RICARDO SERRANO AND FIDELA CASTALONE, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, FIDEL ADOFINA, MIGUEL ADVENTO, AND DAMIAN CANAWIN, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to
reverse and set aside the decision* of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 07174, dated 27 November 1986, affirming the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Laguna, dated 13
December 1984, in Civil Case No. S-251, which had dismissed herein
petitioners’ complaint.

The facts are not disputed. 
They are:

On separate dates, two (2) civil actions were filed before the
Regional Trial Court of Laguna, both for Quieting of Title and Recovery of
Possession with Damages and Injunction. 
In Civil Case No. S-185, herein petitioners, the spouses Ricardo Serrano
and Fidela Castalone, were
the defendants.  In Civil Case No. S-251,
the same petitioners-spouses were the plaintiffs.  Both suits involved the same property.

In Civil Case No. S-251, the complaint of the petitioners-spouses
Ricardo Serrano and Fidela Castalone
for Quieting of Title and Recovery of Possession with Damages and Injunction
was filed against the herein respondents Miguel Advento,
Damian Canawin, and Fidel Adofina.  In their complaint, the petitioners claimed
ownership over two (2) parcels of riceland located at Bo. Wawa, Kay
Bagsak, Siniloan,
Laguna.  Their claim was premised on a deed of sale allegedly executed in their favor by a certain Tomas Castalone and Maria Cuarigna.  Petitioners further alleged that
respondents (defendants) unlawfully entered the property and used the same to
the damage and prejudice of the petitioners (plaintiffs).

Respondent Miguel Advento denied the
petitioners’ claim of ownership.  He did
not, however, claim ownership for himself but admitted that he was merely a tenant of one Isabel Advento, the owner of the land.  Respondent Advento
also called attention to a civil case entitled “Isabel Advento,
et al. v. Ricardo Serrano, et al.,” docketed before the court as Civil
Case No. S-185, an action also for Quieting of Title and Recovery of Possession
with Damages and Injunction filed against petitioners and involving the same
parcels of land subject of Civil Case No. S-251.

Respondent Damian Canawin for his part
denied the claim of ownership of the petitioners.  He admitted that he was merely a tenant of
Isabel Advento, Vicente Redor,
Juanito Villegas, and Eduardo Religioso,
the owners of the said property.

Respondent Fidel Adofina in turn
admitted that he was a tenant of the disputed property, pursuant to the authority
given to him by a certain Mauro Pascasio.

During the pendency of Civil Case No.
S-251, or on 17 August 1984, the RTC of Laguna in the other case, Civil
Case No. S-185, rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs therein, Isabel Advento, et al. and against the defendants, Ricardo
Serrano, et al. (herein petitioners). 
The plain­tiffs in said
case were declared, after trial on the
merits, the owners of the land in dispute.

Herein petitioners’ appeal from the judgment in Civil Case No.
S-185 was filed beyond the reglementary period^[1]
for which reason, said judgment became final and executory.

Meanwhile, in Civil Case No. S-251, herein respondents urged the
court a quo to dismiss petitioners complaint, on the
ground that it had become moot and academic as a result of the judgment in
Civil Case No. S-185.  On 13
December 1984, the
complaint was dismissed, the court a quo holding that the decision in Civil Case No.
S-185, which had declared that the disputed parcels of land belong to Isabel Advento, et al. (and not to Ricardo Serrano, et al.) indeed
rendered the complaint in Civil Case No. S-251 moot and academic.

The decision of the RTC dismissing the complaint in Civil Case
No. S-251 was in turn questioned by the peti­tioners on appeal to the Court of
Appeals.  As already adverted to, on 27 November 1986, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC in said Civil Case No. S-251.  A motion for reconsideration was filed by the
petitioners but the same was denied on 10
March 1987.

Hence, this recourse.

The sole issue is whether or not the Court of Appeals acted
contrary to law in rendering its decision
affirming that of the court a quo dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. S-251.

The petition is devoid of merit.

In order to maintain an action to quiet title, the plaintiff must
have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the property in dispute.  Thus, Article 477 of the Civil Code provides:

“Art. 477.  The
plaintiff must have legal or
equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject
matter of the action.  He need not be in
possession of said property.”

The court a quo in Civil Case No. S-185 had ruled in
favor of Isabel Advento, et al., the plaintiffs
therein, and declared them owners of the property in dispute against defendants
therein, who are the herein petitioners. 
The judgment in Civil Case No. S-185 became final and executory; plaintiffs’ ownership over the property became
thenceforth incontestable and could no longer be disturbed.  Herein petitioners are bound by that judgment
in Civil Case No. S-185, having been impleaded
therein as defendants.

In Civil Case No. S-251 which led to the instant petition, it is
undisputed that the subject parcels of land located at Bo. Wawa,
Kay Bagsak, Siniloan,
Laguna are the very same parcels of land adjudged in Civil Case No. S-185 as
belonging to the plaintiffs therein. 
That judgment is binding not only on the parties in said case, but also
on the plaintiffs’ lessees, the herein respondents.  For a judgment is conclusive between the
parties and their successors-in-interest with respect to the matter directly
adjudged or as to any other matters that could have been raised in relation
thereto.^[2]

Besides, an issue resolved in one case cannot be re-litigated in
a subsequent case even if based on a
different cause of action but litigating the same issue.  The policy of the law is to avoid
multiplicity of suits such that
if an issue has been resolved in one case, it cannot be re-litigated in a
subsequent case even if based on a different cause of action.  This petition must fall, for it is clear that
the issue raised herein, i.e. ownership of the property
in question, had already been resolved with finality in Civil
Case No. S-185 against the herein petitioners.

Civil Case No. S-185 was decided in favor of Isabel Advento, et al., declaring them the owners of the land,
subject of the instant complaint. 
Necessarily, the cause of action of herein petitioners in Civil Case No.
S-251 re-­litigating the same issue of ownership has become moot and
academic.  That cause of action must, as
a consequence, be dismissed as against respondents who are mere lessees of
Isabel Advento, et al..  Stated differently, petitioners have no cause
of action against respondents for they (respon­dents) claim no ownership over
the above mentioned parcels of lands.  On
the contrary, they admit that the land belongs to Isabel Advento,
et al. and that they are mere tenants of said owners.

WHEREFORE, the
present petition is DENIED.  The decision
of the Court of Appeals dated 27
November 1986 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

* Penned by Justice Bienvenido C. Ejercito and concurred in by Justices Rodolfo A. Nocon and Antonio M. Martinez.

^[1]
Private respondents’ brief in the Court of Appeals, pp. 3 and 11

^[2]
JM Tuason & Co. Inc. vs. Torres, G.R. No.
L-24559, 22 July 1981, 105
SCRA 653