GR 47580; (June, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47580 ; June 17, 1941
SIMEON MANDAC, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and VICTORINO SALES, QUIRINO SALES and MARCELO GARVIDA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Simeon Mandac filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte against respondents Victorino Sales, Quirino Sales, and Marcelo Garvida for the recovery of a parcel of land in Bangui, Ilocos Norte. The trial court rendered judgment declaring Mandac the owner of the land, ordering the Sales brothers to return possession to him and pay for the value of the products taken from 1935-1936 onwards, and dismissing the case against Marcelo Garvida. The Court of Appeals reversed this judgment and absolved all defendants.
The trial court found that the land in question, along with nine other parcels owned by the heirs of Teodoro Ramiscal, was sold to Mandac in 1923. The heirs remained on the land as his tenants. A prior case ( G.R. No. 38833 ) involved Mandac and the Ramiscal heirs versus Marcelo Garvida concerning the possession and ownership of the sold parcels (though the specific lot in this case was not then in dispute). The Supreme Court in that prior case upheld the ownership right of the Ramiscal heirs and its transfer by sale to Mandac, finding the heirs were in possession under a claim of ownership from their father’s death until the sale.
The Court of Appeals, however, found a basic fact that Teodoro Ramiscal “was nothing more than a tenant or colonist of Ambrosio Segucio,” who, according to respondents, conveyed the land to respondent Victorino Sales.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in making a factual finding contrary to the Supreme Court’s prior conclusion in G.R. No. 38833 regarding the nature of the Ramiscal heirs’ possession.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The prior judgment in civil case No. 38833 has no binding force upon the parcel in question in this case or upon respondents Victorino and Quirino Sales for two reasons: (1) the specific land now in dispute, though part of the ten parcels sold to Mandac, was not in dispute in the prior case; and (2) the respondents Victorino and Quirino Sales were not parties to that prior case. Consequently, the rule on conclusiveness of judgment (Section 307 of Act No. 190 , now Rule 139, Section 45 of the Rules of Court) does not apply. The Court of Appeals was therefore free to make its own factual finding on the matter.
The other questions raised by the petitioner pertain to matters of fact, and the conclusions of the Court of Appeals on these points are final and cannot be disturbed.