G.R. No. L-32226, December 29, 1930
ESTANISLAO REYES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SEBASTIANA MARTINEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Estanislao Reyes filed an action against the Martinez heirs seeking: (1) recovery of five parcels of land with about 1,000 coconut trees and a declaration of ownership; (2) recovery of P9,377.50 as proceeds from 1,860 coconut trees benefitting the defendants; (3) recovery of P43,000 as the value of proceeds from receivership properties in Martinez vs. Graño (G.R. No. 27685) that allegedly went to the defendants; and (4) P10,000 in damages for improper interference in the receivership administration. Reyes also attached the defendants’ judgment credit of P8,000 from Martinez vs. Graño, suspending its execution. The defendants answered with a cross-complaint for damages and interest. The trial court absolved both parties from each other’s claims. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether Reyes is entitled to the five parcels of land described in his complaint under the contract of March 5, 1921.
2. Whether Reyes’s second, third, and fourth causes of action are barred by prior adjudication in Martinez vs. Graño.
3. Whether the Martinez heirs must convey the land specified in the contract or be enjoined from collecting the P8,000 judgment against Reyes.

RULING

1. On the first cause of action: Reyes is not entitled to the five parcels of land. The contract of March 5, 1921, provided Reyes with a specific parcel described in paragraph 8, with an option to take equivalent land. Reyes had already elected to take the parcel in paragraph 8, as recognized in prior litigation (Martinez vs. Graño), and is estopped from claiming the five parcels. However, since title to the paragraph 8 parcel remains with the Martinez heirs and they have not conveyed it, Reyes has a claim for its value, estimated at P8,000.

2. On the second, third, and fourth causes of action: These are barred by res judicata. The matters raised were either expressly adjudicated or necessarily involved in Martinez vs. Graño, and Reyes is concluded by that decision.

3. Dispositive Relief: The Martinez heirs are given three months (extendible by the trial court) to execute a deed conveying the paragraph 8 parcel to Reyes. Until such conveyance is made or tendered, the execution of the P8,000 judgment against Reyes in Martinez vs. Graño is temporarily enjoined. If they fail to convey within the period, the judgment shall be permanently enjoined. The defendants’ claim for interest on the P8,000 from July 31, 1926, is denied, as the judgment already bears lawful interest from its rendition.

No costs awarded.