Javier v. Veridiano II
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Felicidad Javier filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application for Lot No. 1641 in 1963. In December 1970, she filed a complaint for forcible entry against Ben Babol, alleging dispossession of a portion of the lot (approx. 200 sq. meters) through scheme, strategy, and stealth, involving destruction of her fence and removal of monuments. The City Court dismissed the forcible entry case, finding the area in question to be outside Lot 1641. This dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the Court of First Instance (CFI) on April 30, 1973, holding that petitioner failed to prove the area was within her lot. Procedural History: Subsequently, petitioner was granted a Miscellaneous Sales Patent and issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-3259 for Lot No. 1641. Ben Babol sold the property he occupied, including the disputed portion, to Reino Rosete. Petitioner demanded the surrender of the disputed area from Rosete, who refused. On June 29, 1977, petitioner filed a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession with damages against Babol and Rosete before the CFI. Rosete moved to dismiss on the ground of res judicata, which the CFI granted in an Order dated January 27, 1978. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari, contending that res judicata cannot apply due to the lack of identity of parties and causes of action between the forcible entry case and the quieting of title case. She argued that Rosete was not a party in the first case and that the causes of action were different (possession vs. ownership). Private respondent Rosete argued that he was a successor in interest and that neither case alleged a cause of action.
Issue(s)
Whether res judicata bars the subsequent action for quieting of title and recovery of possession. Whether there is identity of parties between the forcible entry case and the quieting of title case. Whether there is identity of causes of action between the forcible entry case and the quieting of title case.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Order dated January 27, 1978, of the Court of First Instance of Zambales, Br. I, dismissing Civil Case No. 2203-0, and its subsequent Order denying reconsideration are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The records are ordered remanded to the court of origin for trial with deliberate dispatch. The decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether res judicata bars the subsequent action: The Court held that for res judicata to apply, four requisites must concur: (1) a final judgment or order; (2) jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter; (3) the former judgment is a judgment on the merits; and (4) identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. While the first three requisites and identity of subject matter were not disputed, the Court found no identity of causes of action. On the issue of identity of parties: The Court ruled that petitioner's argument of no identity of parties was without merit. It reiterated the principle that absolute identity is not required, only substantial identity. The Court cited Section 49(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which states that a judgment is conclusive between parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action. Private respondent Reino Rosete was a successor in interest by title of Ben Babol, the defendant in the first action, and thus there was substantial identity of parties. On the issue of identity of causes of action: The Court found merit in petitioner's argument that there was no identity of causes of action. Civil Case No. 926 was a complaint for forcible entry (accion interdictal), which concerns only prior physical possession (possession de facto) and not ownership. The philosophy behind this remedy is to maintain peace and prevent dispossession by force, regardless of title. In contrast, Civil Case No. 2203-0, despite its caption, was in reality an action to recover ownership and possession (accion reivindicatoria) under Article 434 of the Civil Code. In this subsequent case, petitioner expressly alleged ownership and prayed to be declared the rightful owner and given possession, thereby raising the question of ownership. A judgment in a forcible entry case is conclusive only on possession and does not bind the title or affect ownership. Therefore, the prior judgment in the forcible entry case did not bar the subsequent action for recovery of ownership.
Main Doctrine
A prior judgment in a forcible entry case (accion interdictal) does not bar a subsequent action for recovery of ownership and possession (accion reivindicatoria) because there is no identity of causes of action, as the former only concerns possession de facto while the latter involves ownership and possession de jure.