RUDY MARTIN AND CONCEPCION MARTIN-UGALDE, REPRESENTED BY RUDY MARTIN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. AGAPITO BENITEZ, CEFERINA BENITEZ, ALMIRA BENITEZ-ALMIROL, AND RODRIGO BIBAS, JR…

Martin versus Benitez

The Case

This is an appeal by Rudy Martin and Concepcion Martin-Ugalde against Agapito Benitez, Ceferina Benitez, Almira Benitez-Almirol, and Rodrigo Bibas, Jr. The Martins sued to recover a one thousand square meter portion of a registered lot in San Jose City, Nueva Ecija, which the Benitezes had occupied and built upon. The trial court threw the complaint out on the ground of res judicata, because an earlier accion publiciana over the same land had been dismissed. The Supreme Court had to decide whether a judgment in an action for possession bars a later action for ownership. It matters because it draws the clean line between accion publiciana and accion reinvindicatoria, a distinction examiners test again and again.

Procedural History

The Martins filed a complaint for recovery of property, preliminary injunction, and damages before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, San Jose City. The trial court denied their application for a writ of injunction. The Benitez spouses later died, and their children moved for substitution. Acting on the affirmative defense of bar by prior judgment, the trial court, by Resolution dated January 25, 2013, dismissed the case on the ground of res judicata. It denied the Martins' motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated April 15, 2013. The Martins then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal, and the Supreme Court granted the appeal.

Facts

The Martins claimed to be the registered owners of a parcel of land measuring 3,358 square meters, covered by a transfer certificate of title, and possessed by their parents since time immemorial. The land had been mortgaged in 1980 to a lawyer who never took possession, and in 2002 the Martins redeemed and registered it in their names. Out of liberality toward long-time neighbors, they allowed the Benitezes to occupy a portion. Beginning in 1990, the Benitezes built a house, a pig pen, a carabao house, and a store room, and in 2004 Agapito Benitez fenced in the improvements, comprising about 1,000 square meters. Rodrigo Bibas, Jr. also began building a house beside Almira Benitez-Almirol's house. Verbal demands in 2001 and 2004 went unheeded.

Earlier, Rudy Martin had filed a complaint for accion publiciana against Agapito and Ceferina Benitez before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, San Jose City. By Decision dated December 12, 2008, that court dismissed the complaint, for failure to institute the proper action and failure to establish the case by preponderance of evidence. It noted that the complaint did not identify the portion of the property sought to be recovered.

In their answer in the present case, the Benitezes claimed possession since 1929, when Agapito's father began farming the area, and invoked res judicata, laches, and prescription. The trial court dismissed the complaint on res judicata, and the Martins appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the dismissal of the earlier accion publiciana operates as res judicata barring the present action for recovery of ownership.
• Whether or not there is identity of subject matter and identity of causes of action between the two cases.
• Whether or not an accion reinvindicatoria may proceed despite a final judgment in an accion publiciana over the same land.

Applicable Provisions

Article 434 of the Civil Code provides:

In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim.

The Court cites this provision to explain why the first case failed and why the second case, which specifically identified the one thousand square meter portion, is a different action.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that res judicata did not bar the complaint. It laid down the elements: the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; the disposition must be a judgment on the merits; and there must be, as between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. The first three elements were present and even admitted. Only the fourth was in dispute.

On the second issue, the Court found that only identity of parties was present. Identity of parties does not require absolute identity, only substantial identity, and here the parties were identical save for the addition of Rodrigo Bibas, Jr. as a co-defendant. But identity of subject matter was absent: in the first case the portion claimed was not identified, while in the second the Martins specifically identified the one thousand square meter portion occupied by the Benitezes. Identity of causes of action was likewise absent: the first was accion publiciana, an action to determine who has the better right of possession, while the second was accion reinvindicatoria, an action to recover ownership.

On the third issue, the Court held that an accion reinvindicatoria is not barred by a judgment in an ejectment case, which delves only on possession. Accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title, while accion reinvindicatoria seeks recovery of ownership and includes the rights to possess, to use, and to enjoy. A judgment in an ejectment case disposes of no other issue than possession and does not bar an action to determine title.

Doctrine

For the Bar, retain these rules. Res judicata requires four elements: a final judgment, rendered by a court with jurisdiction, on the merits, and with identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. All four must concur; the absence of any one defeats the bar. Identity of parties means substantial, not absolute, identity. Accion publiciana and accion reinvindicatoria are distinct causes of action: the first determines the better right of possession independently of title, the second recovers ownership. A judgment in an ejectment or possession case does not bar a later action for ownership, because it resolves nothing beyond possession. And under Article 434 of the Civil Code, the property must be identified in an action to recover, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own title.

Disposition

The appeal was granted; the twin resolutions of the trial court were reversed and set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for disposition on the issue of ownership.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an accion reinvindicatoria is not barred by a judgment in an accion publiciana, for they are distinct causes of action, one for ownership and the other for possession. Examiners use this case to test the four elements of res judicata and the difference between the two real actions.