G.R. No. 75109 -10 June 28, 1989
BIENVENIDA MACHOCA ARCADIO VDA. DE CRUZO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. GLICERIO V. CARRIAGA, JR., FRANKLIN ANG AND MELECIO SUAREZ (Deceased) represented by the surviving spouse, PILAR DE LOS REYES, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, heirs of Gabina Machoca, sought to redeem Lot No. 1131, originally Gabina’s paraphernal property. In 1954, Gabina, illiterate, borrowed money from respondent Franklin Ang. She executed a deed she believed was a mortgage, but it was a deed of sale. The following day, Ang executed a “Deed of Agreement” granting Gabina a three-year right to repurchase the lot for P600, expiring October 4, 1957. However, Ang registered the sale in 1955 and obtained title. In 1963, after no redemption was made, Ang sold the lot to respondent Melecio Suarez.
Petitioners remained in possession until 1977, when Suarez filed an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. C-1) against some petitioners. The city court ruled for Suarez, declaring him the owner and ordering petitioners to vacate. This decision was affirmed on appeal and became final. Prior to this finality, petitioners filed two other actions concerning the same lot: a petition for prohibition (Civil Case OZ-665) to stop the ejectment case, which was dismissed, and a complaint for removal of cloud on title or reconveyance (Civil Case OZ-648), which was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Both dismissals became final.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly dismissed the petitioners’ subsequent action for conventional redemption (Special Civil Case No. OZ-0751) on the ground of res judicata.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal was correct. The elements of res judicata are present: (1) a final former judgment; (2) rendered by a court with jurisdiction; (3) a judgment on the merits; and (4) identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second cases. The unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. C-1) constitutes a final judgment on the merits. While primarily concerned with possession, the city court, under applicable law, also resolved the issue of ownership, declaring Suarez the rightful owner. This finding is conclusive between the parties.
Furthermore, the petitioners’ cause of action for redemption is barred by prior judgment. The right to redeem, based on the 1954 Deed of Agreement, expired in 1957. Any claim to the property arising from that right should have been asserted in the prior cases, particularly the unlawful detainer suit where ownership was directly adjudicated. The filing of multiple suits (prohibition and reconveyance) that were ultimately dismissed for failure to prosecute or on the merits underscores the attempt to relitigate the same core issue. The law abhors multiplicity of suits, and the doctrine of res judicata prevents the re-agitation of settled questions. The petitioners’ failure to timely exercise their right of redemption and to prevail in the prior conclusive proceedings forecloses their present action.