G.R. No. L-5078, May 4, 1953
LUIS FRANCISCO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MAXIMA VDA. DE BLAS, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Luis Francisco is the registered owner of Cadastral Lot No. 2464-A in Caloocan, Rizal. His lot is adjoined on the North by land owned by Manuel and Martin Syjuco, and on the South by land owned by Maxima Vda. de Blas. Adjoining Blas’s land on the South is a lot owned by Jose Apolonio.
On June 27, 1950, the Syjucos filed an action (Civil Case No. 287) against Francisco to recover a strip of land allegedly part of their lot and illegally occupied by him. On February 22, 1951, Blas filed a similar action (Civil Case No. 1372) against Francisco to recover another strip of land. Francisco, in his answers, admitted occupation but claimed ownership of the strips as part of his registered lot.
Instead of proceeding to trial in those cases, Francisco filed a separate action on March 31, 1951, alleging that the claims of the Syjucos and Blas constituted a cloud on his title and praying for its removal. He also included Jose Apolonio as a defendant, alleging that Apolonio’s lot, originally registered with an area of 1,147 square meters, was later given an area of 1,043 square meters in a new title, with the difference taken from Blas’s lot, and that Blas, to compensate for her loss, unjustly sought a portion of Francisco’s land.
Apolonio answered, stating the changes in his lot’s technical description were based on a lawful survey conducted with acquiescence and a court order. The Syjucos and Blas moved to dismiss the complaint against them, citing pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause. The trial court sustained the motion and dismissed the complaint as to the Syjucos and Blas, but not as to Apolonio. Francisco appealed, contending there was no identity of parties, cause of action, and relief between the present case and the two pending actions.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed Francisco’s complaint against the Syjucos and Blas on the ground of lis pendens (pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause).

RULING

Yes, the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint. For a dismissal based on lis pendens to prosper, a judgment in the first case must constitute res judicata in the second. This requires identity of parties, cause of action, and relief.
Here, there is identity of parties between Francisco’s action and the two prior actions filed by the Syjucos and Blas. As to cause of action and relief, the Court held that the doctrine of res judicata applies to identical causes of action regardless of differences in the forms of the actions. In the two prior actions, the ultimate issue is ownership of the disputed strips of land, and the relief sought is a declaration of ownership. Francisco’s present action, while labeled as an action “to quiet title,” fundamentally raises the same issue of ownership over the same strips, as the alleged cloud on his title consists precisely of the Syjucos’ and Blas’s claims of ownership. The relief of quieting title depends on resolving that same issue of ownership already raised in the pending cases.
Thus, there is identity of parties, cause of action, and relief among the three cases. A decision in the first two actions would be res judicata in the third. The order of dismissal is affirmed.