THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Petitioner, v.

MARCELINO
ADORABLE, ET AL., claimants; MIGUEL PEARANDA,
claimant-appellant;
PURIFICACION
SOLINAP,
ET
AL., Claimants-Appellees.
Evidente, Butalid & Pearanda, for claimant-appellant.
Manuel

F.

Zamora,

for Claimants-Appellees.

SYLLABUS
1. ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW; STANDARDS OF TRUTHFULNESS, FAIR
PLAY AND NOBILITY; CASE AT BAR, AN EXAMPLE TO BE
REMEMBERED. In this case the attorney for the claimants and
appellees, acting under the highest standards of truthfulness, fair
play and nobility as becomes a deserving member of the bar,
instead of taking advantage of claimant and appellants ignorance
of what really happened in the Court of Appeals, informed this
court that the case had been decided in favor of said claimant and
appellant by the Court of Appeals, filing to said effect the copy of
the decision promulgated on September 9, 1942, sent to him by
said court, to save the appellant the trouble of waiting for the
reconstitution of this case and this tribunal the trouble of deciding
again a case already decided. This is an example worth
remembering by all members of the bar.
RESOLUTION
PERFECTO, J.:
At the reconstitution of the above-entitled case, claimantappellant presented copies of several papers, exhibits, pleadings,
motions and orders, including copy of the decision of the Court of
First Instance of Iloilo, record on appeal, and the time the printed
brief of said claimant-appellant who, at the time he filed his
motion for reconstitution on February 26, 1946, was under the

impression that the case, which was pending decision in the Court
of Appeals when the war broke out, remained unacted upon by
said court until the motion for reconstitution was filed.
On June 25, 1946, Attorney Manuel F. Zamora, for the claimants
and appellees, acting under the highest standards of truthfulness,
fair play and nobility as becomes a deserving member of the bar,
instead of taking advantage of claimant-appellants ignorance of
what really happened in the Court of Appeals, informed this court
that the case had been decided in favor of said claimant and
appellant by the Court of Appeals, filing to said effect the copy of
the decision promulgated on September 9, 1942, sent to him by
said court, to save the appellant the trouble of waiting for the
reconstitution of this case and this tribunal the trouble of deciding
again
a
case
already
decided.
Upon being informed of the statements of Attorney Zamora,
claimant appellants attorneys filed a petition with the
commissioner for reconstitution to make a report to this Court
that the records be declared reconstituted, together with the
decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 9, 1942, and
that said records be remanded to the lower court for execution of
the
decision.
The court resolved to declare that the case is reconstituted and to
order that copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals,
promulgated on September 9, 1942, be sent to the lower court for
execution. This resolution is being adopted not without making of
record that the action taken by Attorney Manuel F Zamora should
be considered as an example worthy to be remembered by all
members of the bar.

LEON DEL ROSARIO, Petitioner,

CHINGCUANGCO, Associate Judge
Relations, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF
TOMAS
Manuel

A.

v. HON. BIENVENIDO
of the Court of Agrarian
OF NUEVA ECIJA and
IMPERIO, Respondents.

Cordero

for Petitioner.

Angel C. Imperio for Respondents.

DECISION
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
This is a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction
principally assailing an order of the Court of Agrarian Relations
denying a motion to stay execution of its judgment dispossessing
the tenant until he is indemnified for alleged expenses and
improvements.
As leasehold tenant, Petitioner, Leon del Rosario, occupied a
parcel of land owned by respondent Tomas Imperio, situated in
Cabocbocan, Rizal, Nueva Ecija. Said land became the subject
matter of litigation between said parties before the Court of
Agrarian Relations, Fourth regional district, in CAR Cases Nos.
2652-NE 61 and 2902-NE 62. And on July 12, 1963, a decision
was rendered therein, the dispositive portion running as
follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: (1) ordering the
ejectment of Leon del Rosario from the landholding in question
subject to Section 43 and Section 50, paragraph (a), R.A. No.
1199, as amended by R.A. No. 2263; and (2) ordering Tomas
Imperio to pay Leon del Rosario the value of the excess rentals
received by him for the agricultural years 1961-62 and 196263."cralaw
virtua1aw
library

Said judgment was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals on

March
26,
1965.
Subsequently, on October 26, 1965, Imperio filed with the Court
of Agrarian Relations a motion for execution of the aforestated
judgment. Del Rosario however opposed it, on the ground that he
has a right of retention over the land until he is indemnified for
expenses and improvements, alleging that in the present case he
is entitled thereto. Acting thereon, the Court of Agrarian
Relations, on November 18, 1965, issued an order for the
issuance of a writ of execution, stating that the judgment had
become final and executory, and that Del Rosarios claim for
indemnity, if any, should be filed with said court for
determination, but cannot stop execution of said judgment. Del
Rosario filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied by
the same court on December 14, 1965. And on December 16,
1965, the corresponding writ of execution was issued.
Petitioner Del Rosario then filed, on December 27, 1965, the
present
special
civil
action
herein.
Respondents, on January 4, 1966, were required by Us to answer
the petition; and on January 8, 1966, We issued a writ of
preliminary
injunction
addressed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"To:

Hon.

Judge,

Bienvenido
Court

Chingcuangco
of

(reg.-Spl.-del.)

Agrarian

Relations

Cabanatuan City
The

Provincial

Sheriff

of

Nueva

Ecija

(reg.-spl.-del.)
Cabanatuan
stating:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

City"

"NOW, THEREFORE. until further orders from this Court, You, your
agents, your representatives and/or any person or persons acting
in your behalf are hereby restrained from implementing the Writ
of Execution dated December 16, 1965, in CAR Cases Nos. 2652NE-61 and 2902-NE-62 of the Court of Agrarian Relations of
Cabanatuan City entitled Leon del Rosario, plaintiff, versus Tomas
Imperio,Defendant."
On January 20, 1966, respondents filed their answer. Further
developments came by way of two petitions for contempt: First, a
petition filed by respondent Imperio dated February 5, 1966, to
declare petitioners counsel in direct contempt, on the alleged
ground that in his petition herein said lawyer cited a fictitious
authority. Second, a petition filed by Del Rosario, dated June 20,
1966, to cite for contempt respondent Imperio, and three nonparties, the Chief of Police of the Municipality of Rizal, Nueva Ecija
(Eduardo Dumlao), and policemen Remigio Baldonado and Romeo
Miguel, for having allegedly sought to eject Del Rosario from the
land in question notwithstanding this Courts preliminary
injunction. To this a supplementary petition for contempt was
filed, dated July 25, 1966, alleging further that with the full
backing of said policemen, Imperio caused the plowing and
harrowing Or the landholding and prevented Del Rosario from
reaping
the
crops
therein.
After the respective parties had filed their comments to the
petitions for contempt, We deferred their resolution until
consideration
of
this
case
upon
the
merits.
At issue on the merits of this petition for certiorari is the proper
interpretation or application of Section 43 of Republic Act 1199
(Agricultural Tenancy Act) which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SEC. 43. Rights and Obligations of Tenant-Lessee. With the
creation of the tenancy relationship arising out of the contract
between the landholder-lessor and tenant-lessee, the latter shall
have the right to enter the premises of the land, and to the

adequate and peaceful enjoyment thereof. He shall have the right

to work the land according to his best judgment, provided the
manner and method of cultivation and harvest are in accordance
with proven farm practices. Upon termination of the relationship,
he shall be entitled to one-half of the value of the improvements
made by him, provided they are reasonable and adequate to the
purposes
of
the
lease."
(Emphasis
supplied)
in relation to Section 1 of Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court of
Agrarian Relations, stating:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Rule

15.

Writ

of

Execution.

"Section 1. Requisites for Issuance of Writ of Execution in Case of

Final Judgment Ejecting Tenant. In cases where the
dispossession is authorized by final judgment no writ of execution
shall issue unless upon certification of the corresponding Judge
that the tenant has been fully indemnified of his claim under
Section 22 of Republic Act No. 1199 in case of share tenancy or
under Section 43 thereof in case of leasehold tenancy."cralaw
virtua1aw
library
It is the position of respondents that Section 43 of Republic Act
1199 merely grants the tenant the right to recover one-half of the
value of improvements he made on the land, without giving him
any right of retention over the land until he is so reimbursed. As
to Section 1 of Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian
Relations, they contend that the same had been superseded with
the advent of the Agricultural Land Reform Code (R.A. 3844),
effective August 8, 1963, which replaced the Rules of the Court of
Agrarian Relations with the Rules of Court (Sec. 115, R.A. 3844).
And, they emphasize that there can be no vested right on
procedure, arguing that petitioners right under the former Rules
of the Court of Agrarian Relations cannot be anything more than
procedural.
There is no merit to the view that Section 1 of Rule 15 of the
Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations is not applicable in this

case for having been abrogated with the enactment of the

Agricultural Land Reform Code. Said Code, it is true, provides that
the Court of Agrarian Relations shall be governed by the Rules of
Court. (Sec. 155, R.A. 3844). And neither the Rules of Court then
obtaining nor the present Rules of Court contain a similar
provision requiring payment to the tenant of one-half of the value
of his improvements before there can be execution of a judgment
dispossessing him. Nonetheless, since the Rules of Court were
applied to the Court of Agrarian Relations only on August 8, 1963,
pursuant to Republic Act 3844 as aforestated, its effectiveness to
pending cases as of that time, such as the instant case, should
follow the norm set forth in Rule 133 therein; "These rules . . .
shall govern all cases brought after they take effect, and also all
further proceedings in cases then pending, except to the extent
that in the opinion of the court their application would not be
feasible or would work injustice, in which event the former
procedure
shall
apply."cralaw
virtua1aw
library

tenants upon the principle of social justice (Sec. 2, Republic Act

1199).
The petition for contempt filed by respondent Imperio charges
petitioners counsel of having cited a fictitious case and a nonexisting ruling. The record bears out that petitioners counsel
alleged in page 5 of the petition for certiorari herein,
thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Section 1, Rule 15, Rules of the Courts of Agrarian Relations,
predicated on Section 43 of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended,
supra, has been upheld to be valid by this Honorable Tribunal so
that now no writ of execution can be issued unless it is complied
with first (Paz Ongsiako, Inc. v. Celestino Abad, Et Al., G.R. No. L121447). This ruling, in effect, created and established or
confirmed the prior substantial right of a tenant to indemnification
before he is finally ejected from his holding."cralaw virtua1aw
library

Should it turn out that indeed petitioner tenant had made

improvements on the landholding, a point not for Us now to
decide then Section 43 of Republic Act 1199 clearly gives him
the right to one-half of their value, thereby imposing upon the
landholder dispossessing him the correlative duty of paying the
same. The rule prevailing during the pendency of this case in the
Court of Agrarian Relations required that this account be settled
before any judgment of ejectment can be executed. It is therefore
not difficult to see that to apply the Rules of Court, which do not
contain a similar provision, would be unjust to the tenant. In this
event, the former procedure is to be followed, namely, Section 1
of Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations.

Petitioners counsel obviously had in mind this Courts decision in

Paz Ongsiako, Inc. v. Celestino Abad, L-12147, July 30, 1957.
Although he cites as docket number L- 121447 instead of L12147, the same is plainly but a slight typographical mistake not
sufficient to place him in contempt, especially because the names
of the parties were given correctly. As to said counsels
interpretation of this Courts decision in said case, or of what the
ruling therein "in effect" created, established or confirmed, the
same are mere arguments fully within the bounds of earnest
debate, rather than a deception urged upon this Court. The first
petition
for
contempt
is
therefore
without
merit.

Respondent Imperios argument that petitioner failed to show that

improvements were in fact made, should be addressed to the
Court of Agrarian Relations. The point is that the tenants claim
for reimbursement under Section 43 of Republic Act 1199 should
first be threshed out, determined and resolved before the tenant
can be dispossessed by writ of execution. This recourse is but in
accordance with the policy of the law to protect the rights of

The second petition for contempt is against respondent Imperio

and three others, not parties herein: the Chief of Police of the
Municipality of Rizal, Nueva Ecija, Eduardo Dumlao; policeman
Remigio Baldonado; and, policeman Romeo Miguel. Said petition
as well as the supplemental petition thereto, allege that
respondent Imperio, with the aid of the three law enforcement
officers, disturbed petitioner in the possession and cultivation of

the land, on June 13, 1966; caused its plowing and harrowing on
June 27, 1966; and prevented the petitioner from reaping the
second rice crop on July 16, 1966. The foregoing acts, if true,
would be a ground for contempt only if at the time this Courts
writ of preliminary injunction was issued, respondent courts writ
of execution had not yet been carried out. From the sheriffs
return, 1 however, it would appear that respondent Imperio was
placed in possession of the land by virtue of the writ of execution
as of December 18,* 1965. This Courts preliminary injunction,
restraining implementation of the writ of execution, was issued
only on January 8, 1966. Respondents, therefore, may not be
held in contempt. Nonetheless, the premature implementation of
the writ of execution being illegal, petitioner should be restored to
peaceful and undisturbed possession of the landholding, until his
claim for payment of improvements (one-half of their value) is
settled
by
respondent
court.
WHEREFORE, respondent courts orders of November 18, 1965
and December 14, 1965, denying petitioners motion to stay
execution pending settlement of his claim for one-half of the value
of alleged improvements, as well as the writ of execution already
issued, are hereby set aside; respondents are ordered to restore
petitioner to the landholding, and to proceed according to Section
1 of Rule 15 of the former Rules of the Court of Agrarian
Relations, by first determining petitioners claim for improvements
under Section 43 of Republic Act 1199, before issuing a writ of
execution for the said tenants dispossession. The petitions for
contempt are denied for lack of merit. No costs. So ordered.

IIGO F. CARLET, as Special Administrator of the Estate of

Pablo Sevillo and Antonia Palisoc, Petitioner, v. HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, VIRGINIA C. ZARATE, JACOBO C.
ZARATE, VICTORIA C. ZARATE, HON. CONRADO DIZON,
Acting Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Bian Laguna,
and DEPUTY SHERIFF ROGELIO S. MOLINA of Bian,
Laguna, Respondents.
Modesto
Noe

Cangco

Jimenez
Zarate

for Private

for Petitioner.

Private respondents, the Zarates, filed Civil Case No. 2375, an

ejectment suit against the Sevillos before the Municipal Trial Court
of Bian. The trial court ordered the defendants below, the
Sevillos,
to
immediately
vacate
the
subject
property.
Petitioner Iigo F. Carlet, as special administrator of the estate of
Pablo and Antonia, filed an action for reconveyance of property,
docketed as Civil Case No. B-3582 against the Zarates. Plaintiff
therein prayed for a declaration of ownership over the entire Lot
981 in the name of the estate of Jose Sevillo and/or his heirs.

Respondents.

SYNOPSIS
Jose Sevillo bought Lot 981 of the Bian Estate in Laguna in
1910. Pablo Sevillo, Joses son, declared said lot for taxation
purposes even if the property was still in Jose Sevillos name.
Pablo
married
Antonia
Palisoc
in
1920.
Pablo, by then a widower, married Candida Baylo. The union
produced no offspring. Candidas daughter, Cirila Baylo Carolasan,
was
sired
by
another
man.
Pablo Sevillo, filed a petition for reconstitution of title, which was
allowed. TCT No. RT-926 was issued in the name of Pablo Sevillo,
married to Candida Baylo. Pablo and Candida died in 1967 and in
1974,
respectively.
In 1980, the heirs of Cirila Baylo Carolasan, all surnamed Zarate,
had herein private respondents, filed a case for annulment of
deed of sale over Lot 981 and for partition of property among the
surviving heirs of Pablo Sevillo. The case was docketed as Civil
Case No. B-1656. The Deed of Sale sought to be annulled was
allegedly executed by Candida Baylo in favor of Gregorio, Samero,
Martin and Andrea, all surnamed Sevillo and Isidro Zamora. After
trial on the merits, the court declared the deed of sale null and
void.

The Zarates, the defendants, moved to dismiss the case on the

ground of res judicata, claiming that the issue of ownership had
already been pleaded and passed upon by the lower court in Civil
Case No. B-1656. The trial court issued an order granting the
motion
to
dismiss
Civil
Case
No.
B-3582.
Hence, the instant petition for review where the issue to be
resolved is whether or not the adjudication in Civil Case No. B1656 constitutes res judicata to Civil Cases No. B-3582.
When material facts or questions are judicially determined in an
action, such facts or questions become res judicata and may not
again be litigated in a subsequent action between the same
parties or their privies regardless of the form of the latter. This is
the essence of res judicata or bar by prior judgment.
Respondent court correctly concluded that there is identity of
parties between the case at bar (Civil Case No. B-3582), an action
for reconveyance of Lot No. 981, and Civil Case No. B-1656 for
annulment of deed of sale and partition involving the same Lot
981. It should be stressed that absolute identity of parties is not
required for the principle of res judicata to be applicable. A shared
identity of interest is sufficient to invoke the coverage of this
principle.
There is no dispute as regards the identity of subject matter since
the center of controversy in the instant case and in Civil Case No.

B-1656

is

Lot

No.

981

of

the

Bian

Estate.

Neither does the fact that Civil Case No. B-1656 was an action for
annulment of deed of sale and partition while Civil Case No. B3582 is for reconveyance of property alter the fact that both cases
have an identical cause of action, because the same evidence
which is necessary to sustain the second action would have been
sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first, even if the forms or
nature of the two actions be different. If the same facts or
evidence would sustain both actions, the two actions are
considered the same within the rule that the judgment in the
former is a bar to the subsequent action; otherwise, it is not.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTION; JUDGMENT; RES JUDICATA; NATURE
THEREOF. When material facts or questions which were in issue
in a former action and were admitted or judicially determined
there are conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein,
such facts or questions become res judicata and may not again be
litigated in a subsequent action between the same parties or their
privies regardless of the form of the latter. This is the essence of
res judicata or bar by prior judgment. The parties are bound not
only as regards every matter offered and received to sustain or
defeat their claims or demand but as to any other admissible
matter which might have been offered for that purpose and of all
other matters that could have been adjudged in that case. A
change in the form of the action or in the relief sought does not
remove a proper case from the application of res judicata. It is to
the interest of the public that there should be an end to litigation
by the parties over a subject fully and fairly adjudicated
republicae ut sit finis litium. And an individual should not be
vexed twice for the same cause nemo debet bis vexari pro
eadem causa. As this Court has had occasion to rule: "The
foundation principle upon which the doctrine of res judicata rests
is that parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issue

more than once; that, when a right or fact has been judicially
tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or an
opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of the
court, so long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive
upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate."
(Nabus v. CA, 193 SCRA 732, February 7, 1991.)
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUISITES. There are four requisites to
successfully invoke res judicata: (a) finality of the former
judgment; (b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on
the merits; and (d) there must be between the first and second
actions identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action. A
judgment on the merits rendered in the first case constitutes an
absolute bar to the subsequent action when the three identities
are
present.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CONSTRUED. It should further be
stressed that absolute identity of parties is not required for the
principle of res judicata to be applicable. A shared identity of
interest is sufficient to invoke the coverage of this principle. As
regards identity of causes of action, the test often used in
determining whether causes of action are identical is to ascertain
whether the same evidence which is necessary to sustain the
second action would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery
in the first, even if the forms or nature of the two actions be
different. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both
actions, the two actions are considered the same within the rule
that the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action;
otherwise,
it
is
not.
4. ID.; ID.; "FORUM-SHOPPING" ; APPLIES ONLY WHEN TWO (OR
MORE) CASES ARE STILL PENDING; NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE AT
BAR. With respect to the issue of forum-shopping, this applies
only when the two (or more) cases are still pending. Clearly,
despite knowledge of final judgments in Civil Case No. B-1656,
CA-G.R. CV No. 07657 and SC-G.R. No. 74505, as well as in G.R.
No. 94382 (the ejectment case), counsel persisted in filing the

case for reconveyance. Since this case is barred by the judgment

in Civil Case No. B-1656, there was no other pending case to
speak of when it was filed in July 1991. Thus, the "non-forumshopping
rule"
is
not
violated.
5. LEGAL ETHICS; CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY;
WHEN VIOLATED. What counsel for petitioners did in filing an
action to relitigate the title to and partition over Lot No. 981,
violates Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
lawyers which states that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and
good faith to the court. Rule 10.01 of the same Canon states that"
(a) lawyer shall not do any falsehood . . . nor shall he mislead or
allow the court to be misled by any artifice." Counsels act of filing
a new case involving essentially the same cause of action is
likewise abusive of the courts processes and may be viewed as
"improper conduct tending to directly impede, obstruct and
degrade the administration of justice." (Said improper conduct is
considered as indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Revised
Rules of Court; Heirs of Guballa, Sr. v. CA, 168 SCRA 539
[December 19, 1988] citing Gabriel v. CA, 72 SCRA 275.)
DECISION
ROMERO, J.:
The Rules of Court provide litigants with options on what course
of action to take in obtaining judicial relief. Once such option is
taken and a case is filed in court, the parties are compelled to
ventilate all matters and relevant issues therein. The losing party
who files another action regarding the same controversy will be
needlessly squandering time, effort and financial resources
because he is barred by law from litigating the same controversy
all over again. Such is the situation in the case at bar: whether or
not there is res judicata or bar by prior judgment. The present
controversy
is
surrounded
by
the
following
facts:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

Lot 981 of the Bian Estate in Laguna, with an area of 864 square
meters, was purchased by Jose Sevillo in 1910 on installment. In
1917, Transfer Certificate No. 1599 was issued in his name after
payment of the full purchase price. Jose Sevillos marriage to
Severa Bayran produced four sons, Teodoro, Mariano, Vicente and
Pablo. Pablo married Antonia Palisoc in 1920 and they begot four
children, Consolacion, Alejandra (Andrea), Samero (Casimiro) and
Marin (Martin or Maltin) Sevillo. In 1949, Pablo Sevillo declared
Lot No. 981 for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration Nos.
6125 and 2586 even if the property was still in Jose Sevillos
name.
In 1955, Pablo, by then a widower, married Candida Baylo. The
union produced no offspring. Candidas daughter, Cirila Baylo
Carolasan,
was
sired
by
another
man.
In 1965, Pablo Sevillo, with Candida Baylo, filed a petition before
the Court of First Instance for reconstitution of title.
Reconstitution was allowed and TCT No. RT-926 was issued in the
name of Pablo Sevillo, married to Candida Baylo. Pablo Sevillo and
his
wife
died
in
1967
and
in
1974,
respectively.
In 1980, the heirs of Cirila Baylo Carolasan, 1 all surnamed Zarate
and herein private respondents, filed a case for annulment of
deed of sale over Lot 981 and for partition of property among the
surviving heirs of Pablo Sevillo. The case was docketed as Civil
Case No. B-1656 before the Court of First Instance of Bian,
Laguna. The Deed of Sale sought to be annulled was allegedly
executed by Candida Baylo, grandmother to the Zarates, in favor
of Gregorio, Samero, Martin and Andrea, surnamed Sevillo and
Isidro Zamora. After trial on the merits, the court rendered its
Decision on June 15, 1982 with the following dispositive
portion:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment
is hereby rendered declaring the deed of sale entitled Bilihang
Patuluyan ng Bahagi ng Isang Lupang Panahanan purportedly

executed by Candida Baylo on August 25, 1971, acknowledged

before Notary Public Apolinario S. Escueta and entered in his
notarial register as Doc. No. 124, Page No. 16, Book No. IV,
Series of 1971, as null and void and of no force and effect, and
the representative of the estate of the plaintiff Cirila Baylo
Carolasan and the defendants Gregorio Sevillo, Samero Sevillo,
Maltin Sevillo, Andrea Sevillo and Isidro Zamora, as the surviving
spouse of Consolacion Sevillo, are hereby ordered to partition Lot
No. 981 of the Bian Estate, situated in Tubigan, Bian, Laguna if
they are able to agree among themselves by proper instruments
of conveyance, within 30 days from the finality of this decision,
which shall be confirmed by this Court, otherwise, commissioners
will
be
appointed
to
make
the
partition.
The defendants Gregorio Sevillo and Samero Sevillo are hereby
jointly and severally ordered to pay plaintiffs substituted heirs of
the late Cirila Baylo Carolasan, namely, Virginia C. Zarate, of
Brgy. Real, Calamba, Laguna, Jacobo C. Zarate, Victoria C.
Zarate, Nemesio C. Zarate, Dominador C. Zarate and Elvira C.
Zarate, all of Brgy. Tubigan, Bian, Laguna, the sum of P3,000.00
for attorneys fees and the sum of P2,000.00 for litigation
expenses aside from costs of suit."cralaw virtua1aw library
The decision having become final and executory, a writ of
execution was issued on November 10, 1982. Lot 981 was
surveyed and subdivided into six lots, one lot having an area of
452.04 square meters, four lots with 86.49 square meters each
and one lot with 66 square meters as footpath or concession to a
right of way. 2 By virtue of this adjudication, private respondents
Zarate procured TCT Nos. T-163388 and T-163393 over their
share
in
the
property.
The losing parties in that case, the Sevillos, filed a case to annul
the aforesaid decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. B-1656
before the then Intermediate Appellate Court (CA-G.R. SP No.
07657) alleging lack of jurisdiction based on service of summons
on unauthorized counsel. On March 31, 1986, the appellate court
granted the Zarates motion to dismiss the case on the ground of

res judicata. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review
filed by the Sevillos for lack of merit on September 8, 1986 in
G.R.
No.
74505.
3
On May 6, 1983, private respondents, the Zarates, filed Civil Case
No. 2375, an ejectment suit against the Sevillos before the
Municipal Trial Court of Bian. 4 The municipal court ruled in favor
of plaintiffs and ordered defendants below, to immediately vacate
the subject property and remove their houses thereon and to pay
rental in arrears, damages, attorneys fees and litigation
expenses. 5 Writs of execution and demolition were issued by the
court. Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration but before
said motion could be heard, they filed a petition for certiorari with
the Regional Trial Court of Laguna (Civil Case No. B-3106). The
Sevillos alleged that the inferior court did not have jurisdiction
over the case which was filed more than a year after the alleged
unlawful entry. The Regional Trial Court held that the municipal
court had no jurisdiction over the complaint for ejectment. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Courts
decision on July 11, 1990 in CA-G.R. SP No. 18806. Affirming the
appellate courts decision, the Supreme Court denied the Sevillos
petition for review in G.R. No. 94382 on April 10, 1991. 6
On July 10, 1991, petitioner Iigo F. Carlet, as special
administrator of the estate of Pablo and Antonia Sevillo, filed the
case at bar, an action for reconveyance of property, docketed as
Civil Case No. B-3582, against the heirs of Cirila namely, Virginia,
Jacobo, Victoria and Elvira, all surnamed Zarate. Plaintiff therein
prayed for a declaration of ownership over the entire 864-squaremeter lot in the name of the estate of Jose Sevillo and/or the
estate of Teodoro, Mariano, Vicente and Pablo Sevillo; that TCT
Nos. T-163393 and T-163388 be annulled and a new one be
issued in favor of said estate; and that defendants be ordered to
pay P20,000.00, attorneys fees in the amount of P50,000.00 and
expenses
of
litigation.
7
Defendants Zarate moved to dismiss the case on the ground of
res judicata, claiming that the facts alleged in the complaint had

already been pleaded and passed upon by the lower court in Civil
Case No. B-1656, the Court of Appeals in CA- G.R. SP No. 07657
and by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 74505. They also opposed
the motion for preliminary injunction saying it was meant to delay
and that the grounds relied upon had previously been passed
upon by the lower court in Civil Case Nos. B-1656 and 2375, the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 18806 and the Supreme Court
in
G.R.
No.
94382.
On October 8, 1991, the trial court issued an Order granting the
motion to dismiss Civil Case No. B-3582, stating that the issue of
ownership had been threshed out in the cases cited and that, as
held by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07657, plaintiff
below merely tried to obtain the same relief by way of a different
action. The dispositive portion of said Order reads:chanrobles
virtual
lawlibrary

resolved is whether or not the adjudication in Civil Case No. B1656 (including CA-G.R. SP No. 07657 and SC-G.R. No. 74505)
constitutes res judicata to the case at bar (Civil Case No. B3582).
Petitioner in the main contends that respondent court erred,
because there is no identity of cause of action between the case
at bar (Civil Case No. B-3582) and the cases, cited, particularly
Civil Case No. B-1656. The former is an entirely different case
which seeks the annulment of TCT No. 1599 and the derivative
titles issued in the name of private respondents Zarate. There is
likewise no identity of parties. According to petitioner, the plaintiff
in Civil Case No. 3582 is the Special Administrator representing
the estate of Jose Sevillo and Severa Bayran, who does not
represent any of the private respondents herein. 9
We affirm the contested decision of the Court of Appeals.

"WHEREFORE, finding merit in the motion to dismiss, the same is

hereby granted and the above case is hereby ordered dismissed.
As a consequence, the motion for preliminary injunction is hereby
denied.
Pursuant to well-settled pronouncement of the Supreme Court,
the plaintiff and her counsel are hereby ordered to explain within
five (5) days from receipt hereof why they should not be cited in
contempt of court for forum-shopping. Let a copy of this order be
furnished the local IBP Chapter where Atty. Modesto Jimenez
belongs so that he may be administratively dealt with in
accordance
with
law.
SO

ORDERED."cralaw

virtua1aw

library

Carlets appeal to respondent court (CA-G.R. CV No. 36129) was

dismissed on January 11, 1994, with the Court of Appeals
affirming the questioned Order of the trial court in toto and
ordering appellants and counsel to pay treble costs. 8
Hence, the instant petition for review where the issue to be

When material facts or questions which were in issue in a former

action and were admitted or judicially determined there are
conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein, such facts or
questions become res judicata and may not again be litigated in a
subsequent action between the same parties or their privies
regardless of the form of the latter. This is the essence of res
judicata
or
bar
by
prior
judgment.
10
There are four requisites to successfully invoke res judicata: (a)
finality of the former judgment; (b) the court which rendered it
had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it
must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be
between the first and second actions identity of parties, subject
matter and cause of action. 11 A judgment on the merits
rendered in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the
subsequent action when the three identities are present. 12
The attendance of the first three elements for the application of
res judicata is not disputed by petitioner. What needs to be
determined is the existence of identity in parties, subject matter

and cause of action between Civil Case Nos. B-1656 and B-3582.
Respondent court correctly concluded that there is identity of
parties between the case at bar (Civil Case No. B-3582), an action
for reconveyance of Lot No. 981, and Civil Case No. B-1656 for
annulment of deed of sale and partition involving the same Lot
981. Although Civil Case No. B-3582 was initiated by petitioner as
administrator of the estate of Pablo and Antonia Sevillo, the fact
remains that he represents the same heirs of Pablo Sevillo,
namely Martin, Alejandra, Casimiro (or Samero) and Consolacion
Sevillo who were defendants in Civil Case No. B-1656, as the
latter or their heirs would eventually benefit should petitioner
succeed in this case. Petitioners allegation that he represents the
heirs of Jose Sevillo and Severa Bayran Sevillo and, therefore,
including Pablo Sevillos three brothers, is belied by the very title
of the instant petition that he is the special administrator of the
estate of Pablo Sevillo and Antonia Palisoc, having been appointed
as
such
on
July
10,
1991.
13

different. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both

actions, the two actions are considered the same within the rule
that the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action;
otherwise,
it
is
not.
16
The instant case (Civil Case No. B-3582), which is an action for
the reconveyance of Lot No. 981, is premised on the claim that
TCT Nos. T-163388 and T-163393, belonging to private
respondents as heirs of Candida Baylo and Cirila Baylo Carolasan,
are null and void. 17 To succeed entails presenting evidence that
the title acquired by the Zarates, upon which they founded their
complaint for partition in Civil Case No. B-1656, is in fact null and
void.

There is no dispute as regards the identity of subject matter since

the center of controversy in the instant case and in Civil Case No.
B-1656
is
Lot
No.
981
of
the
Bian
Estate.

In Civil Case No. B-1656, the Zarates prayer for partition of Lot
No. 981 was anchored on the authenticity of their title thereto.
Consequently, the case provided the defendants, heirs of Pablo
and Antonia Sevillo, the opportunity to prove otherwise, i.e., that
the Zarates title was null and void. However, they failed to
contest the matter before the trial court, the Court of Appeals and
the Supreme Court. 18 Inasmuch as the same evidence was
needed in prosecuting Civil Case No. B-1656 and the case at bar,
there is identity of causes of action. The additional "fact" alleged
by petitioner that Candida Baylo was not in fact married to
Pablo Sevillo and the reconstituted title in their name reflects a
misrepresentation is, under the circumstances, immaterial. Said
allegation could have been presented and heard in Civil Case No.
B-1656. 19 The parties are bound not only as regards every
matter offered and received to sustain or defeat their claims or
demand but as to any other admissible matter which might have
been offered for that purpose and of all other matters that could
have
been
adjudged
in
that
case.
20

As regards identity of causes of action, the test often used in

determining whether causes of action are identical is to ascertain
whether the same evidence which is necessary to sustain the
second action would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery
in the first, even if the forms or nature of the two action be

Neither does the fact that Civil Case No. B-1656 was an action for
annulment of deed of sale and partition while Civil Case No. B3582 is for reconveyance of property alter the fact that both cases
have an identical cause of action. A change in the form of the
action or in the relief sought does not remove a proper case from

It should further be stressed that absolute identity of parties is

not required for the principle of res judicata to be applicable. 14 A
shared identity of interest is sufficient to invoke the coverage of
this principle. 15 While it is true that the heirs of Pablo and
Antonia Sevillo will still be judicially determined at the intestate
proceedings in which petitioner was named estate special
administrator, it is equally true that the defendants in Civil Case
No. B-1656, namely Consolacion, Alejandra, Samero and Martin
Sevillo, are the children and heirs of Pablo and Antonia Sevillo.

the

application

of

res

judicata.

21

Moreover, as early as March 31, 1986 in the original action for

annulment of judgment case, the then Intermediate Appellate
Court
immediately
recognized
that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Clearly, the relief sought in this action for annulment of judgment
beyond nullity of the decision in Civil Case No. B-1656, is an
adjudication that herein defendants are not entitled to Lot 981 of
the Bian Estate or any part thereof, on the stated grounds that
said property in the name of Pablo Sevillo and Candida Baylo
under T.C.T. No. RT-926 was in fact owned by Pablo Sevillo and
Antonia Palisoc, and that in any event, Candida Baylo had ceded
her interest therein to plaintiffs and/or their predecessors in
interest
on
March
31,
1969.
The self-same issue of ownership of Lot 981 was squarely raised
in Civil Case No. B-1656, herein defendants interest in said
property having therein been traversed by invoking instead an
alleged sale of Lot 981 to Gregorio Sevillo on August 25, 1971.
This amounts to employment of different forms of action to obtain
identical relief, in violation of the principle that one and the same
cause of action shall not twice be litigated (Yusingco v. Ong Hian,
42
SCRA
589)."
22
It is to the interest of the public that there should be an end to
litigation by the parties over a subject fully and fair adjudicated
republicae ut sit finish litium. And an individual should not be
vexed twice for the same cause nemo debet bis vexari pro
eadem
causa.
As
this
Court
has
had
occasion
to
rule:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The foundation principle upon which the doctrine of res judicata
rests is that parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same
issue more than once; that, when a right or fact has been
judicially tried and determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction, or an opportunity for such trial has been given, the

judgment of the court, so long as it remains unreversed, should

be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in
law
or
estate."
23
With respect to the issue of forum-shopping for which the trial
court ordered counsel for petitioners, Atty. Modesto Jimenez, to
explain why he should not be cited in contempt, 24 this applies
only when the two (or more) cases are still pending.25cralaw:red
Clearly, despite knowledge of final judgments in Civil Case No. B1656, CA-G.R. CV No. 07657 and SC-G.R. No. 74505, as well as
in G.R. No. 94382 (the ejectment case), counsel persisted in filing
the case at bar for reconveyance. Since this case is barred by the
judgment in Civil Case No. B-1656, there was no other pending
case to speak of when it was filed in July 1991. Thus, the "nonforum-shopping
rule"
is
not
violated.
What counsel for petitioners did, however, in filing this present
action to relitigate the title to and partition over Lot No. 981,
violates Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
lawyers which states that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and
good faith to the court. Rule 10.01 of the same Canon states that"
(a) lawyer shall not do any falsehood . . . nor shall he mislead or
allow the court to be misled by any artifice." Counsels act of filing
a new case involving essentially the same cause of action is
likewise abusive of the courts processes and may be viewed as
"improper conduct tending to directly impede, obstruct and
degrade
the
administration
of
justice."
26
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals dated January 11, 1994 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Treble
costs
against
petitioner.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
SO ORDERED.