G.R. No. 136834 , August 15, 2001
FELIX SENDON, CENON SENDON, TEODOLO SENDON, INDALICIO SENDON, ISBERTO SENDON, ANTONIETO SENDON and JUANITA S. SALAZAR, petitioners, vs. FRATERNIDAD O. RUIZ, PEREGRINA ONAS, LILIA O. FERNANDEZ, MILLARD ONAS, ELDA O. NABUTAS, NIMFA ONAS, and the PROVINCIAL SHERIFF of AKLAN, respondents.

FACTS

On May 3, 1969, Isaac Sendon filed Civil Case No. 1800 against Narciso Onas for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land. On August 23, 1984, the trial court decided Civil Case No. 1800 in favor of Narciso Onas, ruling that the land claimed by Isaac Sendon was identical to the land already adjudicated in favor of Narciso Onas in an earlier case, Civil Case No. K-111 (decided August 22, 1949). The court in Civil Case No. 1800 held that Isaac Sendon could not have inherited the land from his mother Segundina Nape, as the court in Civil Case K-111 had already decided she did not own it. When the Provincial Sheriff sought to enforce this final decision, the petitioners (siblings, a nephew, and a niece of Isaac Sendon) refused to vacate. To thwart execution, petitioners filed a complaint for quieting of title (Civil Case No. 3670) against the sheriff and the children of Narciso Onas (respondents). Petitioners averred that the lot they occupied and inherited from their mother was different from the lot litigated in Civil Case Nos. 1800 and K-111. They described their lot as Lot No. 1113 with an area of 4.5894 hectares, distinct from the lots sold by their grandmother to Narciso Onas (Lot Nos. 1114, 1115, 1120). They argued the judgment in Civil Case No. 1800 did not bind them as they were not parties thereto. Respondents moved to dismiss on the ground of res judicata, asserting the lot was the same. A commissioner appointed by the trial court submitted a sketch and report. The trial court dismissed petitioners’ complaint, declaring respondents absolute owners and ordering petitioners to restore possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioners’ complaint was properly dismissed for being barred by res judicata.

RULING

Yes, the petition is denied. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that all requisites of res judicata are present: (1) there is a final judgment in Civil Case No. 1800; (2) the court rendering it had jurisdiction; (3) it was a judgment on the merits; and (4) there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between Civil Case No. 1800 and the instant case (Civil Case No. 3670). On the identity of subject matter, the Court found no error in the lower courts’ conclusion, based on the commissioner’s report and evidence, that the land claimed by petitioners is the same land litigated in the prior cases. On the identity of parties, the Court ruled that petitioners are successors-in-interest of Isaac Sendon and their mother Segundina Nape, who were parties in the prior cases, and they are thus bound by the judgment. The principle of conclusiveness of judgment bars relitigation of the same issue.