G.R. No. 133882 ; September 5, 2006
ANGELA DELA ROSA and CORAZON MEDINA, petitioners, vs. ORFELINA D. ROLDAN, LORNA SAN DIEGO, FLORDELIZA D. CATACUTAN, NORMA Y. LACUESTA, and ARSENIO DULAY, respondents.

FACTS

Spouses Arsenio and Asuncion Dulay purchased two parcels of land in 1957, with titles issued in their names. They took possession except for portions occupied by Asuncion’s brother, Gideon dela Rosa, his wife Angela, and Corazon Medina. In 1982, the Dulays demanded that the occupants vacate. Upon refusal, the Dulays filed an accion publiciana (Civil Case No. 6261) for recovery of possession. The defendants claimed a co-ownership agreement, alleging they contributed to the purchase price and that the Dulays held the title in trust for their one-half share. The trial court ruled for the Dulays, ordering the defendants to vacate, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The Dulays later filed an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 6089) in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) to recover physical possession and collect reasonable compensation for use. The MTC dismissed the case, ruling it was barred by res judicata due to the prior accion publiciana. On appeal, the RTC reversed the MTC, ordering the defendants to vacate and pay attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the unlawful detainer case is barred by res judicata due to the prior final judgment in the accion publiciana case.

RULING

No, the unlawful detainer case is not barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling. For res judicata to apply, there must be, among other elements, identity of causes of action between the prior and subsequent cases. Here, the causes of action were distinct. The first case (accion publiciana) was an action for recovery of the right of possession, adjudicating the better right of possession based on title. The second case (unlawful detainer) was a summary action to recover physical possession based on the expiration of the defendant’s right to occupy by tolerance. The judgment in the accion publiciana, which recognized the Dulays as owners with the better right of possession, necessarily meant the defendants’ continued occupation was merely by the Dulays’ tolerance. Once that tolerance ended with the demand to vacate, the basis for an unlawful detainer action arose. The Court also upheld the RTC’s authority to award attorney’s fees exceeding the P20,000 jurisdictional limit of the MTC, as the RTC, on appeal, is not bound by the Rules on Summary Procedure and may modify the MTC’s judgment based on the evidence.