UNITED ABANGAN CLAN, INC. v.

SABELLANO-SUMAGANG (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same
G.R. No. 186722, June 18, 2012 facts; and
(c) the identity of the two (2) cases, such that the judgment that may be rendered in the
DOCTRINE: A judicial declaration of heirship is inconclusive on the fact of occurrence of an pending case would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the
event registered or to be registered in the civil register. On the other hand, changes in the other.
entries in the civil register do not in themselves settle the issue of succession.
In this case, there is no identity and similarity between the Petition for Judicial Declaration and
FACTS: the Petition for Cancellation of Entry with respect to the issues under litigation. The action in
 The case stemmed from the registration of the purported marriage between the late the prior Petition involves a judicial declaration of heirship, while the main issue in the present
Anastacia and Raymundo. one pertains to a cancellation of entry in the civil register.
o They were allegedly married on 18 February 1873 at the Santo Tomas de
Villanueva Parish in El Pardo, Cebu City. Judicial Declaration of Heirship Cancellation of Entry in the Civil Register
o A delayed registration of the marriage was entered in the records of the Civil refers to a special proceeding in which a refers to a special proceeding whereby a
Registrar, and a Certificate of Marriage issued 134 years (Sept. 2007) after. person claiming the status of heir seeks substantial change affecting the civil status
o The petition for late registration was filed by Rolando Cabellon, Edith Casas, and prior judicial declaration of his or her right of a party is sought through the amendment
Imelda Casugay, who were allegedly the true legal heirs and descendants of to inherit from a decedent. of the entry in the civil register.
Anastacia and Raymundo. what is established is a party’s right of those settled are the issues of nationality,
 United Abangan Clan filed a Petition seeking the cancellation of the entry in the Register succession to the decedent paternity, filiation, legitimacy of the marital
of Marriages. status, and registrability of an event
o It contended that Anastacia died single and without issue, and that the claimed affecting the status or nationality of an
marriage could not be registered under Act No. 3753, because it took place individual
before effectivity of the law.
o They also aver that it was not Anastacia and Raymundo who had filed the Because the respective subject matters in the two actions differ, any decision that may be
application for the late registration of their marriage, and there is failure to rendered in one of them cannot constitute res judicata in the other. A judicial declaration of
show cause for the delay in registration. heirship is inconclusive on the fact of occurrence of an event registered or to be registered in
 Sabellano-Sumagang et al. argued that United Abangan: the civil register, while changes in the entries in the civil register do not in themselves settle
o was engaged in forum shopping, since the fact of marriage between Anastacia the issue of succession.
and Raymundo was an important issue to be resolved in another case involving
a petition for the judicial declaration of the heirs of decedent Anastacia. Petition GRANTED, RTC decision REVERSED and SET ASIDE. REMANDED to the RTC for a trial
o was estopped as it failed to contest after the publication of the Notice of on the merits.
Delayed Registration.
o failed to exhaust administrative remedies, as it did not appeal the decision of
the Civil Registrar to a higher office.
o Sumagang et al, claimed that the marriage was established by means of an
ancient document found in the church records of the Santo Tomas de Villanueva
Parish.
RTC: It dismissed the Petition for cancellation of the entry in the Register of on the ground of
litis pendentia. Both petitions were initiated by United Abangan, involved the same parties and
concerned the same issues and reliefs prayed for. It also ruled that the present petition was
still premature, because it should have first been brought to the Civil Registrar under the
doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction.

ISSUE: WON the case was properly dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia (NO)

HELD:
To successfully invoke Litis Pendentia, the movant must prove the existence of the following
requisites:
(a) the identity of parties, or at least like those representing the same interest in both actions;