Spouses Sy v. Young, G.R. No.
169214, June 19, 2013
FACTS:
The petition was filed by Genalyn D. Young, the legitimate daughter of George Young and Lilia
Dy. She claimed that Lilia executed a Second Supplemental to the Deed of Extrajudicial
Partition in 1993, which was adjudicated solely in her favor. Genalyn, who was only a minor at
the time of its execution, argued that the partition was unenforceable and contrary to the Rules of
Court. She also claimed that the spouses Sy entered into the mortgage contract with the
knowledge that Lilia was unauthorized to mortgage the property.
In July 2000, Genalyn filed a Motion to Admit a Supplemental Complaint, invoked her right to
exercise legal redemption as a co-owner of the disputed property, but the RTC denied the
motion. She then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court docketed as
G.R. No. 157955. The trial in the RTC continued while CA-G.R. Sp. No. 65629 was pending in
the CA. Genalyn moved to suspend the proceedings until the CA had decided on the propriety of
the admission of the supplemental complaint.
In 2002, Genalyn filed an appeal to the Supreme Court (CA) challenging the RTC Orders dated
August 30, 2001, January 4, 2002, and January 16, 2002. She later filed a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 to annul the same RTC Orders, which the CA denied. The CA reversed the RTC's
ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.
On September 26, 2006, the Court granted the petition in G.R. No. 157955 but denied the
petition in G.R. No. 157745 for lack of merit. The Court found that Genalyn engaged in forum
shopping by appealing the RTC Orders and filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the
CA involving the same RTC Orders.
ISSUE:
(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 CA’s Decision
dated March 30, 2005 and Resolution dated August 8, 2005.
RULING:
The court 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. The court
point out in this respect that the law of the case does not have the finality of res judicata.1âwphi1 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. In Young, we directed the RTC to admit
Genalyn’s supplemental complaint. In so ruling, we also vacated the RTC Orders which dismissed
Genalyn’s complaint for failure to prosecute. Moreover, Genalyn’s move to suspend the proceedings
which led to the dismissal of her complaint stemmed essentially from the RTC's 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.
