GR L 12663; (August, 1959) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12663; August 21, 1959
EULOGIO CAYCO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. URSULA CRUZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The plaintiffs-appellants (Eulogio Cayco, Benedicto Cruz, Benedicto Tanqueco, Jose Romero, and Celestino de Jesus) are occupants of subdivided portions of Lot No. 10, Block 43, in Malabon, Rizal, a part of the Tambobong Estate administered by the Bureau of Lands. On March 9, 1949, they applied to purchase their respective parcels. The defendants-appellees (sisters Ursula, Leonila, and Eugenia Cruz) opposed the application, claiming preferential rights as lessees of the entire lot, with the plaintiffs possibly being sublessees. The Bureau of Lands docketed the controversy as DANR Case No. 977 and, on May 10, 1952, the Director of Lands decided in favor of the Cruz sisters.
Instead of appealing this administrative decision to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the plaintiffs filed Civil Case No. 1808 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal on July 15, 1952, against the Director of Lands and the Cruz sisters, challenging the legality of the Director’s decision. Subsequently, based on that decision, the Undersecretary of Agriculture executed a Deed of Sale of the lot to the Cruz sisters, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 27978 was issued in their name. The CFI dismissed Civil Case No. 1808 on September 21, 1954, because the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies (i.e., appeal to the Secretary). This dismissal became final. The plaintiffs then belatedly appealed to the Secretary, but their appeal was dismissed as the lot had already been sold.
On May 18, 1955, the Cruz sisters filed five separate complaints (Civil Cases Nos. 3616 to 3620) against the individual plaintiffs for recovery of possession and damages. These cases were pending when, on September 26, 1955, the plaintiffs filed the present action, Civil Case No. 3838, against the Cruz sisters, the Director of Lands, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Register of Deeds. This new suit sought to annul the Deed of Sale and cancel TCT No. 27978. The Cruz sisters moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 3838 on grounds of lis pendens (other actions pending between the same parties for the same cause) and res judicata (barred by the prior judgment in Civil Case No. 1808). The CFI granted the motion and dismissed the case, finding identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between Civil Case No. 3838 and the five pending possession cases. The plaintiffs appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed Civil Case No. 3838 on the ground of lis pendens due to identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action with the five pending cases (Civil Cases Nos. 3616-3620) for recovery of possession.
RULING
Yes, the trial court’s order of dismissal is affirmed. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s finding of identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between Civil Case No. 3838 and the five pending cases (Nos. 3616-3620).
1. Identity of Parties: This was clear, as the Cruz sisters and the individual plaintiffs were opposing parties in both sets of cases.
2. Identity of Subject Matter: The same property, Lot No. 10, was involved in all the cases.
3. Identity of Cause of Action: The core issue in both the annulment case (No. 3838) and the possession cases (Nos. 3616-3620) was the same: the legality of the Director of Lands’ decision granting the Cruz sisters preferential right to purchase the lot and the consequent validity of the sale and title issued to them. Although the five pending cases were framed as actions for recovery of possession, the right to possess was necessarily based on ownership, which would require a determination of the very issue raised in Case No. 3838—the validity of the sale to the Cruz sisters. The doctrine of res judicata (or lis pendens) applies to identical causes of action regardless of differences in the form of the actions. A party cannot escape the principle that the same cause of action shall not be litigated twice by merely varying the form of the suit.
The Court found it unnecessary to rule definitively on the alternative ground of res judicata based on the final dismissal of Civil Case No. 1808, though it noted that such a prior judgment involving the same parties, subject matter, and cause of action would also bar the present suit.