Sy vs. Young, 699 SCRA 8, June 19, 2013

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 699
5/10/14, 7:21 AM
G.R. No. 169214.June 19, 2013.*
SPOUSES MANUEL SY and VICTORIA SY, petitioners,

vs. GENALYN D. YOUNG, respondent.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Law of the Case; Words and
Phrases; Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered
on a former appeal. It means that whatever is once irrevocably
established the controlling legal rule of decision between the same
parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case whether
correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which
such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case
before the court.Law of the case has been defined as the opinion
delivered on a former appeal. It means that whatever is once
irrevocably established the controlling legal rule of decision
between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law
of the case whether correct on general principles or not, so long as
the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the
facts of the case before the court. We point out in this respect that
the law of the case does not have the finality of res judicata. Law of
the case applies only to the same case, whereas res judicata
forecloses parties or privies in one case by what has been done in
another case. In law of the case, the rule made by an appellate court
cannot be departed from in subsequent proceedings in the same
case. Furthermore, law of the case relates entirely to questions of
law while res judicata is applicable to the conclusive determination
of issues of fact. Although res judicata may include questions of law,
it is generally concerned with the effect of adjudication in a wholly
independent proceeding. The rationale behind this rule is to enable
an appellate court to perform its duties satisfactorily and efficiently,
which would be impossible if a question, once considered and
decided by it, were to be litigated anew in the same case upon any
and every subsequent appeal. Without it, there would be endless
litigation. Litigants would be free to speculate on changes in the
personnel of a court, or on the chance of our rewriting propositions
once gravely ruled on solemn argument and handed down as the
law of a given case.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
9
VOL. 699, JUNE 19, 2013
Sy vs. Young
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000145e34a04a014f75fb3000a0082004500cc/p/AAAN1945/?username=Guest
Page 1 of 7
5/10/14, 7:21 AM
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Raul S. Sison & Law Offices for petitioners.
Buag & Lotilla Law Offices for respondent.
BRION,J.:
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari1 filed by
petitioner-spouses Manuel Sy and Victoria Sy to challenge
the March 30, 2005 Decision2 and the August 8, 2005
Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No.
74045.
The Factual Antecedents
The petition originated from a Complaint for
Nullification of Second Supplemental Extrajudicial
Settlement, Mortgage, Foreclosure Sale and Tax
Declaration4 filed by respondent Genalyn D. Young with
the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Branch 32
(RTC). The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. SP5703.
Genalyn alleged that she is the legitimate daughter of
spouses George Young and Lilia Dy.5 When George died, he
left an unregistered parcel of land (property) covered by Tax
Declaration No. 91-489296 in San Roque, San Pablo City,
_______________
1 Dated September 23, 2005 and filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court; Rollo, pp. 27-88.
2 Id., at pp. 14-22; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam,
and concurred in by Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Japar B.
Dimaampao.
3 Id., at pp. 90-92.
4 Id., at pp. 164-167.
5 Id., at p. 154.
6 Id., at p. 155.
10
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sy vs. Young
Laguna. On September 3, 1993, Lilia executed a Second

Supplemental to the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition.7 The
property was adjudicated solely in Lilias favor in the
partition. Lilia represented Genalyn, who was then a
minor, in the execution of the document.
Subsequently, Lilia obtained a loan from the spouses Sy
with the property as security.8 When Lilia defaulted on her
loan, the property was foreclosed and sold to the spouses
Sy. Thereafter, the spouses Sy registered the certificate of
sale9 with the Office of the Register of Deeds and obtained
a tax declaration10 in their name.
In her complaint, Genalyn argued that the partition was
Page 2 of 7
5/10/14, 7:21 AM
unenforceable since she was only a minor at the time of its

execution. She also pointed out that the partition was
contrary to the Rules of Court because it was without the
courts approval. She further asserted that the spouses Sy
entered into the contract of mortgage with the knowledge
that Lilia was unauthorized to mortgage the property.
On July 20, 2000, Genalyn filed with the RTC a Motion
to Admit a Supplemental Complaint with the attached
Supplemental Complaint. In the supplemental complaint,
she invoked her right to exercise legal redemption as a coowner of the disputed property. However, the RTC denied
the motion in its Order11 dated December 28, 2000.
Subsequently, she filed a petition for certiorari and
mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
docketed as CA-G.R. Sp. No. 65629 with the CA.
The CA denied the petition in its decision dated
November 18, 2002. It held that Genalyns cause of action
in the supplemental complaint is entirely different from
her original
_______________
7 Id., at p. 157.
8 Id., at pp. 159-160.
9 Id., at pp. 161-162.
10 Id., at p. 163.
11 Penned by Judge Zorayda Herradura Salcedo.
11
VOL. 699, JUNE 19, 2013
11
Sy vs. Young
complaint. Thereafter, she elevated the case with this
Court in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court docketed as G.R. No. 157955.12
Trial in the RTC continued while CA-G.R. Sp. No. 65629
was pending in the CA. Consequently, Genalyn moved to
suspend the proceedings until the CA has decided on the
propriety of the admission of the supplemental complaint.
However, the RTC denied the motion.13 At the pre-trial
conference, Genalyn moved again for the suspension of the
proceedings but to no avail. On a trial dated August 29,
2001, Genalyn filed a Motion to Cancel Hearing on the
ground that she was indisposed. As a result, the RTC
issued an Order dated August 30, 2001 which
dismissed the complaint on the ground of non-suit.
The RTC denied Genalyns motion for reconsideration in an
Order dated January 4, 2002. On January 16, 2002, the
RTC issued an Order correcting the January 4, 2002 Order
due to a typographical error.14
On January 31, 2002, Genalyn filed an appeal
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 74045. In the appeal, she
questioned the RTC Orders dated August 30, 2001,
Page 3 of 7
5/10/14, 7:21 AM
January 4, 2002, and January 16, 2002. On May 28, 2002,

Genalyn again filed with the CA a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to
annul the same RTC Orders that comprise the
subject matter of the ordinary appeal. However, the
CA denied the said petition. Tirelessly, Genalyn filed a
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 157745
which was consolidated with G.R. No. 157955.15
_______________
12 Young v. Spouses Sy, 534 Phil. 246, 253; 503 SCRA 151, 156 (2006).
13 Rollo, p. 16.
14 Young v. Spouses Sy, supra note 12, at pp. 255-256; p. 158.
15 Id., at pp. 258-259; p. 160.
12
12

Sy vs. Young
With respect to CA-G.R. CV No. 74045, the CA reversed

the RTCs ruling and remanded the case for further
proceedings.16 The CA also denied17 the spouses Sys
motion for reconsideration, prompting them to file the
present petition.
On September 26, 2006, this Court promulgated a
decision on the consolidated cases entitled Young v.
Spouses Sy. We granted the petition in G.R. No. 157955
but denied the petition in G.R. No. 157745 for lack of
merit.18
In G.R. No. 157955, we ruled that Genalyns right to
redeem the property is dependent on the nullification of the
partition which is the subject of the original complaint. We
held that the right of legal redemption as a co-owner is
conferred by law and is merely a natural consequence of coownership. In effect, Genalyns cause of action for legal
redemption in her supplemental complaint stems directly
from her rights as a co-owner of the property subject of the
complaint. We thus ordered the RTC to admit the
supplemental complaint.19
In G.R. No. 157745, we held that Genalyn had engaged
in forum shopping in appealing the RTC Orders and in
subsequently filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
with the CA involving the same RTC Orders. We found that
the elements of litis pendentia are present in the two suits
because they are founded on exactly the same facts and
refer to the same subject matter. We thus pronounced
that the dismissal of the petition for certiorari was
proper.20
We entered the entry of judgment in Young on March 19,
2007.
Page 4 of 7
5/10/14, 7:21 AM
_______________
16 Supra note 2.
17 Supra note 3.
18 Young v. Spouses Sy, supra note 12.
19 Id., at pp. 261-262; p. 163.
20 Id., at pp. 264-266; p. 167.
13
VOL. 699, JUNE 19, 2013
13
Sy vs. Young
The Issues
In the present case, the spouses Sy pray that the CAs
Decision dated March 30, 2005 and Resolution dated
August 8, 2005 be reversed and that the RTCs Orders
dated August 30, 2001, January 4, 2002 and January 16,
2002 be reinstated. The spouses Sy raise the same issues
which were already disposed by this Court in Young,
namely:
(1)whether or not the CA erred in setting aside the
RTC Orders dated August 30, 2001, January 4, 2002
and January 16, 2002 which dismissed the case for
non-suit; and
(2)whether or not the CA erred in not holding
Genalyn guilty of forum shopping in the CAs Decision
dated March 30, 2005 and Resolution dated August 8,
2005.
The Courts Ruling
We deny the petition.
The present action is barred
by the law of the case
In denying the petition, we necessarily must reiterate
our ruling in Young which constitutes as the controlling
doctrine or the law of the case in the present case.
Law of the case has been defined as the opinion
delivered on a former appeal. It means that whatever is
once irrevocably established the controlling legal rule of
decision between the same parties in the same case
continues to be the law of the case whether correct on
general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such
decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case
before the court.21
_______________
21 Radio Communications of the Phils., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 522
Phil. 267, 273; 488 SCRA 306, 311 (2006), citing Padillo v. Court of
Appeals, 422 Phil. 334; 371 SCRA 27 (2001).
14
14

Sy vs. Young
Page 5 of 7
5/10/14, 7:21 AM
We point out in this respect that the law of the case does
not have the finality of res judicata. Law of the case applies
only to the same case, whereas res judicata forecloses
parties or privies in one case by what has been done in
another case. In law of the case, the rule made by an
appellate court cannot be departed from in subsequent
proceedings in the same case. Furthermore, law of the case
relates entirely to questions of law while res judicata is
applicable to the conclusive determination of issues of fact.
Although res judicata may include questions of law, it is
generally concerned with the effect of adjudication in a
wholly independent proceeding.22
The rationale behind this rule is to enable an appellate
court to perform its duties satisfactorily and efficiently,
which would be impossible if a question, once considered
and decided by it, were to be litigated anew in the same
case upon any and every subsequent appeal. Without it,
there would be endless litigation. Litigants would be free to
speculate on changes in the personnel of a court, or on the
chance of our rewriting propositions once gravely ruled on
solemn argument and handed down as the law of a given
case.23
In Young, we directed the RTC to admit Genalyns
supplemental complaint. In so ruling, we also vacated the
RTC Orders which dismissed Genalyns complaint for
failure to prosecute. Moreover, Genalyns move to suspend
the proceedings which led to the dismissal of her complaint
stemmed essentially from the RTCs erroneous refusal to
admit the supplemental complaint. On the second issue, we
unequivocably also settled that Genalyn committed forum
shopping when she filed an appeal and a petition for
certiorari successively. This ruling we uphold as the ruling
that should apply.
_______________
22 Padillo v. Court of Appeals, supra, at p. 352; p. 43, citing Comilang
v. Court of Appeals (Fifth Division), 160 Phil. 85; 65 SCRA 69 (1975).
23 Zarate v. Director of Lands, 39 Phil. 747, 749-750 (1919).
15
VOL. 699, JUNE 19, 2013
15
Sy vs. Young
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is
DENIED for lack of merit. The CA Decision dated March
30, 2005 and Resolution dated August 8, 2005 are hereby
AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez and PerlasBernabe, JJ., concur.
Page 6 of 7
5/10/14, 7:21 AM
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.Law of the case means that whatever is once
irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule of
decision between the same parties in the same case
continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on
general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such
decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case
before the court. (Majority Stockholders of Ruby Industrial
Corporation vs. Lim, 650 SCRA 461 [2011])
Law of the case is a term applied to an established rule
that when an appellate court passes on a question and
remands the case to the lower court for further
proceedings, the question there settled becomes the law of
the case upon subsequent appeal. (Marcos, Jr. vs. Republic,
671 SCRA 280 [2012])
o0o
Copyright 2014 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
Page 7 of 7

Sy vs. Young, 699 SCRA 8, June 19, 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sy vs. Young, 699 SCRA 8, June 19, 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sy vs. Young, 699 SCRA 8, June 19, 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 699

G.R. No. 169214.June 19, 2013.*

SPOUSES MANUEL SY and VICTORIA SY, petitioners,

VOL. 699, JUNE 19, 2013

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 699

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laguna. On September 3, 1993, Lilia executed a Second

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 699

unenforceable since she was only a minor at the time of its

VOL. 699, JUNE 19, 2013

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 699

January 4, 2002, and January 16, 2002. On May 28, 2002,

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

With respect to CA-G.R. CV No. 74045, the CA reversed

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 699

VOL. 699, JUNE 19, 2013

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 699

VOL. 699, JUNE 19, 2013

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 699

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Copyright 2014 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like