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 applied for the registration of several parcels of land. The applicants-appellees (the Paguyos and Repollo) opposed that application. The trial court denied Balecha’s application and sustained the oppositions, finding that the applicants were the actual owners in open, public, adverse, and continuous possession for at least forty years. Balecha did not appeal that decision. Subsequently, the applicants filed these seven separate applications for registration of the same lands. Balecha opposed. The parties agreed to adopt the evidence from 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 judgment in the prior registration case, where Balecha was the applicant and the current applicants were the oppositors, constitutes res judicata barring the current proceedings.

RULING

No, the prior judgment does not constitute res judicata in the strict sense. The issue in the first case was whether Balecha had a right to register the land, not whether the oppositors (now applicants) had that right. At that time, the law (prior to Act No. 3621 ) did not authorize the court to decree registration in favor of a successful oppositor. However, following the doctrine in Cruz vs. Cruz, the factual findings in the prior decision are entitled to credit and may be considered in subsequent litigation between the same parties over the same land. Since the evidence in these cases is the same as in the prior case, and that evidence supported the applicants’ ownership and possession, the trial court’s decision granting the applications is affirmed.

AI Generated by Armztrong.