GR L 16930; (July, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16930; July 31, 1964
GERTRUDES MANALO VDA. DE RIVAS, NORMANDO RIVAS, BERNARDO RIVAS, JR. and TITO RIVAS, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FRANCISCO ALAS and ROMAN ALAS, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The plaintiffs-appellants, the Rivas family, previously sued the defendants-appellees, the Alas brothers, for recovery of ownership and damages (Civil Case No. R-489). In that first case, the plaintiffs specifically prayed for P1,000.00 as damages and P100.00 every three months during the pendency of the action. The Court of First Instance declared the plaintiffs as absolute owners and awarded them P246.25 as damages (“daños y perjuicios”). This judgment was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals. The defendants paid this P246.25 award, and the plaintiffs were placed in possession of the property on May 15, 1955.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed the instant case before the Justice of the Peace Court, seeking P720.00 as the value of their share in the fruits of the property from May 28, 1951 (the date of the first decision) until May 15, 1955 (the date of delivery of possession), a period covering the pendency of the appeal in the first case. The JP Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the CFI dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata, holding the claim for damages was barred by the prior judgment.
ISSUE
Whether the present action to recover the value of fruits during the pendency of the appeal in the first case is barred by the principle of res judicata.
RULING
Yes, the action is barred. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The legal logic rests on the conclusive nature of a final judgment under the doctrine of res judicata. A judgment is conclusive not only on matters actually determined but also on every other matter that the parties could have litigated and decided as incident to or essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation. In the first case (Civil Case No. R-489), the plaintiffs’ prayer for damages was explicitly framed to include not only a lump sum (P1,000.00) but also continuing damages of P100.00 every three months during the pendency of the action. The trial court’s award of P246.25 as damages, affirmed on appeal without any condition or qualification, is presumed to be a full adjudication of all damage claims up to the finality of that judgment. The plaintiffs, having failed to appeal from that award, are now precluded from relitigating the issue of damages for any period within the scope of their original claim, which included the period during the appeal. Allowing this new suit would sanction a multiplicity of actions and violate the finality of the prior adjudication.