register of Marriages of the City Civil Registrar of Cebu City. The case arose from the registration of the purported marital union between Anastacia Abangan and Raymundo Cabellon. The United Abangan Clan filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the entry in the Register of Marriages on the grounds that Anastacia died single and without issue, the marriage took place before the law's effectivity, and there was a failure to show cause for the delay in registration. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground of litis pendentia, as another action was pending between the same parties for the same cause of action. The Supreme Court granted the petition assailing the Resolution of the RTC which dismissed the action of the petitioner. It held that there is no identity and similarity between the first and the second petitions with respect to the issues under litigation. 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.

Facts:

The case involves 2 petitions filed in court, which were both initiated by petitioner, which involved the same parties and concerned the same issues and reliefs prayed for. The first petition involved a judicial declaration of the heirs of decedent Anastacia. Respondents argued that petitioner was engaged in forum shopping, since the fact of marriage between Anastacia and Raymundo was an important issue to be resolved in another case. They also asserted that the United Abangan Clan was estopped from questioning the late registration of the marriage, which petitioner had failed to contest after the publication of the Notice of Delayed Registration. The RTC issued a Resolution dismissing the Petition for cancellation of the entry in the Register of Marriages (second petition) on the ground of litis pendentia.

Issue

1. The sole issue before this Court is whether or not the instant petition was properly dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia. - NO

Held:

1. 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.

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.

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.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The 6 February 2009 Resolution of the Cebu City RTC in SP. PROC. No. 16180-CEB is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. We hereby order the REMAND of the case (SP. PROC. No. 16180-CEB) to the RTC for a trial on the merits.
Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Mandamus and its Application in Judicial Proceedings

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy compelling a tribunal, corporation, board, or person to perform a duty expressly required by law . It applies when: 1️⃣ An entity unlawfully neglects the performance of a legal duty arising from an office or trust. 2️⃣ An entity unlawfully excludes another from a right or office to which they are entitled. 3️⃣ There is no other adequate or speedy legal remedy available. 📌 Relevant Case: De Leon v. Duterte (G.R. No. 252118, 2020) Essential Elements of a Mandamus Petition 📌 To successfully invoke mandamus, the petitioner must prove: ✔ Legal Right – The petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right to compel the action. ✔ Correlative Obligation – The respondent must have a duty to respect that right . ✔ Violation by the Respondent – There must be an act or omission violating the petitioner’s right . ✔ Refusal to Comply – A failure to perform the duty , whether explicit or implied, triggers a cause of action. 📌 Relevant Case: Phi...
Read more

People vs. Jugueta, 788 SCRA 331, G.R. No. 202124 April 5, 2016

G.R. No. 202124. April 5, 2016. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRENEO JUGUETA, accused-appellant. PONENTE:  PERALTA, J.:  Synopsis: In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, Irenneo Jugueta was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder along with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel. However, Roger San Miguel moved for reinvestigation of the case and was eventually dismissed, leaving Irenneo as the only defendant. The prosecution's witness, Norberto, testified that Irenneo and the two other men entered his family's nipa hut and fired shots, causing the death of one daughter and injury to another. Irenneo offered a defense of denial and alibi, but this was found to be weak by the trial court, which ruled that Irenneo conspired with the two other men to shoot the family of Norberto. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The main issue raised in the appeal was the inconsistencies in Norberto's testimony, but these were deemed to be trivial an...
Read more

Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 |March 20, 2013

Case Digest: Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 | March 20, 2013 Ponente: 📌 Topic: Applicability of Reserva Troncal – First cousins of the descendant/prepositus are fourth-degree relatives and cannot be considered reservees/reservatarios. Facts The disputed parcel of land was originally owned by Exequiel Mendoza, who inherited it from Placido and Dominga Mendoza through an oral partition. Upon Exequiel’s death, ownership was transferred to his spouse Leonor and their only daughter, Gregoria. After Leonor’s passing, Gregoria became the sole owner. Gregoria died intestate, and her aunt Victoria Pantaleon, Leonor’s sister, adjudicated the property to herself as the sole surviving heir. Petitioners (grandchildren of Placido and Dominga) argued that the property should have been reserved for them under Article 891 of the Civil Code on Reserva Troncal. They filed an action for Recovery of Possession, Cancellation of TCT, and Reconveyance, which the RTC granted. However, the Court of A...
Read more