G.R. No. 206451 , August 17, 2016.
ELPIDIO MAGNO, HEIRS OF ISIDRO M. CABATIC, NAMELY: JOSE CABATIC, RODRIGO CABATIC, AND MELBA CABATIC; AND ODELITO M. BUGAYONG, AS HEIR OF THE LATE AURORA MAGNO, PETITIONERS, VS. LORENZO MAGNO, NICOLAS MAGNO, PETRA MAGNO, MARCIANO MAGNO, ISIDRO MAGNO, TEODISTA MAGNO, ESTRELLA MAGNO, BIENVENIDO M. DE GUZMAN, CONCHITA M. DE GUZMAN, SILARY M. DE GUZMAN, MANUEL M. DE GUZMAN AND MANOLO M. DE GUZMAN, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over the partition of properties left by Nicolas Magno, who died intestate in 1907. The petitioners are successors-in-interest of Doroteo Magno, Nicolas’s child from his first marriage. The respondents are successors-in-interest of Nicetas, Gavino, and Nazaria Magno, Nicolas’s children from his second marriage. In 1964, the respondents’ predecessors (Gavino Magno, et al.) filed a complaint for partition (Civil Case No. A-413) seeking the division of several parcels of land declared in the name of Doroteo Magno. The petitioners’ predecessors (Teofilo Magno, et al.) filed an answer with a counterclaim, also seeking partition of three other parcels of land declared in the names of Gavino, Nicetas, and Nazaria Magno (covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 4246, 13385, and 4249). On October 5, 1972, the CFI granted the complaint and ordered the partition of the properties listed therein but failed to include the three parcels from the counterclaim in the dispositive portion of its decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CFI decision on June 30, 1981, and its decision became final and executory. The CA decision, while discussing that the three parcels from the counterclaim were owned by Nicolas Magno and should be part of his estate, also failed to order their partition in its dispositive portion. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a new complaint for partition (Civil Case No. A-1850) specifically seeking the partition of the three omitted parcels of land. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners. The CA reversed the RTC, dismissing the new complaint on the ground of res judicata, stating that the ownership and inclusion of the three parcels in the estate of Nicolas Magno had already been conclusively settled in the prior final judgment (Civil Case No. A-413).

ISSUE

Whether the principle of res judicata bars the filing of the subsequent complaint (Civil Case No. A-1850) for partition of the three parcels of land that were omitted from the dispositive portion of the final judgment in the prior case (Civil Case No. A-413).

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that res judicata does not bar the subsequent action. The Court held that for res judicata to apply, the judgment must be final and must have adjudged on the merits of the case. While the prior judgment in Civil Case No. A-413 was final, it did not adjudicate on the merits with respect to the partition of the three specific parcels subject of the counterclaim. The dispositive portion of both the CFI and CA decisions in the prior case, which is the controlling part of the judgment, did not order the partition of these three parcels. The Court emphasized that a counterclaim for partition is a compulsory counterclaim that must be raised in the same action, which was done. However, the failure of the court to include these properties in the dispositive portion of its final judgment constitutes an omission that can be completed in a subsequent proceeding under Article 1103 of the Civil Code. The prior judgment only declared the parties as co-owners but did not effect the actual partition of the three parcels. Since the right to demand partition is imprescriptible among co-heirs so long as co-ownership is recognized, and the prior judgment itself recognized the co-ownership over these parcels, the petitioners’ subsequent action to complete the partition was proper. The CA decision was reversed, and the RTC decision ordering the partition of the three omitted parcels was reinstated.