G.R. No. L-20996 July 30, 1966
ALEJO ABES, ET AL., plaintiffs and appellants, vs. TOMAS RODIL and CATALINA CRUZ, defendants and appellees.

FACTS

In the Peñaranda cadastral proceedings, Lots 3417, 3423, 3424, 3753, and 3754 were claimed by defendant spouses Tomas Rodil and Catalina Cruz, and also by Alejandro Abes, the plaintiffs’ ancestor. On October 11, 1958, the cadastral court adjudicated the lots to the defendants, and Torrens title was issued to them on December 10, 1958. On February 26, 1959, the heirs of Alejandro Abes filed a petition for review of the registration decree, alleging fraud and claiming true ownership and actual legal possession. The cadastral court gave due course, held a hearing where evidence was presented, and on July 7, 1961, denied the petition, finding the heirs failed to overcome the evidence of the defendants. No appeal was taken from this order. Instead, on September 4, 1961, the plaintiffs filed a separate suit for reconveyance and damages against the defendants, alleging the same ground of fraud in procuring the registration. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. The trial court dismissed the complaint on December 13, 1962, and denied reconsideration on January 16, 1963, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the present action for reconveyance is barred by res judicata due to the prior cadastral proceedings and the denial of the petition for review.

RULING

Yes, the action is barred by res judicata. The requisites for res judicata are present: (1) the cadastral court’s judgment and order denying the petition for review are final; (2) the cadastral court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties; (3) the judgment was on the merits, as ownership was adjudicated; and (4) there is identity of parties (the heirs of Abes vs. the Rodils), identity of subject matter (the same lots), and identity of cause of action (ownership based on allegations of fraud). The cadastral proceeding was in rem, binding the whole world, including the plaintiffs. The petition for review was a full hearing on the merits where the plaintiffs presented evidence on ownership and fraud, which the court found insufficient. The present action for reconveyance, though differently labeled, ultimately litigates the same issue of ownership. The test for res judicata—whether the same evidence would support both the former and present causes of action—is satisfied, as both cases revolve around evidence of ownership and fraud. The order denying the petition for review has become final and precludes relitigation. The orders of dismissal are affirmed.