SANTIAGO LOPEZ AND IRINEO LOPEZ, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. JUAN MAGALLANES, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Appeal by
plaintiffs Santiago Lopez and Irineo Lopez from a decision of the Court
of First Instance of Davao, the dispositive part of which reads:

“Wherefore, this Court hereby dismisses this case
ordering the plaintiffs to segregate the eight (8) hectares portion of
the land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 2990 of the
Register of Deeds of Davao, and to deliver the corresponding title
thereof to the defendant, without special pronouncement as to costs.
The counterclaim is hereby ordered dismissed (Record on Appeal, pp.
64-65.) .

The appeal is before us for it involves only a
question of law, the case having been submitted for decision in the
lower court upon a stipulation of facts.

Plaintiffs herein were the same plaintiffs in civil case No. 507 of the
Court of First Instance of Davao against Juan Magallanes, the very same
defendant in the case at bar. That court rendered judgment in the
aforementioned case No. 507 in favor of the plaintiffs, but, on appeal
taken by the defendant, said judgment was, on February 24, 1956
reversed by the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. No. 987-R, and another one
was rendered dismissing the case. After the decision of the Court of
Appeals had become final, or on March 8, 1957, plaintiffs instituted
the present action. The lower court held that the same is barred by the
judgment in the former case, and hence rendered the decision appealed
from. The only issue for our determination is, accordingly, the
applicability of the principle of res judicata.

The identity of the parties in both cases has been expressly admitted
in the stipulation of facts. It is, likewise, admitted that the land
involved in the first case is included in the bigger land which is the
subject matter of the case at bar. The issue boils down to whether the
cause of action therein includes that settled in the first case.

It appears from the decision of the Court of Appeals in said case CA-G.R. No. 987-R, that the same was

“* * * an action to recover from the defendant the
possession of a parcel of land containing an area of about eight
hectares, situated in Malita, Davao, and damages. It is alleged in the
complaint that the signature of plaintiffs’ predecessor in interest to
the deed by which said parcel of land was conveyed to the defendant by
way of sale with right to repurchase was secured by fraud, and that
conveyance is furthermore null and void because it had not been
approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Defendant alleges in defense that he was a purchaser of said property
in good faith and for value, and that, as the plaintiffs had failed to
redeem the same within the stipulated period, he is now the absolute
owner thereof (Record on Appeal, pp. 15-16.)

The lower
court held in said case but that the deed of conveyance there involved
was “a mere equitable mortgage and ordered the defendant to vacate the
land in dispute in that case, upon payment of the sum of P800.00, with
costs against the defendant, but, on appeal, the Court of Appeals held
that the contract between the parties to said deed of conveyance was as
the same appears to be on its face, namely, a sale with the right to
repurchase”; that plaintiffs had not duly exercised their right of
redemption; and that, although said contract was null and void; because
the parties thereto had failed to secure, the approval thereof by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, which was necessary
under Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Com. Act No. 456, since
no patent had as yet been issued to plaintiffs’ father, Angel Lopez,
the latter-and, hence, his children and successors in interest-could
not invoke said illegality, he being in pari delicto. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision appealed from and dismissed the action.

In the complaint herein, filed on March 8, 1957, as amended on June 6,
1957, plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of a parcel of land of
about 16 hectares-which, as above stated, includes the land in question
in the first case-covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 2930, in
the name of the heirs of Angel Lopez, and that defendant, claims
therein an adverse interest, which is devoid of merit, thereby causing
damages to the plaintiffs in the sums of P1,000.00, as attorney’s fees,
and P4,000.00 by reason of mental anguish: Plaintiffs prayed,
therefore, that judgment be rendered declaring that defendant has no
title or interest of any kind in said land, and that plaintiffs’ title
thereto is valid and binding as against the whole world, aside from
perpetually restraining the defendant from asserting his alleged right
to said real property, and sentencing the defendant to pay said damages
to the plaintiffs.

As regards the eight hectares of land involved in the first case,
plaintiffs’ right to contest defendant’s interest therein or title
thereto has already been in issue and adversely decided in that case.
Hence, the lower court was right in applying in the case at bar the
principle of res judicata, insofar as said land is concerned.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the plaintiffs-appellants.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Reyes J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.