ANTONIO FACTOR ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. ISIDRA MANUEL ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an action for damages brought by
the plaintiffs and appellees against the defendants and appellants by
reason of a final decree of registration which, plaintiffs claimed, the
defendants obtained fraudulently, and by which they were deprived of
their property. After due trial, the court below found for the
plaintiffs and, instead of awarding them the damages sought, ordered
the defendants co convey to the plaintiffs the property alleged to have
been illegally registered, and to pay to the latter the sum of P1,260
as damages for income derived from the property during the year
1926-1927, and a like sum yearly thereafter and until the delivery of
the possession of said property to the plaintiffs. From this judgment:
the defendants prosecuted this appeal.

The principal question raised by the appellants is that of res adjudicata.
On this point, the evidence shows that, as to that part of the property
claimed by Antonio Factor, the issues now raised have already been
concluded by a suit for the recovery of property began by the
appellants in 1914 against said Antonio Factor and decided on appeal by
this court in 1918 in favor of the former.^[1]
The record further shows that in 1919 appellants applied for the
registration in their names of a parcel of land described in an
unperfected possessory information title issued in the name of their
father Tomas Manuel, deceased. Said application was opposed by the
herein appellees, and the principal issues thus raised concerned, among
other things, the identity and area of the land sought to be
registered, and the respective rights of the parties to said land.
After a protracted trial, the court below in February 1924 dismissed
appellees’ opposition and decreed the registration of the land in the
names of the appellants. From this order the then opponents, appellees
herein, appealed to this court, but this court affirmed said order in
November 1924.^[1] In or
about January 1925 appellees herein filed a petition for review of the
decree on the ground of fraud, which petition was denied after due
hearing.

In the meantime, in 1924, appellants brought an action against the
appellees to recover damages for unlawful possession of the property in
question. In said case, numbered 3680 in the court below, appellees set
up, as special defenses, the very grounds on which their petition for
review of the decree of registration was based. After due trial, the
court below, in an elaborate opinion in which it recited in full the
evidence adduced by the appellees in substantiation of their defenses,
decided the case in favor of the appellants. From said decision the
appellees appealed, which appeal was dismissed by this court for lack
of merit.

In another suit filed by the appellants against the appellees for
damages by reason of fruits and other products gathered by the latter
from the property in question during the year 1926, the appellees’
appear to have set up practically the same defenses interposed in the
previous civil case No. 3680. On motion of counsel for the appellees,
the decision in the case was held in abeyance until the decision of
this court in civil case No. 3680 was promulgated, whereupon judgment
was rendered by the court below in favor of the appellants.

Scarcely one month had elapsed from the date of the promulgation of
the decision of this court in civil case No. 3680, the present suit was
begun by the appellees. This suit is predicated on substantially the
same facts as those alleged in the petition filed by the appellees for
review of the decree of registration above adverted to, which were also
the same facts upon which their defenses in the two civil actions were
based.

It is thus clear that the rights asserted in the instant case have
already been concluded, as to Antonio Factor, by four decisions of the
court below and by three of this court; and, as to the other appellees,
by three decisions of the court below, and by two of this court. In
disposing of the appeal in the aforesaid civil case No. 3680, which
affected all the parties herein, this court said: “This is a futile
effort on the part of the appellants (appellees herein) to retry title
to land which has been determined against them in a land registration
proceeding * * *” And continued: “Perhaps the nearest point that comes
to be a debatable question in the case is whether or not the defendants
(appellees herein) might be considered possessors in good faith of the
land during the time the fruits and produce in question were taken, but
in view of ancient litigation and pendency of the registration
proceeding No. 798, this contention is evidently without merit.”

In deciding the instant case in favor of the appellees the lower court relied on Estrellado and Alcantara vs.
Martinez (48 Phil., 256). But this case is not in point. This was an
action for damages instituted by Estrellado who was wrongfully deprived
of her land by virtue of a decree of registration issued in favor of
Martinez. In the registration proceeding, Estrellado was not made a
party. When she sought a review of said decree on the ground of fraud,
her petition was denied on the sole ground that no fraud was proven,
but her right to the land claimed by her was fully recognized in the
order of denial. Moreover, Estrellado’s rights were not concluded by
judgments such as those rendered against the appellees in the present
case.

In view of the conclusion we have reached, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the other questions raised by the appellants.

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, reversed and the
complaint herein dismissed, with costs against the appellees in both
instances. So ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Butte, and Diaz, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] G. R. No. 13029. Manuel vs. Factor and Mendez, promulgated August 24, 1918, not reported.

^[1] G. R. No. 22397. Manuel vs. Mabalay, promulgated November 19, 1924, not reported.