GR 37345; (December, 1933) (6) (Digest)
G.R. No. 37345 -37351, December 23, 1933
Alexandra Repollo, et al., and Vicente, Esteban, Feliciano, Pedro, Timoteo, and Eduardo Paguyo, applicants-appellees, vs. Bernabe Balecha, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
The applicants-appellees (the Paguyos and Repollo) filed seven separate applications for the registration of parcels of land. Bernabe Balecha opposed all applications. Prior to these cases, Balecha himself had applied for registration of the same lands, and the current applicants had opposed that application. In that prior case, the trial court denied Balecha’s application and sustained the oppositions, finding that the applicants and their predecessors had been in open, public, adverse, continuous, and exclusive possession as owners for at least forty years. Balecha did not appeal that judgment. In the present seven cases, the parties agreed to adopt the evidence presented in the prior case, with no additional evidence submitted.
ISSUE
Whether the judgment in the prior registration case, where Balecha was the applicant and the current applicants were the oppositors, constitutes res judicata in the present cases where the roles are reversed.
RULING
No, the prior judgment does not constitute res judicata. The issue in the prior case was whether Balecha had the right to register the property, not whether the oppositors (current applicants) had that right, as the law then in force did not permit a court to order registration in an oppositor’s name. Even considering the subsequent enactment of Act No. 3621 (which allowed such registration), judgments rendered prior to that law do not constitute res judicata. Furthermore, in the prior case, the current applicants did not invoke Act No. 3621 , and the court merely denied Balecha’s application without ordering registration in the oppositors’ names. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the current applicants. Applying the doctrine from Cruz vs. Cruz, while the prior judgment is not strictly res judicata, the factual findings therein are entitled to credit, especially since the same evidence was presented in these cases. The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the applicants are the rightful owners entitled to registration.
AI Generated by Armztrong.