G.R. No. L-25051 September 30, 1968
JOSE B. ROXAS and VENANCIA B. ROXAS, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. PEDRO BERMUDEZ, DOMINGA MARTIN and MR. & MRS. LORETA BERMUDEZ, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On December 4, 1957, Pedro Bermudez and Loreta Bermudez filed Civil Case No. 34498 against the spouses Joaquin Andrade and Estela Martinez Andrade, the spouses Jose B. Roxas and Venancia Roxas, and Atty. Mariano Z. Sunga. They alleged that they were the children of Apolonio Bermudez, who died leaving a parcel of land. They claimed that through fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, defendant Estela Martinez Andrade secured the signature of their mother, Dominga Martin, on an Affidavit of Adjudication and later on a deed of absolute sale of the land to Joaquin Andrade. Andrade subsequently sold the land to the Roxas spouses. The plaintiffs prayed for damages. Dominga Martin intervened, making common cause with the plaintiffs and also praying for damages. The defendants, including the Roxas spouses, answered, with the Roxas spouses claiming they acquired the land in good faith and for value, evidenced by a Transfer Certificate of Title. After trial, the court dismissed the amended complaint and the complaint in intervention, as well as the defendants’ counterclaims. The appeal was dismissed for failure to pay fees, and the decision became final on February 19, 1963.
Subsequently, the Roxas spouses filed the present case, Civil Case No. 53732, to recover possession of the same land from Pedro Bermudez, Loreta Bermudez, and Dominga Martin. The defendants answered, raising the same allegations of fraud and deceit from the prior case and praying for the nullity of the sales. They also sought leave to file a third-party complaint against the Andrade spouses and Atty. Sunga. The trial court denied admission of the third-party complaint. After trial, the court held that the Roxas spouses were the absolute owners and that the decision in Civil Case No. 34498 was res judicata. It ordered the defendants to vacate and pay rentals and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in declaring that the decision in Civil Case No. 34498 constitutes res judicata to the present case.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying admission of the third-party complaint.

RULING

1. No, the trial court did not err. The decision in Civil Case No. 34498 constitutes res judicata. The court that decided it had jurisdiction, the decision was on the merits and had become final, and the subject matter (the parcel of land) was the same. Although the primary cause of action in the first case was for damages and the present case is for recovery of possession, the issue of ownership was intricately involved and necessarily adjudicated in the first case. The court in the first case found the evidence sustained the Roxas spouses’ claim of ownership, leading to the dismissal of the complaint and intervention. The rule is that when a fact or question has been directly in issue and adjudicated in a prior suit, it is conclusive in a later suit between the same parties, regardless of whether the cause of action is the same.
2. No, the trial court did not err. The allegations in the third-party complaint were reiterations of the allegations of fraud and deceit already raised and passed upon in Civil Case No. 34498. Since the issue of ownership had been conclusively resolved against the defendants in the prior case, the admission of the third-party complaint would be superfluous. The trial court correctly denied its admission.
The decision appealed from is affirmed.