Effect if subsequent buyer not impleaded
In this case, it is undisputed that respondent was never made a party to Civil Case No. Q-91-
10071. It is basic that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and
strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court. Yet, the assailed paragraph
3 of the trial court’s decision decreed that "(A)ny transfers, assignment, sale or mortgage of
whatever nature of the parcel of land subject of this case made by defendant Luisito Sarte or
his/her agents or assigns before or during the pendency of the instant case are hereby declared
null and void, together with any transfer certificates of title issued in connection with the
aforesaid transactions by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City who is likewise ordered to cancel
or cause the cancellation of such TCTs." Respondent is adversely affected by such judgment, as
he was the subsequent purchaser of the subject property from Sarte, and title was already
transferred to him. It will be the height of inequity to allow respondent’s title to be nullified
without being given the opportunity to present any evidence in support of his ostensible
ownership of the property. Much more, it is tantamount to a violation of the constitutional
guarantee that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. Clearly,
the trial court’s judgment is void insofar as paragraph 3 of its dispositive portion is concerned.
[Bulawan v. Aquende G.R. No. 182819, June 22, 2011]
Forum Shopping
An indicium of the presence of, or the test for determining whether a litigant violated the rule
against forum shopping is where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final
judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other case.
Res judicata applies by way of, either (1) "bar by prior judgment" or (2) "conclusiveness of
judgment." For res judicata as a "bar by prior judgment" to apply, four (4) essential requisites
must concur, to wit:
(a) finality of the former judgment;
(b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
(c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and
(d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and
causes of action.
In the case at bar, the Court finds that the four requisites of res judicata as above-mentioned
exist. To illustrate: First, the prior case of Republic v. Guerrero has already attained finality and
has not been altered nor reversed. Second, it was rendered by this Court in affirmation of the
earlier decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeals, all of which have jurisdiction to hear and
decide the case. Third, the judgment was.one on the merits, as it declared both the respective
rights and duties of the parties based on disclosed facts, and after the case had even undergone a
fullblown trial. And fourth, the parties, subject matter and causes of action of both cases are the
same, the parties in common being the protestants Bustamante or his heirs, on the one hand, and
the protestee Guerrero on the other; the subject matter being the amendment or cancellation of
Guerrero's title; and the cause of action being the alleged encroachment of Guerrero's titled
property on property that allegedly belongs to the Bustamantes. All the aforementioned is
evident through a simple reading of this Court's decision in Republic v. Guerrero and the
protest currently pending with the LMB. Hence, in filing the said subsequent protest, private
respondents Cora Bustamante and the heirs of Marcelo and Angelina Bustamante committed
forum shopping.
[Guerrero v. Director, et. al. G.R. No. 183641, April 22, 2015]
An indispensable party is one whose interest in the subject matter of the suit and the relief
sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties that his legal presence as a party to
the proceeding is an absolute necessity. [Benedicto-Munoz v. Cacho-Olivares, G.R. No. 179121
(2015)]
A party is not indispensable if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is distinct and
divisible from the interest of the other parties and will not necessarily be prejudiced by a
judgment which does not complete justice to the parties in court. [Benedicto-Munoz v. Cacho-
Olivares, G.R. No. 179121 (2015)]
A necessary party is not one who is indispensable but, rather, one who ought to be joined as a
party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete
determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. [Sec. 8, Rule 3]
Void judgment
1. Considered as no judgment at all.
2. Cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation.
3. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect.
4. Can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void.
[Polystyrene Manufacturing v. Privatization Management, G.R. No. 171336 (2007)]
In Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca on the effects of a void judgment has reappeared
consistently in jurisprudence touching upon the matter. In this case, we said that a void judgment
is "a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and
whenever it exhibits its head. "In concrete terms, this means that a void judgment creates no
rights and imposes no duties. Any act performed pursuant to it and any claim emanating from it
have no legal effect. Thus, in Heirs of Mayor Nemencio Galvez v. Court of Appeals, we nullified
an auction sale of a land as well as the resulting deed of sale and transfer certificate of title as
they were the offshoot of a writ of execution carried pursuant to a void judgment. Hence,
because the SEC Decision was issued with grave abuse of discretion and is therefore void, all
acts emanating from it have no force and effect. Thus, the Deed of Conveyance issued pursuant
to it has no legal effect. [Rene H. Imperial, Et. Al. v. Hon. Edgar L. Armes, et. al., G.R. No.
178842 (2017)]
