VALISNO v PLAN FACTS:
1. Spouse Spousess Vali alisno sno purchas purchased ed from the legal heirs heirs of Blanco Blanco two parcels of land. 2. Thereaf Thereafter, ter, Spouses Spouses Valisno Valisno declared declared the parcels parcels of land in their name for taxation purposes and exercised exclusive possession thereof in he concept of owners by installing a caretaer, who had his house built thereon. !. Subs Subse" e"ue uent ntly ly,, priva private te resp respond onden entt Vicen icenci cio o #a #aya yaba ba,, clai claime med d ownership over the land by virtue of a deed of sale executed in his name by the heirs of Verano. $e ousted the caretaer in the land and erected a % door&apartment thereon. '. Thus, Spouses Spouses Valisno Valisno institut instituted ed before before #() a complaint complaint against #ayaba for recovery recovery of possession of sail land. The decision was was for Valisno who were declared owners thereof. *. +pon appeal, appeal, # reverse reversed d -T -T#s decision. decision. /othing in evidence will show that the parties property encr encroa oach ches es,, much much less less co cove vers rs that that of the the prop proper erty ty of #aya #a yaba ba,, exce cept pt the the se self lf&s &ser ervi ving ng set setch ch prep prepar ared ed by Spouses Valisnos own witness. # refused to give any weight to this evidence because it was prep prepar are ed by so som meone one who has has an ince ncenti ntive to exaggerate or give false color to his statement or to state what is false. s the land occupied by #ayaba has not been successfully identi0ed with that described in the complaint, the action sould be dismissed under rticle '!' of /## )t is undisputed that the appellant is the present occupant of the land since he purchased the same from Tomasita (. Verano on 3une !4, 15%6, having constructed a six&door apartment in the premises which he lets to both transients and residents of the locality. Being the actual possessor of the property, he, therefore, possesses it with a 7ust title and he need not show or prove why he is possessing the same. Between the evidence of the appellees and that of the appellant, # unhesitatingly choose the latter in the matter of iden identi tify fyin ing g the the prop proper erty ty in "ues "uesti tion on beca becaus use e it is a vicinity showing the position of the land in relation not only to the properties ad7oining the same but also with nown boundaries boundaries and landmars landmars in the area. 8n the other hand, the appellees9 evidence, particularly the description in Tax :eclaration /o. 16445, is unreliable, since the area and •
•
•
•
•
boundaries of the property are mere estimations, reached thru pure guess&wor. The proposition that in identifying a particular piece of land its boundaries and not the area are the main factors to be considered holds true only when the boundaries given are su;ciently certain and the identity of the land proved by the boundaries clearly indicates that an erroneous statement concerning the area can be disregarded. petition for certiorari was 0led in the S# but was denied. lso, #ayuga 0led an application for registration in his name of title of the lands in "uestion basing his entitlement in the deed of sale and the decision of the appellate court. Valisno 0led an opposiotion but #ayuga moved for dismissal on the ground that the same is barred by prior 7udgment. $ence, this petition. •
%. 6. <. 5.
ISSUE: W/N res judicata can be set up in a and re!istrati"n case# $EL%: &ES#
1. =hile in a cadastral case, res 7udicata is available to a claimant in order to defeat the alleged rights of another claimant, nevertheless, prior 7udgment can not be set up in a motion to dismiss. $owever, the -8#, instead of prohibiting expressly, authori>es the lower court in land registration or cadastral proceedings to entertain a motion for dismissal on the ground of res 7udicata or prescription. 8f course, the dismissal of petitioners claim will not necessarily or automatically mean ad7udication of title to the individual respondents but it will certainly facilitate the consideration of their claims which cease to be contested. ?rompt disposal of cases or such claims is the main purpose of said rules. @et there be no retrogression in the application of sound rules and doctrines. (inal 7udgment in an ordinary civil case determining the ownership of certain land is res 7udicata in a registration case when the parties and the property are the same as in the former case. 2. The principle of res 7udicata is applicable in the case at bar. The re"uisites are the A 1 (ormer 7udgment must be 0nalC 2 )t must have been rendered by a court having 7urisdiction of the sub7ect matters and of the partiesC ! )t must be 7udgment on the meritsC ! There must be between the 0rst and second actions identity of parties, of sub7ect matter and cause of action. The decision in #. D.-. /o. %41'2&- is a 0nal 7udgment on the merits rendered by a court which had 7urisdiction over the sub7ect matter and the parties. There is, between the registration case under consideration and the previous civil •
•
action for recovery of property, identity of parties, sub7ect matter and cause of action. The inclusion of a co&owner in the application for registration does not result in a diAerence in parties between the two cases. 8ne right of a co&owner is to defend in court the interests of the co& ownership =hile the complaint in the 0rst action is captioned for recovery of possession, the allegations and the prayer for relief therein raise the issue of ownership. )n eAect, it is in the nature of an accion reinvidicatoria. The second case is for registration of title. #onse"uently, between the two cases there is identity of causes of action because in accion reinvidicatoria, possession is sought on the basis of ownership and the same is true in registration cases.-egistration of title in ones name is based on ownership. )n both cases, the plaintiA and the applicant see to exclude other persons from ownership of the land in "uestion. The only diAerence is that in the former case, the exclusion is directed against particular persons, while in the latter proceedings, the exclusion is directed against the whole world. /onetheless, the cause of action remains the same
