GR 170750; (April, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170750 April 7, 2009
HEIRS OF TOMAS DOLLETON, HERACLIO ORCULLO, REMEDIOS SAN PEDRO, HEIRS OF BERNARDO MILLAMA, HEIRS OF AGAPITO VILLANUEVA, HEIRS OF HILARION GARCIA, SERAFINA SP ARGANA, and HEIRS OF MARIANO VILLANUEVA, Petitioners, vs. FIL-ESTATE MANAGEMENT INC., ET AL. AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PIÑAS CITY, Respondents.
FACTS
In October 1997, petitioners filed eight separate but similarly worded Complaints for Quieting of Title and/or Recovery of Ownership and Possession with Preliminary Injunction/Restraining Order and Damages against respondents before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City. The complaints were consolidated. Petitioners claimed continuous, open, and exclusive possession of their respective parcels of land in Barrio Pugad Lawin, Las Piñas for more than 90 years until they were forcibly ousted by respondents’ armed men in 1991. They cultivated the lands and paid real estate taxes. They alleged that respondents’ Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) Nos. 9176 to 9182, derived from Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 6122 in the name of Jose Velasquez, were spurious and did not cover their properties. Petitioners cited the cases of Vda. de Cailles v. Mayuga and Orosa v. Migrino, which involved Lot 9, Psu-11411, Amd-2 (53 hectares), adjudicated to Dominador Mayuga, later transferred to respondents’ predecessors. Petitioners averred their properties were not included in that 53-hectare portion.
Respondents moved to dismiss the complaints on grounds of prescription, laches, lack of cause of action, and res judicata. They argued the actions, seeking annulment of titles, were filed beyond the one-year period from decree registration under P.D. No. 1529. Alternatively, as actions for reconveyance based on implied trust, they prescribed in 10 years from first registration in 1966/1967. Respondents also contended petitioners were guilty of laches for failing to oppose the registration cases or assail the titles earlier. They maintained petitioners’ allegations of possession and tax payments could not defeat Torrens titles. Lastly, they claimed res judicata based on Vda. de Cailles and Orosa, and a Metropolitan Trial Court Decision in Civil Case No. 3271 (Heirs of Benito Navarro v. Fil-Estate Management Inc.) which declared the land belonged to respondent Fil-Estate.
The RTC, in a Resolution dated September 8, 2000, granted the motion to dismiss, finding the properties were registered under respondents’ names and petitioners failed to prove their title by clear and convincing evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s dismissal in its Decision dated September 16, 2005.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of the complaints on the grounds of prescription, laches, lack of cause of action, and res judicata.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision. The complaints were properly dismissed on the ground of res judicata.
The elements of res judicata are present: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second actions.
The MTC Decision in Civil Case No. 3271 (for Forcible Entry), which involved the same petitioners (as plaintiffs therein) and respondent Fil-Estate Management Inc. (as defendant), and concerned the same parcels of land, constitutes a bar to the present actions. That MTC Decision, declaring respondent as the owner and finding petitioners not in possession, became final and executory. There is identity of parties (petitioners and respondent Fil-Estate), subject matter (the same parcels of land), and causes of action (both actions essentially involve recovery of possession and ownership based on petitioners’ claim of prior possession). The MTC had jurisdiction over the forcible entry case. Therefore, the principle of res judicata prohibits the re-litigation of the same issues already settled in the prior final judgment.
Given the application of res judicata, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to discuss the other grounds for dismissal raised by respondents. The petition was denied for lack of merit.