G.R. No. 114393 December 15, 1994
Manuel Caiña, Miriam Caiña, and Levita Caiña, petitioners, vs. The Court of Appeals and Elvie Nabong Mapa, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, co-owners of a parcel of land, filed Civil Case No. C-2947 for recovery of possession against Ricardo Nabong, who leased a portion from their father but later asserted an adverse claim. The 1975 decision ordered Nabong to vacate and pay rentals but also adjudicated a portion of the lot to Lorenzo Fuggan. Nabong remained in possession until 1977, after which his daughter, private respondent Elvie Nabong Mapa, took over. Petitioners’ 1987 motion for execution was denied as the judgment could no longer be enforced by mere motion. In 1990, petitioners filed a new complaint for recovery of possession against Mapa (Civil Case No. C-14453).

ISSUE

Whether the second action for recovery of possession against a different possessor is barred by res judicata, prescription, or laches.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision in favor of petitioners. Res judicata does not apply because the causes of action and parties are different. The first case sought to eject Ricardo Nabong based on his repudiation of the lease. The second case is based on Mapa’s own act of possession and withholding of the property after her father left, constituting a new cause of action under Article 477 of the Civil Code. The right to bring an action for recovery of possession, being imprescriptible, is not barred by prescription or laches. The defense of laches was also deemed waived for not being pleaded in the answer. The Court held that a judgment for recovery of possession is only conclusive against the defendant and their privies in possession at the time of the suit, not against a subsequent distinct possessor.