GR 128405; (June, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128405; June 21, 2000
EDUARDO CALUSIN, et al., represented by ISABEL DE LA FUERTE, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. DANTE and ELSA ALZAGA and CARMENCITA CALUSIN CAMALIGAN, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners, heirs of Jose Calusin, sought to recover a one-half portion of Lot 753, originally owned by spouses Diego and Aniana Calusin. Jose claimed ownership over this portion by virtue of a 1966 deed of sale from his mother, Aniana. However, in a prior partition case (Civil Case No. 0254-M) filed among the heirs, the court awarded the entire Lot 753 to his sister, respondent Carmencita Calusin Camaligan. Jose, who was declared in default in that case, failed to have the default order lifted or the judgment annulled. The partition decision became final and was executed, leading to the issuance of a new title for Carmencita, who later sold the lot to the other respondents, spouses Alzaga.
Subsequently, Jose filed an action for annulment of judgment (Civil Case No. 0335-M), which was dismissed on the ground of res judicata, a dismissal affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Undeterred, Jose instituted the present action for recovery of possession and ownership (Civil Case No. 0433-M), alleging a new factual basis: that the subsequent subdivision plan made by the Alzagas deprived his portion of any road frontage, contrary to an alleged original agreement. He died during the pendency, and his heirs continued the suit.
ISSUE
Whether the present action for recovery of possession and ownership is barred by the prior final judgment in the partition case.
RULING
Yes, the action is barred by res judicata. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The core issue of ownership over the disputed portion of Lot 753 had already been conclusively settled in the final and executory decision in the partition case (Civil Case No. 0254-M). The partition court, in awarding the entire lot to Carmencita, necessarily adjudicated the claims of all co-heirs, including Jose’s claim based on the 1966 deed. The elements of res judicata are present: a final prior judgment on the merits, rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the prior and present cases.
The petitioners’ attempt to re-litigate by raising new allegations concerning the subdivision plan and lack of frontage is unavailing. These allegations are merely collateral consequences of the transfer of ownership, which was already definitively resolved. The cause of action remains fundamentally anchored on the claim of ownership, which is the very issue precluded by the prior final judgment. Public policy demands an end to litigation, and parties should not be vexed twice for the same cause. The finality of the partition judgment binds not only the parties but also the Court, precluding any re-examination of the ownership issue.