GR 137306; (March, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 137306 March 12, 2001
VIRGINIA AVISADO AND JOCELYN AVISADO GARGARITA, petitioners, vs. AMOR RUMBAUA, VICTORIA C. RUMBAUA and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Amor and Victoria Rumbaua, and Rafael and Aurora Consengco, were registered owners of adjacent lots in Quezon City. They discovered petitioners Virginia Avisado and her family occupying both lots and constructed a house thereon. In 1978, the respondents filed a complaint for recovery of possession. The parties entered into a Compromise Agreement in 1980, approved by the trial court, whereby the Avisados agreed to purchase the Rumbauas’ lot for P70,000 in installments and to remove any encroachment on the Consengcos’ adjacent lot. The agreement stipulated that default would result in forfeiture of payments, cancellation of the sale, and the Avisados’ obligation to vacate.
The Avisados failed to pay the balance by the deadline. In 1981, the respondents moved for execution of the judgment based on the compromise. The trial court initially denied this, but upon a second motion, granted it in 1992, ordering the Avisados to vacate. The Avisados did not appeal this order. Instead, in 1993, they filed a new complaint against the respondents for quieting of title and reconveyance, claiming ownership by acquisitive prescription.
ISSUE
Whether the filing of the new complaint for quieting of title is barred by the principle of res judicata, given the final and executory judgment based on the compromise agreement in the earlier recovery of possession case.
RULING
Yes, the new action is barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. The elements of res judicata are present: (1) the prior judgment was final; (2) the court which rendered 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 the two cases. The 1980 judgment approving the compromise agreement was a final judgment on the merits. The parties in both suits are the same. The subject matter is the same parcel of land. The cause of action is also identical, as both suits ultimately concern the right to possess and claim ownership over the property. The Avisados’ claim of acquisitive prescription in the second case could and should have been raised as a defense in the first case; it is now barred. A compromise agreement, once approved by the court, has the force of res judicata and is immediately executory. The petitioners’ failure to appeal the order of execution rendered the 1980 judgment final and conclusive. The subsequent action was merely an attempt to relitigate a settled issue.