G.R. No. 5610
EDUARDA GAREN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. AGAPITO PILAR, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
September 27, 1910

FACTS: On May 23, 1908, Eduarda Garen and her husband Gelasio Disol filed a complaint against Agapito Pilar, Fermin Domingo, Bruno Domingo, Angela Rosapa, and Jayme Pasion for the recovery of possession and ownership of two parcels of land. The plaintiffs alleged they owned and possessed the lands, which were used for rice and tobacco, but in March 1908, the defendants, claiming ownership rights, entered, plowed, and destroyed the plaintiffs’ corn crops, causing P40 in damages.

To establish their claim, plaintiffs presented an authorized copy of a possessory information record obtained by Eduarda’s father, Apolinario Garen, recorded on June 3, 1895. This right of possession was further confirmed by two final judgments from previous suits (1895 and 1902) where Agapito Pilar had sued Apolinario Garen and later Eduarda Garen and Gelasio Disol, respectively, for the redelivery of the same lands. Both judgments protected the Garens’ possession, ordering Pilar to refrain from interference and pay costs. The 1895 judgment was affirmed by the Court of First Instance “without prejudice to such right of ownership as the appellant may have.”

The defendants denied the plaintiffs’ exclusive ownership, claiming co-ownership with Eduarda Garen by inheritance from their forefathers, with each occupying a sixth part of the land. They also argued that the issue was res judicata because the plaintiffs had previously: (1) filed an unlawful detention suit against Agapito Pilar in 1905, which they later withdrew; and (2) filed an ownership and injunction suit against Agapito Pilar in 1907, which was decided in favor of Pilar (absolving him), and from which the plaintiffs did not appeal.

The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Eduarda Garen and her husband, declaring her the owner of the land and ordering her to take possession after a survey. The defendants appealed this judgment.

ISSUE: 1. Whether Eduarda Garen is the legitimate owner and rightful possessor of the lands in question.
2. Whether the defendants’ claim of co-ownership is valid.
3. Whether the plaintiffs’ prior withdrawn or lost actions constitute res judicata or otherwise preclude their present action for recovery of possession.

RULING: The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the Court of First Instance.

1. Eduarda Garen is the legitimate owner and rightful possessor. The Court found that Eduarda Garen, as successor to her father Apolinario Garen, is the sole possessor and legitimate owner of the two parcels of land. This was sufficiently proven by the recorded possessory information and further confirmed by the two final judgments (from 1895 and 1902) that protected their possession against Agapito Pilar. These judgments, having become executory, solidify the plaintiffs’ right to possession as owners.
2. Defendants’ co-ownership claim is not valid. The defendants failed to satisfactorily establish their allegation of co-ownership. Their assertion that Apolinario Garen obtained the possessory information through an unwritten agreement with other co-owners who contributed expenses was deemed “incredible” due to the lack of evidence of such an agreement.
3. Prior actions do not constitute res judicata or preclude the current action.
The plaintiffs’ withdrawal of the 1905 unlawful detention complaint “in no way affects the ownership rights of the plaintiffs and does not imply an acquiescence in and acceptance of the despoliation.”
The judgment of December 16, 1907, denying a permanent injunction against Agapito Pilar, likewise did not cause the plaintiffs to lose their ownership rights. The Court stated that they could still prosecute an action for the recovery of possession, which they did by initiating the present suit. Therefore, the defendants’ res judicata argument was rejected.

The Court concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the property and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.