G.R. No. 175151 ; September 21, 2011
TOBIAS SELGA and CEFERINA GARANCHO SELGA, Petitioners, vs. SONY ENTIERRO BRAR, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact MARINA T. ENTIERRO, Respondent.

FACTS

Francisco Entierro died intestate on March 7, 1979, leaving a parcel of land (Lot 1138-A). On May 15, 1985, his spouse Basilia Tabile and five legitimate children (collectively, Basilia, et al.) executed a Deed of Sale with Declaration of Heirship, selling the entire property to petitioners Tobias and Ceferina Selga for ₱120,000.00, and representing themselves as Francisco’s only heirs. The title was transferred to the petitioners.
On July 10, 1992, respondent Sony Entierro Brar, claiming to be a preterited legitimate child and co-heir of Francisco, filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale with Damages (Civil Case No. 276) before the RTC, Branch 55. Among her prayers was a declaration of her right to redeem the property from the petitioners. The RTC, Branch 55, in a Decision dated May 8, 1996, declared respondent a legitimate heir entitled to a 1/11 share of the property, annulled the sale insofar as her share was concerned, ordered the subdivision of the lot and issuance of separate titles, and directed petitioners to account for her share of the produce and pay attorney’s fees. The court did not grant her prayer for legal redemption. This decision became final after respondent withdrew her appeal.
On August 11, 1997, respondent informed petitioners she was exercising her right to redeem their 10/11 share. Petitioners rejected the demand. Respondent then filed a new Complaint for Legal Redemption with Damages (Civil Case No. 573) before the RTC, Branch 56. Petitioners moved for dismissal on the grounds of res judicata and forum shopping, arguing the redemption issue had already been litigated. The RTC, Branch 56, dismissed the complaint, upholding res judicata. The Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal, holding that the cause of action for legal redemption was separate and not barred. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Complaint for Legal Redemption (Civil Case No. 573) is barred by res judicata due to the final judgment in the prior Annulment of Sale case (Civil Case No. 276).

RULING

Yes, the complaint is barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC, Branch 56’s dismissal order.
The doctrine of res judicata has two concepts: bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment. For bar by prior judgment to apply, the following must concur: (1) a final former judgment; (2) a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties; (3) a judgment on the merits; and (4) identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second actions.
All these elements are present. First, the RTC, Branch 55 Decision dated May 8, 1996, is final. Second, that court had jurisdiction. Third, it was a judgment on the merits after trial. Fourth, there is identity of parties (petitioners vs. respondent) and subject matter (Lot 1138-A).
Crucially, there is also identity of causes of action. A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. Respondent’s primary right in both suits was her right as a co-owner/heir over the subject property. The violation of this right arose from the same act: the execution of the 1985 Deed of Sale that excluded her. In the first complaint (Civil Case No. 276), she sought multiple reliefs based on this single violation, including annulment of the sale, declaration of heirship, accounting, and legal redemption. The fact that the first court granted some reliefs (annulment, partition, accounting) but not others (redemption) does not mean the cause of action for redemption was not included and adjudicated. A party cannot split a single cause of action and institute separate suits for different reliefs arising from the same wrongful act. Since respondent’s claim for legal redemption could and should have been raised and resolved in the first comprehensive action, it is now barred.
The Court clarified that the right of legal redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code is not an independent cause of action separate from the co-ownership itself; it is a remedy incidental to and arising from the status of being a co-owner. The first case conclusively established respondent’s status as a co-owner. Having failed to secure redemption in that final judgment, she cannot re-litigate the issue in a new suit.