G.R. No. L-17988 March 31, 1967
POMPENIANO ESPINOSA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. AURELIA BELDA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

In a 1940 cadastral decision, Lot No. 214 was subdivided. Lot No. 214-A was awarded to Abon (Bagobo). On February 26, 1954, the Chief of the Land Registration Office issued the final decree of registration for Lot No. 214-A, and on March 15, 1954, Original Certificate of Title No. O-41 was issued to Abon. On the same day, Abon’s heirs, through a special power of attorney, authorized Francisco Otto to sell the land. On April 6, 1954, Francisco Otto sold it to Francisco Belda, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-5250 was issued in the vendee’s name. On May 26, 1954, the appellants filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. No. 15441 -R) seeking the review and cancellation of O.C.T. No. O-41, alleging it was secured through fraud and that the 1940 decision was not final. The Court of Appeals, in a December 6, 1957 decision, rejected these contentions, affirmed the validity of the title, and specifically found Francisco Belda to be a purchaser in good faith. After this decision became final, on February 20, 1959, the appellants filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Davao (Civil Case No. 2951) praying for the cancellation of T.C.T. No. T-5250, again alleging fraud in its acquisition. The trial court dismissed the complaint on grounds of failure to state a cause of action and res judicata.

ISSUE

1. Whether the complaint states a cause of action.
2. Whether the complaint is barred by res judicata.

RULING

1. No, the complaint fails to state a cause of action. The appellants, in their own complaint, admitted they entered the land knowing it was part of the public domain and that they were merely petitioners with the Bureau of Lands for homestead applications covering their occupations. They asserted no ownership right over the land, only that they had filed homestead applications for portions they had developed. Since they admitted they were not owners, no right of theirs could have been violated by the issuance of title to another. A legal right of the plaintiff is an essential element of a cause of action, and without a right to enforce or protect, no action can be sustained.
2. Yes, the complaint is barred by res judicata. All elements are present: the Court of Appeals decision was final and executory before the filing of the complaint; it was a decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; and the parties, causes of action, and subject matters in the Court of Appeals case and Civil Case No. 2951 are identical. The order of the trial court dismissing the complaint is affirmed.