GR 39674; (January, 1978) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-39674. January 31, 1978.
URBANA VELASCO AROC, assisted by her husband CELESTINO AROC, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORPORATION and CIRILO B. GARCIA and FELICIANA BITO, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Plaintiff-appellant Urbana Velasco Aroc had occupied a portion of Lot 6 in Quezon City since 1956, made improvements, and filed applications to purchase it from the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC). She later discovered her applications were missing from PHHC files. Despite her reapplications and a formal protest, PHHC awarded and sold the entire Lot 6 to defendants-appellees, the spouses Cirilo B. Garcia and Feliciana Bito. Aroc alleged the spouses were disqualified as they already owned other lots. The PHHC executed a deed of sale, and a transfer certificate of title was issued to the spouses. Prior to this action, the spouses had filed Civil Case No. Q-10442 against Aroc and another occupant for quieting of title and recovery of possession. In that case, the court ruled in favor of the Garcias, declaring them the rightful owners and ordering Aroc to vacate. That judgment became final.
ISSUE
Whether the final judgment in the prior action for quieting of title and recovery of possession (Civil Case No. Q-10442) constitutes res judicata, thereby barring the present action for annulment of the award and sale and cancellation of title.
RULING
No, the principle of res judicata does not apply. For res judicata to bar a subsequent action, there must be, among other requisites, identity of causes of action. The Court applied the “identity of evidence” test, which holds that if the same evidence would sustain both actions, the causes are identical. Here, the causes of action are distinct. The first case (Q-10442) was an action for quieting of title and recovery of possession based on the Garcias’ derivative title from PHHC. The evidence required was proof of their ownership and the defendants’ withholding of possession. The present case is for annulment of the award and sale and cancellation of title, which assails the very validity of the PHHC’s act of awarding the lot to the Garcias. To succeed, Aroc must present additional evidence not pertinent to the first case, such as proof that PHHC violated its charter or a presidential directive by awarding to non-qualified applicants, and evidence of the spouses’ disqualifications. Furthermore, the legality of the PHHC’s award was not directly litigated in the first case because PHHC was not a party therein, and the issue of the award’s validity was not essential to the judgment for recovery of possession. Consequently, the final judgment in the prior case does not operate as a bar. The order of dismissal is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.