GR 37345; (December, 1933) (2) (Digest)
G.R. No. 37345 , December 23, 1933
ALEXANDRA REPOLLO, ET AL., applicants-appellees, vs. BERNABE BALECHA, oppositor-appellant. (Consolidated with G.R. Nos. 37346-37351)
FACTS
Prior to these seven consolidated land registration cases, oppositor-appellant Bernabe Balecha had filed his own application for registration of the same parcels of land. In that prior case, the applicants-appellees (the Paguyos and Repollos) opposed Balecha’s application. The court denied Balecha’s application and sustained the oppositions, finding that the land was actually possessed and owned by the oppositors (now the applicants) and their predecessors for at least forty years. Balecha did not appeal that judgment. In the present cases, the Paguyos and Repollos are the applicants for registration, and Balecha is the oppositor. The parties agreed to adopt the evidence presented in the prior case as the sole evidence for these cases.
ISSUE
Whether the judgment in the prior registration case, where Balecha was the applicant and the present applicants were the oppositors, constitutes res judicata barring Balecha’s opposition in the present cases.
RULING
No, the prior judgment does not constitute res judicata in the strict sense. The issue in the prior case was whether Balecha had the right to register the land, not whether the land should be registered in the names of the oppositors (the present applicants). The law in force at the time of the prior case (before Act No. 3621 ) did not allow the court to order registration in the name of the oppositor. Even though Act No. 3621 (which permitted such registration) was already in effect when the prior judgment was rendered, it did not apply because the oppositors did not invoke its benefits, and the court merely denied Balecha’s application without ordering registration in the oppositors’ names. Nevertheless, following the doctrine in Cruz vs. Cruz, the factual findings in the prior decision, which are based on the same evidence now presented, are entitled to credit. The evidence supports the trial court’s judgment granting the applications of the Paguyos and Repollos. The appealed judgment is affirmed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.