ENRIQUE M. BARRETTO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. TOMAS CABAÑGIS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

The purpose of the present action was to recover the possession of a certain
piece or parcel of land described with some degree of particularity in the first
paragraph of the complaint, together with damages estimated at P105,000 with
interest and costs.

The defendant answered by a general denial and by a
special defense. In his special defense the defendant alleged:

“(a) That in certain proceedings instituted and tried in the Court
of First Instance of the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, civil case No.
3073, in which Salvadora Ocampo, Luis Abella and Geronimo Abella were
plaintiffs, and Tomas Cabañgis, the here defendant, was defendant, all and each
of the questions raised in this case were litigated and judicially
determined.

“(b) That in the said proceedings the plaintiffs claimed the
ownership of the same lands described in the complaint of record, basing their
claim on the same grounds mentioned in the complaint in this record.

“(c) That a copy of the complaint presented in the said previous
action, dated October 21, 1904, is hereby annexed, marked Exhibit A, and is
hereby referred to and made an integral part of this answer.

“(d) That in the said proceedings, the defendant, Tomas Cabañgis,
opposed the said claim of the plaintiffs, submitting the above-mentioned
question of ownership to the consideration and decision of said Court of First
Instance of the city of Manila.

“(e) That said court was and is a court of general jurisdiction,
exercising and enjoying competent jurisdiction over the parties and matter in
said proceedings.

“(f) That in the said proceedings, after determining the respective
claims of the parties, said court rendered judgment on the 9th day of February,
1907, in favor of the plaintiffs. That the defendant appealed from said judgment
to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, which tribunal, by its decision
rendered on the 28th day of December, 1908, revoked the judgment of the lower
court as follows, to wit:

” ‘Without prejudice to the filing of an extended opinion later, the judgment
appealed from is hereby reversed and the defendant is absolved from the
complaint without special finding as to costs, and twenty days hereafter let
judgment be entered in conformity herewith, and ten days later let the record be
returned to the court wherein it originated, for appropriate action. So
ordered.’

“(g) That thereafter, to wit, on January 16, 1909, the 20 days
specified in the aforesaid decision having expired, judgment was entered by the
said Supreme Court in conformity therewith, a copy of which judgment is attached
hereto, marked Exhibit B, and made a part of this answer.”

In addition to the foregoing defense the defendant further set up the defense
of prescription, alleging—

“That during more than thirty years last past, or since the year 1843, the
defendant and his immediate predecessors in interest have been and now are in
the actual, uninterrupted, open, public, and continuous possession of the land
above described, under claim of absolute title thereto, and exclusive of any
other right and adverse to all other claimants.”

Upon the issue thus presented the cause was brought on for trial on the 18th
day of July, 1912. After hearing the evidence the lower court rendered a
judgment, the dispositive part of which is as follows:

“It is accordingly considered and adjudged that plaintiff take nothing by his
complaint, and that defendant recover his costs.”

From that judgment the plaintiff appealed to this court.

“The appellant makes two assignments of error as follows:

“1. The trial court erred in holding that the matter in litigation was
res adjudicata.

“2. The trial court erred in not rendering decision in favor of appellant on
the merits.”

In relation to the first assignment of error it may be said:

First. That the plaintiff admits that he is the successor in interest of the
said Salvadora Ocampo, Luis Abella, and Geronimo Abella, mentioned in the answer
of the defendant.

Second. The record shows that the land in question in this particular case is
identically the same land which was litigated between the said Ocampo et al. and
the said Tomas Cabañgis in case No. 3073 of the Court of First Instance (R. G.
No. 3983 of the Supreme Court.)^[1]

Third. The record shows that in that case (No. 3073, Court of First Instance,
and No. 3983 of the Supreme Court) it was held that the plaintiffs were without
right to the possession of the parcel of land in question.

Fourth. The record further shows (Exhibit ZZ) that during the pendency of
said other action (R. G. No. 3983) the plaintiff herein purchased the said
parcel of land from the said plaintiffs in that action, Ocampo et al., that at
the time of said purchase, which was three days after the promulgation of the
decision in the first case (R. G. No. 3983) and before it became final, the
plaintiff herein had full knowledge of the existence of the litigation then
pending between the said Ocampo et al. and the defendant herein, as will more
fully appear by the following, which is a copy of the transfer of said property
to the plaintiff herein:

“In consideration of the agreed price in the contract of this same date and
in view of the fact that Enrique M. Barretto, a resident of this city, is
willing to defray all
the expenses and costs which heretofore may be incurred
in the action which, under No. 3983 of the general register of the Supreme Court
of these Islands, we are engaged in against Tomas Cabañgis—the latter being the
defendant and appellant, and we the plaintiffs and appellee—we solemnly
declare by these presents that we assign and convey to the said Enrique M.
Barretto, his heirs and assigns, all our rights or those which we may exercise
in the referred action as to our ownership over a piece of land in the barrio of
Vitas, in the district of Tondo, Manila, which was acquired through purchase
from the Augustinian friars by our predecessor in interest, Luis Abella y Rojo,
now deceased; and

“By virtue of this assignment and conveyance, we authorize the said Enrique
M. Barretto to continue the said action Phil. Rep., 626. against the said Tomas
Cabangis, to appeal it, if necessary, to the Supreme Court of the United States,
as well as to compromise it if he finds it convenient to his interests; all to
be done at his own account and risk and without any further liability on our
part. Should the ownership and possession of said land be decreed in our favor,
it shall be understood to have been done so in behalf of the said Enrique M.
Barretto.

“In witness whereof, We have signed this document, in Manila, Philippine
Islands, this 29th day of December, 1909.

(Sgd.)						“Salvadora Ocampo,
(Sgd.)						“Luis Abella,
(Sgd.)						“G. Abella.”
	“I agree:
			(Sgd.) “Enrique M. Barretto.
“United States of America,				}
		Philippine Islands,		}	ss.
			City of Manila.	}

“Before me, Matias Sanchez, a notary public for this city, personally
appeared Salvadora Ocampo, the widow of Abella, exempt from the cedula tax on
account of sex ; Luis Abella, of legal age, married, with cedula No. F1478929,
issued at Manila on January 26, 1909; Geronimo Abella, of legal age, married,
with cedula No. F1525554, issued at Manila on April 16, 1909; and Enrique M.
Barretto, of legal age, widower, with cedula No. F1487229, issued at Manila on
June 30, 1909, all of whom are known to me to be the same persons who executed
the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that the same is their free act and
deed.

“Manila, December 29, 1909.

(Sgd.)			“Matias Sanchez,
	“Notary Public, whose appointment expires,			December 31, 1910.”

Fifth. That the present plaintiff, even though he became the owner of
whatever interest Ocampo et al. had in the land in question before the decision
in case R. G. No. 3983 became final, did not have himself substituted in their
stead in said litigation, but, upon the contrary, permitted further proceedings
to be had, with full knowledge thereof, in that case in the name of Ocampo et
al.

Sixth. That while the plaintiff herein purchased the parcel of land in
question with full knowledge of the pendency of the litigation between his
vendors and the defendant herein, and while he made no effort to be substituted
instead of his vendors, and while he permitted certain proceedings to be had
after the date of his purchase in the name of Ocampo et al., and while the
decision in that case became final upon the 18th day of January, 1909, he did
not commence the present action until the month of November, 1911.

The decision in the former case (R. G. No. 3983) was promulgated upon the
26th day of December, 1909. The defendant with full knowledge that it had been
declared that Ocampo et al. were without right or title in the lands in
question, purchased the same upon the 29th day of December, 1909. He is,
therefore, the successor in interest of Ocampo et al. with full knowledge that
his vendors had been declared to have no interest whatever in the land in
question. He. had full knowledge that the question of the ownership of that land
had been adjudged and settled. A question decided or passed upon by a court of
competent jurisdiction is received as evidence of truth. The question of the
ownership of the land in question had been settled before the present plaintiff
became the owner thereof, of which fact he had full knowledge. He is, therefore,
bound by the result of the former litigation and cannot be permitted again to
litigate that question.

With reference to the second assignment of error the record contains a large
preponderance of evidence showing that the defendant and his predecessors had
occupied the parcel of land in question for about fifty years, quietly,
peaceably and without interruption.

After a careful examination of the record, and without discussing at greater
length the authorities cited by the appellant against the application of the
doctrine of res adjudicata, we are of the opinion and so decide that
the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed, with costs.So ordered.

Carson, Street, and Malcolm, JJ., concur.

Araullo,
J., did not sit in the case.

---

^[1] 15 Phil. Rep., 626.

---

TORRES, J., concurring:

The judgment rendered in the previous case, No. 3983, being already final, I
concur.