G.R. No. L-10665; August 30, 1958
LORETO AGUIRRE, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. MANUEL B. ATIENZA, ET AL., defendants-appellees. JOSE ATIENZA, intervenor-appellant.

FACTS

The case involves Lot 412, originally owned by spouses Juan Aguirre and Pascuala Amayat. Upon Juan’s death, the lot was registered pro-indiviso under Original Certificate of Title No. 3269 in 1924 in the names of their children: Raymundo Aguirre, Atanasia Aguirre, and Ricardo Aguirre. Atanasia died intestate in 1922, followed by her mother Pascuala in 1923. In 1931, Ricardo Aguirre sold his interest to his brother-in-law, Tomas Atienza. In 1935, Raymundo Aguirre’s rights were sold at public auction to Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., which later conveyed them to Raymundo’s widow, Abadesa Bernas. Upon Abadesa’s death, her rights passed to her six children. In 1949, plaintiff Loreta Aguirre (with her husband) purchased the rights of four of these children, excluding Consolacion Aguirre.
In October 1949, defendant Manuel B. Atienza (son and sole heir of Tomas Atienza) filed Civil Case No. V-518 for partition of Lot 412, claiming a one-half share as Tomas’s successor. The defendants in that case included the present plaintiffs (Loreta Aguirre, et al.), Consolacion Aguirre, and Maria Pelayo Atienza and Emeliana Atienza (wife and daughter of Pedro Atienza). The case ended with a final and unappealable judgment dated September 29, 1950, based on a stipulation, which adjudicated the lot as follows: (a) Ricardo Aguirre’s 1/3 share to Manuel B. Atienza; (b) Atanasia Aguirre’s 1/3 share to Maria Pelayo Atienza and Emeliana Atienza; and (c) Raymundo Aguirre’s 1/3 share, with 1/6 to Consolacion Aguirre and 5/6 to Loreta Aguirre.
In 1952, the plaintiffs (Loreta Aguirre, et al.) filed the present action, alleging that the share awarded to Maria Pelayo and Emeliana Atienza in Civil Case No. V-518 had no legal foundation, as Pedro Atienza (their husband/father) had no right to the lot. They sought to cancel that share, claiming they were entitled to one-half instead of one-third of the lot. Consolacion Aguirre, who refused to join them, was made a defendant. Intervenor Jose Atienza (who had purchased Manuel B. Atienza’s interests in 1948) joined the plaintiffs, asserting that Maria Pelayo and Emeliana received their share under the erroneous belief that Pedro Atienza was Atanasia’s adopted son and heir, when he was merely her “protegee.”
The defendants (Maria Pelayo Atienza and Emeliana Atienza) moved to dismiss the complaint and the intervenor’s claim on the ground of res judicata, citing the final judgment in Civil Case No. V-518. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the principle of res judicata bars the present action filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenor to challenge the partition adjudicated in the prior final judgment (Civil Case No. V-518).

RULING

Yes, the principle of res judicata bars the plaintiffs’ action, but it does not bar the intervenor’s claim.
1. Application of Res Judicata to the Plaintiffs: The Court applied Rule 39, Section 44 of the Rules of Court, which makes a final judgment conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest. For res judicata to apply, the judgment must be final, rendered by a court with jurisdiction, on the merits, and there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the two cases. All these elements are present here regarding the plaintiffs:
The judgment in Civil Case No. V-518 (1950) is final and unappealable.
The court had jurisdiction.
The judgment was on the merits based on a stipulation.
There is identity of subject matter (Lot 412) and cause of action (ownership of parts of the lot through predecessors-in-interest).
* There is identity of parties, as the plaintiffs here were co-defendants with Maria Pelayo and Emeliana Atienza in the prior partition case. While generally, res judicata may not operate between former co-parties, an exception exists when their individual claims were actually litigated and determined in the prior action. In Civil Case No. V-518, the specific share of each claimant was adjudicated. The plaintiffs cannot now re-litigate the ownership of the shares by merely changing the form of action from partition to rescission.
2. Inapplicability of Article 1098 of the New Civil Code: The plaintiffs argued their action was one for rescission of partition due to lesion under Article 1098, filed within the four-year prescriptive period. The Court held this article inapplicable because it pertains to rescission among “co-heirs.” The partition in Civil Case No. V-518 was not among co-heirs but among co-owners (the original Aguirre siblings) and their successors-in-interest (purchasers and heirs of purchasers), who did not derive their titles from a common hereditary source.
3. Non-Application of Res Judicata to the Intervenor: The Court held that res judicata does not bind intervenor Jose Atienza. He purchased the interests of Manuel B. Atienza on August 9, 1948, which was prior to the commencement of Civil Case No. V-518 in October 1949. Therefore, under Rule 39, Section 44, he is not a “successor in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action” and was not a party to that case. His claim, based on a title antecedent to the prior suit, must be litigated on its merits.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed judgment is AFFIRMED insofar as it dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint. It is REVERSED as to the intervenor Jose Atienza. The record is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings on his claim in intervention. Costs against plaintiffs-appellants.