HEIRS OF EDUARDO JORE, NAMELY: ANASTACIA VDA. DE JORE, MARGARITO JORE, MERLINDA JORE, ADRIANO JORE (DECEASED) REP. HEREIN BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY: HIS WIFE FEDELIZA JORE, DION…

Heirs of Eduardo Jore versus Heirs of Regino Jore

The Case

This is a contest between two families over a three-hectare portion of public land in Maraya, Margosatubig, Zamboanga del Sur. The Heirs of Eduardo Jore sue the Heirs of Regino Jore for recovery of ownership and possession, with a prayer for injunction and damages. The trial court threw the complaint out on the ground of res judicata, treating an earlier possessory judgment as a bar. The Supreme Court disagrees, and the case matters because it draws the line between an action for the better right of possession and an action to recover ownership — a distinction every examinee must be able to draw on sight.

Procedural History

The story begins not in court but in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Regino Jore filed a free patent application over Lot 2969. The Heirs of Eduardo Jore opposed it, and the Regional Director of the Department ruled in their favor, ordering that a portion of about three hectares be excluded from Regino's application. Regino appealed to the Office of the Secretary, but the appeal was dismissed as filed out of time. The decision became final and executory, and the Department issued an Order of Execution, which it held in abeyance when Regino filed a complaint for injunction. A second Order of Execution followed.

The Heirs of Regino then filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages with preliminary mandatory injunction before the Regional Trial Court of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 29. That court ruled in their favor, ordering the Heirs of Eduardo to vacate the three-hectare portion. That judgment became final and executory, and the Heirs of Eduardo were installed pursuant to it.

Later, free patents were issued and original certificates of title were awarded to members of the Eduardo Jore side. On August 12, 2008, the Heirs of Eduardo filed the present complaint for recovery of ownership and possession. The trial court dismissed it by Order dated June 6, 2011, holding that the earlier possessory judgment barred the action under the principle of bar by prior judgment. The Heirs of Eduardo went straight to the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal, assigning a single error: that the trial court gravely erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of res judicata.

Facts

Regino Jore applied for a free patent over Lot 2969. Eduardo Jore's heirs opposed, claiming that a portion of about three hectares, identified as Lot 27 and allocated to Eduardo, had been included in Regino's application. The Regional Director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources sustained the opposition and directed that the three-hectare area be excluded from Regino's application, with the remaining portion given due course subject to the rights of tenants. The decision became final after Regino's appeal was dismissed for being filed out of time.

Regino's heirs then obtained a judgment from the Regional Trial Court of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 29, in a possessory action, declaring the possession of the Eduardo Jore heirs over the three-hectare portion illegal and ordering them to vacate. That judgment became final and executory, and the Eduardo Jore heirs were installed on the land by the sheriff.

Afterwards, free patent applications were processed, and original certificates of title were issued to members of the Eduardo Jore side over subdivided lots. Relying on these titles, the Heirs of Eduardo Jore filed the present complaint for recovery of ownership and possession. The trial court dismissed it on the ground of res judicata, reasoning that the issue of possession had already been finally adjudicated and that the titles issued by the Bureau of Lands had no basis in fact because they rested on a possession the court had declared illegal.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of res judicata.
• Whether or not the present action for recovery of ownership is barred by the final judgment in the earlier action for recovery of possession.

Applicable Provisions

Section 47 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Section 47. The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows: (a) In case of a judgment or final order against a specific thing, or in respect to the probate of a will, or the administration of the estate of a deceased person, or in respect to the personal, political, or legal condition or status of a particular person or his relationship to another, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will or administration, or the condition, status or relationship of the person; however, the probate of a will or granting of letters of administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death of the testator or intestate; (b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; (c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.

This provision supplies the requisites of res judicata and its two concepts, bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment, which the Court uses to test whether the dismissal below was correct.

Ruling

The appeal is meritorious. On the first issue, the Court holds that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint, so it examined the allegations of both complaints side by side. The earlier complaint was an accion publiciana, a plenary action for the recovery of the right to possess, which must be brought in the regional trial court when the dispossession has lasted for more than one year. The present complaint is an accion reivindicatoria, which seeks recovery of ownership and includes the right to possess, brought in the proper regional trial court. The Court explains that an action to recover ownership alleges ownership over the land and seeks full possession, and is different from an action where the plaintiff merely alleges a better right to possess without a claim of title.

On the second issue, the Court applies the requisites of res judicata: finality of the former judgment, jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, a judgment on the merits, and identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second actions. The Court notes that at first blush the two complaints seem identical, but the fourth requisite is wanting. The earlier judgment ruled on who had the better possessory right independent of title; the present action concerns title itself. The Court also quotes its own earlier ruling that the three-hectare portion was then untitled public land open to application, and that the actual tillers were entitled to apply. Hence the present action is not barred, and there is sufficient evidence to warrant a remand for trial on the merits.

Doctrine

First, jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint, not by the reliefs prayed for or the outcome of the case.

Second, an accion publiciana is a plenary action for the recovery of the right to possess, while an accion reivindicatoria seeks recovery of ownership and includes the right to possess. They are distinct causes of action.

Third, res judicata as a bar by prior judgment under Section 47 of Rule 39 requires the concurrence of four requisites: finality of the former judgment, jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, a judgment on the merits, and identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Where the causes of action differ — one being possessory and the other a claim of ownership — the fourth requisite is absent and the later action may proceed.

Disposition

The appeal is granted; the Order of dismissal is reversed and set aside, and the case is remanded to the trial court for trial on the merits.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a final judgment on possession does not bar a later action to recover ownership, because the causes of action are not identical. Examiners use this case to test the accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria distinction and the four requisites of res judicata.