G.R. No. 37345, December 23, 1933
ALEXANDRA REPOLLO, ET AL., applicants-appellees, vs. BERNABE BALECHA, oppositor-appellant. (Consolidated with G.R. Nos. 37346-37351)

FACTS

Bernabe Balecha previously applied for registration of certain parcels of land. The Paguyos and Repollos (herein applicants-appellees) opposed. The trial court denied Balecha’s application, finding that the land was actually possessed and owned by the oppositors (Paguyos and Repollos) and their predecessors-in-interest for at least forty years. That judgment became final. Subsequently, the Paguyos and Repollos filed these seven separate applications for registration of the same lands. Balecha opposed. The parties agreed to adopt the evidence from the prior case as the sole evidence in these new cases. The trial court granted the applications and denied Balecha’s opposition.

ISSUE

Whether the prior final judgment in the case where Balecha was the applicant and the Paguyos/Repollos were the oppositors constitutes res judicata in the present cases where the parties have swapped procedural roles.

RULING

No, the prior judgment does not constitute res judicata in its strict sense. The issue in the first case was whether Balecha had a right to register the land, not whether the oppositors (Paguyos/Repollos) did. Furthermore, the law in force at the time of the first case (prior to Act No. 3621) did not allow the court to order registration in the name of a successful oppositor. However, following the doctrine in Cruz vs. Cruz, the factual findings in the prior final judgment are entitled to credit and may be considered in subsequent litigation between the same parties over the same land. Since the evidence in these cases is the same as in the prior case, the factual findings therein—that the Paguyos and Repollos are the true owners and possessors—support the grant of their applications. The appealed judgments are affirmed.

AI Generated by Armztrong.