G.R. No. 37345, December 23, 1933
ALEXANDRA REPOLLO, ET AL. vs. BERNABE BALECHA (Consolidated with G.R. Nos. 37346-37351)

FACTS

Bernabe Balecha previously filed an application for registration of certain parcels of land. The Paguyos and Repollos (herein applicants-appellees) opposed that application. The trial court denied Balecha’s application and sustained the oppositions, finding that the Paguyos and Repollos were the actual owners in open, public, adverse, and continuous possession since the Spanish regime. Balecha did not appeal that judgment. Subsequently, the Paguyos and Repollos filed these seven separate applications for registration of the same lands. Balecha opposed. The parties agreed to adopt the evidence presented in the prior case as the sole evidence in these new cases. The trial court granted the applications and denied Balecha’s opposition.

ISSUE

Whether the prior judgment in the case where Balecha was the applicant and the Paguyos/Repollos were the oppositors constitutes res judicata in these cases where the roles are reversed.

RULING

No, the prior judgment does not constitute res judicata in the strict sense. In the first case, the issue was whether Balecha had a right to register the land, not whether the land should be registered in the oppositors’ names, as the law then in force did not permit a court to order registration in an oppositor’s favor. Furthermore, even if considered under the subsequently enacted Act No. 3621 (which allowed such registration), judgments rendered prior to that law did not constitute res judicata. However, following the doctrine in Cruz vs. Cruz, the factual findings in the prior decision, though not strictly binding, are entitled to credit and were properly taken into consideration. Since the evidence in these cases is the same as in the prior case, the factual findings supporting the ownership and possession of the Paguyos and Repollos are affirmed. The appealed judgment granting the applications is affirmed.

AI Generated by Armztrong.