LETICIA C. MENDOZA, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. CONRADO VASQUEZ, JR., FROILAN E. ISORENA AND LAURO E. ISORENA .
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 81909
- Promulgated: 1991-09-05
- Ponente: Medialdea, J.
Doctrine
The essential requisites of res judicata are: (1) final judgment; (2) rendered by a court having jurisdiction over subject matter and parties; (3) judgment on the merits; and (4) identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.
An appellate court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to dismiss or granting deferment of motions when the grounds alleged are not indubitable.
Facts
This petition for review on certiorari seeks reversal of the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. Sp. No. 12111 (a prior ruling, Jr., et al.) which dismissed petitioner Mendoza's petition for certiorari and mandamus.
In an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 11374) filed by Mendoza against spouses Froilan and Carmencita Isorena, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City ordered ejectment; the Court of Appeals maintained that decision in AC-G.R. No. SP-06904.
Petitioner sought annulment of a real estate mortgage on grounds including lack of jurisdiction of the MTC to decide ownership and possible voidness of the mortgage due to petitioner’s concubinage with the mortgagor Pedro Isorena.
The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motions (with a modification ordering deferment of action on the motions rather than outright denial); Mendoza’s motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Issues
Whether the petition for review on certiorari has merit and should reverse the Court of Appeals' dismissal.
Whether the complaint for annulment of the mortgage is barred by res judicata.
Whether the private respondents (heirs) have legal personality to prosecute the action to recover the property.
Whether the private respondents are estopped or 'stopped' from filing the complaint for annulment due to delay.
Ruling
The petition has no merit; the Court DENIED the petition for certiorari and mandamus and AFFIRMED the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The Court held the Court of Appeals acted within its jurisdiction and did not abuse it when it denied the petition and ordered deferment of the motion to dismiss because the grounds were not indubitable.
Keywords
G.R. No. 81909, petition for review on certiorari, CA-G.R. Sp. No. 12111, Leticia C. Mendoza v. Hon. Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., et al., petition for certiorari and mandamus, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3229, mortgaged property, promissory note, deed of real estate mortgage, extra-judicially foreclosed, auction sale, redemption period, consolidation of ownership, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 18617, unlawful detainer, annulment of real estate mortgage, annulment of auction sale, annulment of title, motion to dismiss, action has prescribed