The Case. Reforzado vs. Lopez, 613 SCRA 481, G.R. No.

148306 February 24, 2010

TERESITA DE MESA REFORZADO, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES NAZARIO C. LOPEZ and
PRECILA LOPEZ, respondents.

Synopsis of Facts. Petitioner, duly appointed co-special administratrix of the estate of her father,
included in the Partial Inventory of properties of the estate a parcel of land which was in the
possession of respondents. The probate court directed respondents to turn over the possession of
the property to petitioner. Respondent assailed the probate courts Order before the Court of
Appeals (CA) where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 33118. In the meantime, petitioner filed
a complaint against respondents before the trial court (RTC), docketed as Civil Case No. 67043,
to annul the title over the property issued in the name of respondents and to reconvey the
property to her fathers estate.

Respondents raised the following affirmative defenses in Civil Case No. 67043: lack of
jurisdiction, petitioners lack of legal capacity, res judicata, prescription and lack of cause of
action. After respondents motion was denied, they elevated the case to the CA which decided in
their favor, hence, the case is already barred by res judicata. Petitioner avers that res judicata
cannot be invoked because the issues and reliefs therein sought are not the same as those
obtaining in the present case, the issue in the first being possession of the property, whereas that
in the present case is ownership.

The Issue Raised. Should the Court apply the principle of res judicata?

Statement of the Law/Rule/Jurisprudence Involved. The Court cited the two main rules of the
doctrine of res judicata laid down in Section 47, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. These two main
rules are referred to as "bar by former judgment" and "conclusiveness of judgment." The first
rule provides that judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits
concludes the litigation between the parties and their privies and constitutes a bar to a new action
or suit involving the same cause of action either before the same or any other tribunal; while the
second rule states that any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily
involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which a judgment or
decree is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again
be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claims or demands, purposes,
or subject matters of the two suits are the same. The Court also reiterated that as to identity of
causes of action, it is hornbook rule that identity of causes of action does not mean absolute
identity, otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form
of the action or the relief sought.

The Ratio Deciendi of the Supreme Court. Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, the
Court concluded that the present action is not barred by res judicata. It is true that there is
identity of parties and subject matter in the two cases. The same issue was raised and the
evidence required to substantiate the respective claims of the parties is also substantially the
same. However, an important requisite for the principle of res judicata is wanting. The ruling in
CA-G.R. No. 33118 is not a decision on the merits on the ownership of the property, the
appellate court in said case having merely resolved the propriety of the probate courts issuance
of a writ of possession in favor of herein petitioner. The appellate court in fact declared in CA-
G.R. SP No. 33118 that herein petitioner had the remedy of filing a separate action for recovery
of the property a recourse she availed of when she filed the complaint for annulment of title
and reconveyance subject of the present petition.

The Doctrine Learned. For res judicata to apply, all the following elements must exist: the
judgment must be a final and executory decision on the merits; the court must have jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties; and there must be identity of parties, of subject matter
and cause of action between the first and the second action.