G.R. No. 149751 . March 11, 2005
PURIFICACION BALILO-MONTERO and JOVENCIO BALILO, Petitioners, vs. EUGENIA SEPTIMO, CONSUELO ROBLES and PLACIDO ROBLES, Respondents.

FACTS

Jose Balilo died intestate in 1943, leaving a homestead property. In 1948, his sister Niniana, as court-appointed guardian for her nephew Jovencio (purported son of Jose), sold the entire property to Jose Septimo with court approval. The sale was not registered. In 1963, Jovencio sued to repurchase the land but lost, with the court ruling his right under the Public Land Act had prescribed. He did not appeal. In 1987, Purificacion Balilo-Montero, claiming to be Jose’s daughter and co-heir, filed a new complaint with Jovencio for recovery of possession against Septimo’s heirs and others. The Regional Trial Court ruled for the plaintiffs, ordering reconveyance of one-half of the property to Purificacion.
The Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the complaint. It held the action was barred by res judicata due to the 1963 case, and that Purificacion was bound by the guardianship sale. It also applied rules on testate succession under the Old Civil Code, incorrectly determining the heirs’ shares.

ISSUE

Whether the action for recovery of possession is barred by res judicata; and what is the correct legal succession to Jose Balilo’s estate.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC decision. On res judicata, the elements are not present. The 1963 case involved a different cause of action (repurchase under the Public Land Act) and a different party in Purificacion, who was not a party to that suit and was not shown to be a privy to Jovencio. Her right as a co-owner was not litigated therein. Thus, her separate action for recovery of possession based on ownership is not barred.
On succession, the Court applied the Old Civil Code on intestate succession, as Jose died in 1943. The evidence established that Purificacion and Jovencio were the natural, legally acknowledged children of Jose Balilo. Under Article 939 of the Old Civil Code, in the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants, acknowledged natural children succeed to the entire estate. Neither Juana Villarama nor Gertrudes Nicdao was Jose’s lawful wife; thus, no surviving spouse existed to inherit. Consequently, Purificacion and Jovencio inherited the property in equal shares as co-owners.
Therefore, the 1948 guardianship sale by Jovencio’s guardian could only convey his one-half undivided share. Jose Septimo acquired only that half, not the entire property. Purificacion, as owner of the other half which was never sold, is entitled to recover it. The Court ordered the reconveyance of her one-half share.