G.R. No.

L-68053 May 7, 1990 therein, he was informed that Fortunato Santiago, Fuentebella (Puentevella) and Alvarez
were in possession of Lot 773. 2
LAURA ALVAREZ, FLORA ALVAREZ and RAYMUNDO ALVAREZ, petitioners,
vs. It is on record that on May 19, 1938, Fortunato D. Santiago was issued Transfer Certificate of
THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APELLATE COURT and JESUS YANES, Title No. RF 2694 (29797) covering Lot 773-A with an area of 37,818 square meters. 3 TCT
ESTELITA YANES, ANTONIO YANES, ROSARIO YANES, and ILUMINADO YANES, No. RF 2694 describes Lot 773-A as a portion of Lot 773 of the cadastral survey of Murcia
respondents. and as originally registered under OCT No. 8804.

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of: (a) the decision of the The bigger portion of Lot 773 with an area of 118,831 square meters was also registered in
Fourth Civil Cases Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court dated August 31, 1983 in the name of Fortunato D. Santiago on September 6, 1938 Under TCT No. RT-2695 (28192 ).
AC-G.R. CV No. 56626 entitled "Jesus Yanes et al. v. Dr. Rodolfo Siason et al." affirming 4 Said transfer certificate of title also contains a certification to the effect that Lot 773-B was
the decision dated July 8, 1974 of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental insofar as originally registered under OCT No. 8804.
it ordered the petitioners to pay jointly and severally the private respondents the sum of
P20,000.00 representing the actual value of Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of the cadastral On May 30, 1955, Santiago sold Lots 773-A and 773-B to Monico B. Fuentebella, Jr. in
survey of Murcia, Negros Occidental and reversing the subject decision insofar as it awarded consideration of the sum of P7,000.00. 5 Consequently, on February 20, 1956, TCT Nos. T-
the sums of P2,000.00, P5,000.00 and P2,000.00 as actual damages, moral damages and 19291 and T-19292 were issued in Fuentebella's name. 6
attorney's fees, respectively and (b) the resolution of said appellate court dated May 30, 1984,
denying the motion for reconsideration of its decision. After Fuentebella's death and during the settlement of his estate, the administratrix thereof
(Arsenia R. Vda. de Fuentebella, his wife) filed in Special Proceedings No. 4373 in the Court
The real properties involved are two parcels of land identified as Lot 773-A and Lot 773-B of First Instance of Negros Occidental, a motion requesting authority to sell Lots 773-A and
which were originally known as Lot 773 of the cadastral survey of Murcia, Negros 773-B. 7 By virtue of a court order granting said motion, 8 on March 24, 1958, Arsenia Vda.
Occidental. Lot 773, with an area of 156,549 square meters, was registered in the name of the de Fuentebella sold said lots for P6,000.00 to Rosendo Alvarez. 9 Hence, on April 1, 1958
heirs of Aniceto Yanes under Original Certificate of Title No. RO-4858 (8804) issued on TCT Nos. T-23165 and T-23166 covering Lots 773-A and 773-B were respectively issued to
October 9, 1917 by the Register of Deeds of Occidental Negros (Exh. A). Rosendo Alvarez. 10

Aniceto Yanes was survived by his children, Rufino, Felipe and Teodora. Herein private Two years later or on May 26, 1960, Teodora Yanes and the children of her brother Rufino,
respondents, Estelita, Iluminado and Jesus, are the children of Rufino who died in 1962 while namely, Estelita, Iluminado and Jesus, filed in the Court of First Instance of Negros
the other private respondents, Antonio and Rosario Yanes, are children of Felipe. Teodora Occidental a complaint against Fortunato Santiago, Arsenia Vda. de Fuentebella, Alvarez and
was survived by her child, Jovita (Jovito) Alib. 1 It is not clear why the latter is not included the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental for the "return" of the ownership and possession
as a party in this case. of Lots 773 and 823. They also prayed that an accounting of the produce of the land from
1944 up to the filing of the complaint be made by the defendants, that after court approval of
Aniceto left his children Lots 773 and 823. Teodora cultivated only three hectares of Lot 823 said accounting, the share or money equivalent due the plaintiffs be delivered to them, and
as she could not attend to the other portions of the two lots which had a total area of around that defendants be ordered to pay plaintiffs P500.00 as damages in the form of attorney's
twenty-four hectares. The record does not show whether the children of Felipe also cultivated fees. 11
some portions of the lots but it is established that Rufino and his children left the province to
settle in other places as a result of the outbreak of World War II. According to Estelita, from During the pendency in court of said case or on November 13, 1961, Alvarez sold Lots 773-
the "Japanese time up to peace time", they did not visit the parcels of land in question but A, 773-B and another lot for P25,000.00 to Dr. Rodolfo Siason. 12 Accordingly, TCT Nos.
"after liberation", when her brother went there to get their share of the sugar produced 30919 and 30920 were issued to Siason, 13 who thereafter, declared the two lots in his name
for assessment purposes. 14
 executory. 20 Finding said manifestation to be well-founded, the cadastral court, in its order
Meanwhile, on November 6, 1962, Jesus Yanes, in his own behalf and in behalf of the other of September 4, 1965, nullified its previous order requiring Siason to surrender the
plaintiffs, and assisted by their counsel, filed a manifestation in Civil Case No. 5022 stating certificates of title mentioned therein. 21
that the therein plaintiffs "renounce, forfeit and quitclaims (sic) any claim, monetary or
otherwise, against the defendant Arsenia Vda. de Fuentebella in connection with the above- In 1968, the Yaneses filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution in
entitled case." 15 Civil Case No. 5022. Siason opposed it. 22 In its order of September 28, 1968 in Civil Case
No. 5022, the lower court, noting that the Yaneses had instituted another action for the
On October 11, 1963, a decision was rendered by the Court of First Instance of Negros recovery of the land in question, ruled that at the judgment therein could not be enforced
Occidental in Civil Case No. 5022, the dispositive portion of which reads: against Siason as he was not a party in the case. 23

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered, ordering the defendant Rosendo Alvarez to reconvey The action filed by the Yaneses on February 21, 1968 was for recovery of real property with
to the plaintiffs lots Nos. 773 and 823 of the Cadastral Survey of Murcia, Negros Occidental, damages. 24 Named defendants therein were Dr. Rodolfo Siason, Laura Alvarez, Flora
now covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-23165 and T-23166 in the name of said Alvarez, Raymundo Alvarez and the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental. The Yaneses
defendant, and thereafter to deliver the possession of said lots to the plaintiffs. No special prayed for the cancellation of TCT Nos. T-19291 and 19292 issued to Siason (sic) for being
pronouncement as to costs. null and void; the issuance of a new certificate of title in the name of the Yaneses "in
accordance with the sheriffs return of service dated October 20, 1965;" Siason's delivery of
SO ORDERED. 16 possession of Lot 773 to the Yaneses; and if, delivery thereof could not be effected, or, if the
issuance of a new title could not be made, that the Alvarez and Siason jointly and severally
It will be noted that the above-mentioned manifestation of Jesus Yanes was not mentioned in pay the Yaneses the sum of P45,000.00. They also prayed that Siason render an accounting
the aforesaid decision. of the fruits of Lot 773 from November 13, 1961 until the filing of the complaint; and that the
defendants jointly and severally pay the Yaneses moral damages of P20,000.00 and
However, execution of said decision proved unsuccessful with respect to Lot 773. In his exemplary damages of P10,000.00 plus attorney's fees of P4, 000.00. 25
return of service dated October 20, 1965, the sheriff stated that he discovered that Lot 773
had been subdivided into Lots 773-A and 773-B; that they were "in the name" of Rodolfo In his answer to the complaint, Siason alleged that the validity of his titles to Lots 773-A and
Siason who had purchased them from Alvarez, and that Lot 773 could not be delivered to the 773-B, having been passed upon by the court in its order of September 4, 1965, had become
plaintiffs as Siason was "not a party per writ of execution." 17 res judicata and the Yaneses were estopped from questioning said order. 26 On their part, the
Alvarez stated in their answer that the Yaneses' cause of action had been "barred by res
The execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 5022 having met a hindrance, herein private judicata, statute of limitation and estoppel." 27
respondents (the Yaneses) filed on July 31, 1965, in the Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title and for a declaration of In its decision of July 8, 1974, the lower court found that Rodolfo Siason, who purchased the
nullity of TCT Nos. T-23165 and T-23166 issued to Rosendo Alvarez. 18 Thereafter, the properties in question thru an agent as he was then in Mexico pursuing further medical
court required Rodolfo Siason to produce the certificates of title covering Lots 773 and 823. studies, was a buyer in good faith for a valuable consideration. Although the Yaneses were
negligent in their failure to place a notice of lis pendens "before the Register of Deeds of
Expectedly, Siason filed a manifestation stating that he purchased Lots 773-A, 773-B and Negros Occidental in order to protect their rights over the property in question" in Civil Case
658, not Lots 773 and 823, "in good faith and for a valuable consideration without any No. 5022, equity demanded that they recover the actual value of the land because the sale
knowledge of any lien or encumbrances against said properties"; that the decision in the thereof executed between Alvarez and Siason was without court approval. 28 The dispositive
cadastral proceeding 19 could not be enforced against him as he was not a party thereto; and portion of the decision states:
that the decision in Civil Case No. 5022 could neither be enforced against him not only
because he was not a party-litigant therein but also because it had long become final and
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATION, judgment is hereby rendered in the Finding no cogent reason to grant appellants motion for reconsideration, said appellate court
following manner: denied the same.

A. The case against the defendant Dr. Rodolfo Siason and the Register of Deeds are (sic) Hence, the instant petition. ln their memorandum petitioners raised the following issues:
hereby dismmissed,
1. Whethere or not the defense of prescription and estoppel had been timely and
B. The defendants, Laura, Flora and Raymundo, all surnamed Alvarez being the properly invoked and raised by the petitioners in the lower court.
legitimate children of the deceased Rosendo Alvarez are hereby ordered to pay jointly and
severally the plaintiffs the sum of P20,000.00 representing the actual value of Lots Nos. 773- 2. Whether or not the cause and/or causes of action of the private respondents, if ever
A and 773-B of Murcia Cadastre, Negros Occidental; the sum of P2,000.00 as actual there are any, as alleged in their complaint dated February 21, 1968 which has been docketed
damages suffered by the plaintiff; the sum of P5,000.00 representing moral damages and the in the trial court as Civil Case No. 8474 supra, are forever barred by statute of limitation
sum of P2.000 as attorney's fees, all with legal rate of interest from date of the filing of this and/or prescription of action and estoppel.
complaint up to final payment.
3. Whether or not the late Rosendo Alvarez, a defendant in Civil Case No. 5022, supra
C. The cross-claim filed by the defendant Dr. Rodolfo Siason against the defendants, and father of the petitioners become a privy and/or party to the waiver (Exhibit 4-defendant
Laura, Flora and Raymundo, all surnamed Alvarez is hereby dismissed. Siason) in Civil Case No. 8474, supra where the private respondents had unqualifiedly and
absolutely waived, renounced and quitclaimed all their alleged rights and interests, if ever
D. Defendants, Laura, Flora and Raymundo, all surnamed Alvarez are hereby ordered to there is any, on Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of Murcia Cadastre as appearing in their written
pay the costs of this suit. manifestation dated November 6, 1962 (Exhibits "4" Siason) which had not been
controverted or even impliedly or indirectly denied by them.
SO ORDERED. 29
4. Whether or not the liability or liabilities of Rosendo Alvarez arising from the sale of
The Alvarez appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court which in its decision of Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of Murcia Cadastre to Dr. Rodolfo Siason, if ever there is any,
August 31, 1983 30 affirmed the lower court's decision "insofar as it ordered defendants- could be legally passed or transmitted by operations (sic) of law to the petitioners without
appellants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs-appellees the sum of P20,000.00 violation of law and due process . 33
representing the actual value of Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of the cadastral survey of
Murcia, Negros Occidental, and is reversed insofar as it awarded the sums of P2,000.00, The petition is devoid of merit.
P5,000.00 and P2,000.00 as actual damages, moral damages and attorney's fees,
respectively." 31 The dispositive portion of said decision reads: As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, it is powerless and for that matter so is the
Supreme Court, to review the decision in Civil Case No. 5022 ordering Alvarez to reconvey
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed insofar as it ordered defendants- the lots in dispute to herein private respondents. Said decision had long become final and
appellants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs- appellees the sum of P20,000.00 executory and with the possible exception of Dr. Siason, who was not a party to said case, the
representing the actual value of Lots Nos. 773-A and 773-B of the cadastral survey of decision in Civil Case No. 5022 is the law of the case between the parties thereto. It ended
Murcia, Negros Occidental, and is reversed insofar as it awarded the sums of P2,000.00, when Alvarez or his heirs failed to appeal the decision against them. 34
P5,000.00 and P2,000.00 as actual damages, moral damages and attorney's fees, respectively.
No costs. Thus, it is axiomatic that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a
court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive
SO ORDERED. 32 upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate. 35 As consistently ruled by
this Court, every litigation must come to an end. Access to the court is guaranteed. But there
must be a limit to it. Once a litigant's right has been adjudicated in a valid final judgment of a Petitioners further contend that the liability arising from the sale of Lots No. 773-A and 773-
competent court, he should not be granted an unbridled license to return for another try. The B made by Rosendo Alvarez to Dr. Rodolfo Siason should be the sole liability of the late
prevailing party should not be harassed by subsequent suits. For, if endless litigation were to Rosendo Alvarez or of his estate, after his death.
be allowed, unscrupulous litigations will multiply in number to the detriment of the
administration of justice. 36 Such contention is untenable for it overlooks the doctrine obtaining in this jurisdiction on the
general transmissibility of the rights and obligations of the deceased to his legitimate children
There is no dispute that the rights of the Yaneses to the properties in question have been and heirs. Thus, the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code state:
finally adjudicated in Civil Case No. 5022. As found by the lower court, from the
uncontroverted evidence presented, the Yaneses have been illegally deprived of ownership Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and
and possession of the lots in question. 37 In fact, Civil Case No. 8474 now under review, obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through
arose from the failure to execute Civil Case No. 5022, as subject lots can no longer be his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law.
reconveyed to private respondents Yaneses, the same having been sold during the pendency
of the case by the petitioners' father to Dr. Siason who did not know about the controversy, Art. 776. The inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person
there being no lis pendens annotated on the titles. Hence, it was also settled beyond question which are not extinguished by his death.
that Dr. Siason is a purchaser in good faith.
Art. 1311. Contract stake effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs except in
Under the circumstances, the trial court did not annul the sale executed by Alvarez in favor of case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their
Dr. Siason on November 11, 1961 but in fact sustained it. The trial court ordered the heirs of nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is not liable beyond the value of the
Rosendo Alvarez who lost in Civil Case No. 5022 to pay the plaintiffs (private respondents property received from the decedent.
herein) the amount of P20,000.00 representing the actual value of the subdivided lots in
dispute. It did not order defendant Siason to pay said amount. 38 As explained by this Court through Associate Justice J.B.L. Reyes in the case of Estate of
Hemady vs. Luzon Surety Co., Inc. 41
As to the propriety of the present case, it has long been established that the sole remedy of
the landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's The binding effect of contracts upon the heirs of the deceased party is not altered by the
name is to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for reconveyance or, if the provision of our Rules of Court that money debts of a deceased must be liquidated and paid
property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for damages. 39 "It is from his estate before the residue is distributed among said heirs (Rule 89). The reason is that
one thing to protect an innocent third party; it is entirely a different matter and one devoid of whatever payment is thus made from the state is ultimately a payment by the heirs or
justification if deceit would be rewarded by allowing the perpetrator to enjoy the fruits of his distributees, since the amount of the paid claim in fact diminishes or reduces the shares that
nefarious decided As clearly revealed by the undeviating line of decisions coming from this the heirs would have been entitled to receive.
Court, such an undesirable eventuality is precisely sought to be guarded against." 40
Under our law, therefore. the general rule is that a party's contractual rights and obligations
The issue on the right to the properties in litigation having been finally adjudicated in Civil are transmissible to the successors.
Case No. 5022 in favor of private respondents, it cannot now be reopened in the instant case
on the pretext that the defenses of prescription and estoppel have not been properly The rule is a consequence of the progressive "depersonalization" of patrimonial rights and
considered by the lower court. Petitioners could have appealed in the former case but they duties that, as observed by Victorio Polacco has characterized the history of these
did not. They have therefore foreclosed their rights, if any, and they cannot now be heard to institutions. From the Roman concept of a relation from person to person, the obligation has
complain in another case in order to defeat the enforcement of a judgment which has longing evolved into a relation from patrimony to patrimony with the persons occupying only a
become final and executory. representative position, barring those rare cases where the obligation is strictly personal, i.e.,
is contracted intuitu personae, in consideration of its performance by a specific person and by
no other.

xxx xxx xxx

Petitioners being the heirs of the late Rosendo Alvarez, they cannot escape the legal
consequences of their father's transaction, which gave rise to the present claim for damages.
That petitioners did not inherit the property involved herein is of no moment because by legal
fiction, the monetary equivalent thereof devolved into the mass of their father's hereditary
estate, and we have ruled that the hereditary assets are always liable in their totality for the
payment of the debts of the estate. 42

It must, however, be made clear that petitioners are liable only to the extent of the value of
their inheritance. With this clarification and considering petitioners' admission that there are
other properties left by the deceased which are sufficient to cover the amount adjudged in
favor of private respondents, we see no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions
of the Court of Appeals.

WHEREFORE, subject to the clarification herein above stated, the assailed decision of the
Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.