DALMACIO CABAÑERO AND MARIA LIMJUCO, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. MARCELO TESORO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

In Civil Case No. 19883 of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
plaintiffs Marcelo Tesoro, Antonia Tesoro, and David Tesoro sought to
recover from the spouses Dalmacio Cabañero and Maria Limjuco the
possession of a house and lot situated in Barrio Obrero, City of
Manila, registered in the name of plaintiffs’ deceased father, Cirilo
Tesoro, under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 38022 of the Register
of Deeds of Manila. In defense, defendants claimed to have purchased
the property in question from the late Cirilo Tesoro, the registered
owner. After trial, the court found that plaintiffs, as the heirs of
the registered owner, were entitled to the possession of the property
in question, without prejudice to defendants’ right to prove their
alleged purchase in a proper action; and rendered judgment for the
plaintiffs. On appeal to the Court of Appeals by defendants, the
appellate Court held the sale of the property by Cirilo Tesoro to
defendants-appellants to have been duly established and that appellants
were the ones entitled to the possession thereof by virtue of said
purchase; and reversed the judgment of the court below and dismissed
the complaint. Plaintiffs-appellees tried to appeal the judgment to
this Court, but we dismissed the petition for review (G. R. No.
L-10138) for lack of merit.

Subsequently, the spouses Dalmacio Cabañero and Maria Limjuco filed
against the Tesoros Civil Case No. 32502 in the Manila Court, to compel
the latter to execute in their favor the formal deed of sale of the
same property involved in the first case between the same parties and
sold to the plaintiff spouses by the registered owner Cirilo Tesoro
under a private deed of sale, to quiet their title over the property
and to enable them to obtain a transfer certificate of title in their
name. Defendants Tesoros moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground
of res judicata, alleging that the question raised by the
complaint had already been adjudicated by the Court of Appeals and this
Court in the previous Civil Case No. 19883 between the same parties.
The trial court found favorably for the motion and dismissed the
complaint. Plaintiffs moved to reconsider the order of dismissal but
failed. Whereupon, they appealed to this Court.

We agree with appellants that the lower court erred in holding that
their present action for quieting of title and execution of a formal
deed of sale is barred by res judicata or prior judgment in Civil Case No. 19883 between the same parties.

The previous case between the parties herein was merely a plenary action for recovery of possession or accion publiciana.
In such an action, the only question involved is who, as between the
parties, has the better right to possess the premises in question
(Bishop of Cebu vs. Mangaron, 6 Phil., 286; Ledesma vs. Marcos, 9 Phil., 618; Roman Catholic Bishop of Lipa vs.
Municipality of San Jose, Batangas, 27 Phil., 571). Thus, the Court of
Appeals though it found in the first case (C. C. No. 19883) that
defendants (now plaintiffs-appellants) had purchased the premises in
question from the registered owner Cirilo Tesoro, limited its judgment
to holding that “the appellants are entitled to the possession of the
property in question and that this action for recovery of possession is
devoid of cause and should be dismissed” (Record on Appeal, pp. 23-24),
and accordingly ordered the dismissal of the complaint for recovery of
possession. Since the right to the possession of the property in
question was the only issue before the court, it could not have
disposed of any other issue than possession.

The lower court held, and appellees herein urge, that this Court had
resolved the question of ownership in said Civil Case No. 19883 when,
refusing to give due course to plaintiffs Tesoros’ petition for the
review of the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing their
complaint for recovery of possession, we said that “the question of
title or ownership may not be invoked” in said case. We are at a loss
haw this statement can possibly be interpreted as a passing upon the
question of title in that particular case when, precisely, we refused
to entertain the question of title urged in the petition for review,
with the effect that the conclusions and findings of the Court of
Appeals as to herein appellant’s superior right to possess became
conclusive and binding on the parties.

The present case, upon the other hand, involves a matter and cause
of action distinct and apart from the previous issue of possession
raised and adjudged by the Court of Appeals in Civil Case No. 19883
between the same parties. In this case, appellants seek to compel the
appellees, as heirs of the registered owner Cirilo Tesoro who, during
his lifetime, sold the property in question to them under a private
writing, to execute a formal deed of sale over said property, to enable
them (appellants) to obtain a transfer certificate of title in their
name and quiet their title over the premises. This action is authorized
by Article 1357, in relation to Article 476, of the New Civil Code, and
is not barred by the final judgment in Civil Case No. 19883 that is res judicata only in so far as herein appellants were held to have the better right to possess the property in question.

The order dismissing appellants’ complaint is, therefore, reversed
and set aside, and the case shall be remanded to the court of origin
for further proceedings on the merits. Costs against appellees Tesoro.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.