GR L 74992; (March, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-74992 March 28, 1988
HEIRS OF LUISA VALDEZ, HEIRS OF MA. CONSORCIA VALDEZ, and HEIRS OF ALFONSO VALDEZ, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and MILAGROS VALDEZ, respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from a 1951 action for partition filed by Luisa Valdez, Maria Consorcia Valdez, and the heirs of Alfonso Valdez against their brother, Venancio Valdez, concerning six parcels of land. A 1964 judgment ordered equal division among the parties, which was affirmed on appeal in 1972 and became final. In 1976, upon issuance of an order of execution, Milagros Valdez, Venancio’s daughter, moved for reconsideration, claiming she had purchased the undivided shares of Luisa, Maria Consorcia, and Venancio. The motion was denied. Subsequently, in 1977, Milagros filed a separate suit (Civil Case No. A-561) to recover title, praying to be declared exclusive owner or, alternatively, owner of three-fourths of the six parcels. The trial court dismissed her complaint as dilatory, but the Intermediate Appellate Court reversed, declaring Milagros the owner of Parcels I and IV and ordering her substitution in the partition.
ISSUE
The primary issues are: (1) whether the judgment in the prior partition case (Civil Case No. 510) bars the subsequent action (Civil Case No. A-561) under the principle of res judicata; and (2) whether the Appellate Court correctly adjudicated exclusive ownership of the parcels to Milagros Valdez, particularly regarding the share of the heirs of Alfonso Valdez.
RULING
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. On the first issue, res judicata does not apply. The requisites of res judicata are not all present, specifically, there is no identity of parties and causes of action between the two cases. Milagros was not a party to the first case, and her motion to intervene was rightly denied as the judgment was already executory. Consequently, she was not bound by that judgment and was free to pursue a separate action to assert her claims. The causes of action also differ: the first was for partition among admitted co-owners, while the second was for enforcement of alleged subsequent sales of undivided shares.
On the second issue, the Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s findings regarding Milagros’s acquisition of the shares of Luisa and Maria Consorcia (and her father, Venancio), as these were supported by evidence and involved factual determinations generally binding on review. However, the Court reversed the decision insofar as it declared Milagros the exclusive owner of the parcels, finding no evidence that she acquired the one-fourth share of the heirs of Alfonso Valdez. Her own complaint only sought ownership of three-fourths, implicitly acknowledging she had not acquired Alfonso’s share. Thus, the heirs of Alfonso Valdez retain their undivided one-fourth share and are entitled to participate in the partition accordingly. The dispositive portion affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision in all other respects.