GR 37345; (December, 1933) (5) (Digest)
G.R. No. 37345 -37351, December 23, 1933
Alexandra Repollo, et al., and Vicente, Esteban, Feliciano, Pedro, Timoteo, and Eduardo Paguyo, applicants-appellees, vs. Bernabe Balecha, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
The applicants-appellees (the Paguyos and Repollo) filed seven separate applications for the registration of parcels of land. Bernabe Balecha opposed all applications. Prior to these cases, Balecha himself had applied for registration of the same lands, and the current applicants had opposed that application. In that prior case, the trial court denied Balecha’s application and sustained the oppositions, finding that the lands were possessed and owned by the Paguyos and Repollo and their predecessors, not by Balecha. No appeal was taken from that prior judgment. In the present seven cases, the parties agreed to consider the evidence from the prior case as the sole evidence, with no additional evidence presented.
ISSUE
Whether the judgment in the prior registration case, where Balecha was the applicant and the current applicants were the oppositors, constitutes res judicata in the present cases where the roles are reversed.
RULING
No, the prior judgment does not constitute res judicata. The issue in the prior case was whether Balecha had the right to register the property, not whether the land should be registered in the names of the oppositors (the current 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 allowed such registration) was 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, while not strictly res judicata, are entitled to credit. Since the same evidence was presented, the factual findings from the prior case—that the applicants are the true owners and possessors—support the judgment in their favor in the present cases. The appealed judgment is affirmed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.