G.R. No. L-8046; August 11, 1913
MAXIMINO DONATO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PETRONA MENDOZA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Maximino Donato filed a complaint against Petrona Mendoza in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, alleging he was the lawful owner of five-sixths of a lot and house in Vigan. He claimed that Mendoza had usurped the property around 1903 and refused to vacate despite demands, causing him damages. He sought a declaration of ownership, delivery of the property, and damages. Mendoza, in her answer, raised the defense of res judicata. She asserted that the same claim over the five-sixths share had already been litigated in a prior case (No. 325) between the same parties for partition of property, wherein the court absolved her, finding Donato failed to prove his ownership and co-ownership. Donato did not appeal that prior judgment. The trial court in the present case upheld the defense of res judicata and absolved Mendoza. Donato appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the defense of res judicata is applicable, barring Donato’s present action for recovery of ownership/possession.

RULING

Yes, the defense of res judicata is applicable. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court found perfect identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the present suit and the prior case (No. 325). In both cases, Donato claimed a right to five-sixths of the same property based on ownership. Although the prior action was formally for partition and the present one for recovery, the fundamental cause of action in both was Donato’s alleged right of ownership over the five-sixths share. The final judgment in the prior case, which Donato did not appeal, conclusively adjudicated that he had not proven such ownership or co-ownership. Therefore, pursuant to Section 307 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the matter is res judicata and cannot be relitigated. The Court deemed it unnecessary to examine the other assigned errors or the merits of Donato’s claim.