GR L 38892; (February, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-38892 February 26, 1988
BENITO LEGARDA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE VICTORIANO SAVELLANO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed this certiorari to annul orders of the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch 19) denying their motion for a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defense of res judicata and setting Civil Case No. 71669 (Villamarin case) for trial. The Villamarin case, a class suit, sought to nullify Original Certificates of Title Nos. 1348 to 1355 and all derivative titles issued to petitioners, claiming ownership for the plaintiffs. Prior to this, two other class suits involving the same parties, same properties, and same cause of action had been filed and adjudicated. In Civil Case No. 86529 (Corpuz case), Branch 30 dismissed the complaint, upholding the petitioners’ titles and finding plaintiffs barred by laches. In Civil Case No. 72687 (Arandia case), Branch 6 dismissed the action, ruling the titles were final and indefeasible and plaintiffs were estopped. Both the Corpuz decision and Arandia order had become final.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing Civil Case No. 71669 on the ground of res judicata.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding grave abuse of discretion. The elements of res judicata are conclusively present. There is a final judgment on the merits in the Corpuz and Arandia cases rendered by courts of competent jurisdiction. The identity of parties is satisfied as all cases are class suits where the plaintiffs, though not identically named individuals, sue as representatives of the same substantial class—the Manila Homeowners Association members—concerning a common interest. There is identity of subject matter, as all three cases assail the validity of the same original titles (O.C.T. Nos. 1348-1355) and their derivatives. Finally, there is identity of causes of action, as all complaints anchor their nullity claim on the alleged lack of proper publication in the original registration proceeding. Public policy and the fundamental principle of res judicata demand that litigation must end. To allow repeated suits attacking titles issued in 1907 would defeat the very essence of the Torrens system’s indefeasibility. The respondent court’s refusal to apply the conclusive bar of res judicata constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. The questioned orders were set aside and the complaint in Civil Case No. 71669 was ordered dismissed.