Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > December 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18464 December 29, 1962 - ARING (BAGOBA), ET AL. v. JOSE (NAKAMURA) ORIGINAL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-18464. December 29, 1962.]

ARING (BAGOBA), ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JOSE (NAKAMURA) ORIGINAL, Defendant-Appellee.

Mata, Occena & Bañez, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Leonor Lozano for defendants-appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. ACTIONS; BAR BY PRIOR JUDGMENT; VARIANCE BETWEEN GROUNDS IN TWO CASES IMMATERIAL IF THEIR AIM IS THE SAME. — Where a judgment on the merits rendered in a former case is final and executory, and was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and that case and the present case involves the same parties, the same parcels of land and a similarity of causes of action, the present action is barred by a prior judgment. The fact that the grounds on which the two cases are predicated are technically at variance is immaterial if in substance they aim at the same objective: the recovery of the title and possession of the same properties.

2. ID.; ANNULMENT OF LAND TITLE; PRESCRIPTION. — It appears in the present case that a patent was issued by the Director of Lands covering the lot in question, and that when the patentee died appellants, upon the claim that they were the only heirs of the deceased, were able to obtain another title in their name to the prejudice of appellee. Since it was for the purpose of annulling this title that appellee brought an action, the same cannot be said to be in the nature of a petition for review under Section 38 of Act 496, which prescribes after one year from the issuance of the decree, but one for annulment of the new title issued to appellants on the ground of fraud.

3. JUDGMENTS; ANNULMENT ON GROUND OF FRAUD; NO EXTRINSIC OR COLLATERAL FRAUD IN CASE AT BAR. — The fact that appellee expressly alleged in his amended complaint that he was the duly acknowledged natural son of the deceased and the only heir of her properties, shows that he did not commit any fraudulent representation, and, if fraud there was, the same was not extrinsic or collateral that could serve as basis for annulment of judgment.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


On July 27, 1955, Jose (Nakamura) Original filed a complaint against Aring (Bagoba), Et. Al. before the Court of First Instance of Davao, which was later amended, to recover the ownership and possession of two parcels of land, one known as Lot No. 162 covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 141, having an area of 216,473 sq. m., situated in Guianga, Davao City, and another located at Wangan, Davao City, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 573, having an area of 150,000 sq. m., which through false representation were titled in the name of Aring (Bagoba), and were taken possession of by the latter, plus damages and attorney’s fees. In said amended complaint, it was alleged that Jose (Nakamura) Original is the acknowledged natural son and only heir of Obot (Bagoba) who was the original owner of said two parcels of land (Civil Case No. 765).

In their answer the defendants, among other things, stated that they are presently not sure whether plaintiff is the same Jose (Nakamura) Original who was the acknowledged natural son of Obot (Bagoba) for the reason that the said son "after having rendered active services for the Japanese Imperial Forces, was believed to have been killed by the Guerrillas and/or other members of the USAFFE and that since his whereabouts were unaccounted for from the year 1945 everybody had taken him for dead and that the defendants do not really know whether the plaintiff who had allegedly executed a Power of Attorney in favor of Brigido R. Valencia is the same Jose (Nakamura) Original, the acknowledged natural child of Obot (Bagoba)."cralaw virtua1aw library

After due trial, the court rendered decision on August 30, 1956 declaring plaintiff to be the owner of the two parcels of land in question and ordering that the titles thereto be issued in his name, cancelling those that were falsely issued in the name of defendants, ordering at the same time that their possession, together with the improvements existing thereon, be delivered to plaintiff. Defendants appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, which in due time dismissed the appeal. Thereupon, plaintiff was placed in possession of the properties in question.

On January 11, 1961, or more than four years after the rendition of said decision, Aring (Bagoba), Et Al., who were the defendants in Civil Case No. 765, instituted before the same court of first instance the present action seeking the annulment of the decision rendered in said case, as well as the recovery of the title and possession of the same parcels of land involved therein, plus damages and attorney’s fees (Civil Case No. 3465). The instant action is predicated on the grounds that (1) the decision in Civil Case No. 765 was obtained thru fraud; (2) defendant Jose (Nakamura) Original did not have a cause of action in said case; and (3) the court had no jurisdiction over Lot 162 involved in the same case.

Defendant Jose (Nakamura) Original filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds: (1) the action is already barred by a prior judgment; (2) the allegation of fraud is not true, and if fraud there was, it was not an extrinsic or collateral fraud; and (3) plaintiffs were in estoppel en pais for having admitted in the former case that defendant is an acknowledged natural son of the deceased Obot (Bagoba) and the owner of the properties in question.

On February 22, 1961, the court a quo, in a brief order, dismissed the case stating: "On the ground that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment, the above-entitled case is hereby dismissed without pronouncement as to costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

Plaintiffs interposed the present appeal.

We find no error in the finding of the court a quo that the present action is already barred by a prior judgment for here all the elements for the application of the principle of res judicata are present. Indeed, in order that there may be res judicata, in accordance with a series of cases decided by this Court, the following elements must be present: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) it must be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be between the first and the second action identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause of action. 1 Here it cannot be denied that the decision rendered in Civil Case No. 765 has already become final and executory, it was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, it was a judgment on the merits, and both cases involve the same parties, the same parcels of land, and a similarity of causes of action. In other words, while the grounds on which the two cases were predicated are technically at variance, in substance they aim at the same objective: the recovery of the title and possession of the same properties.

On the other hand, we do not find tenable the contention that the judgment rendered in the former case was obtained by fraud in that appellee misrepresented to the court that he was the acknowledged natural child of the deceased Obot (Bagoba) who was the original owner of the lands and that guardianship proceedings were instituted over his person and properties under Special Proceedings No. 286 of the Court of First Instance of Davao. There is no such misrepresentation. As a matter of fact, appellee expressly alleged in his amended complaint that he was the duly acknowledged natural child of Obot (Bagoba) and the only heir of her properties, the same being the main basis of his claim of ownership and possession of the properties in litigation. And this allegation has not been disputed by appellants in their answer. In fact, appellants admitted that one Jose (Nakamura) Original was the acknowledged natural son of Obot (Bagoba) even though they were not sure that this son is the very plaintiff therein (herein appellee) for the reason that, according to their information, said son, after having rendered service to the Japanese Imperial Forces, was believed to have been killed by the guerrillas or by the members of the USAFFE and since then his whereabouts were unaccounted for. And appellee was able to prove to the satisfaction of the court that he is really the same Jose (Nakamura) Original therein referred to. Appellee, therefore, did not commit any fraudulent representation and, if fraud there was, the same is not extrinsic or collateral that can serve as basis for annulment of judgment.

The contention that the court that took cognizance of Civil Case No. 765 insofar as Lot 162 is concerned acted without jurisdiction has likewise no merit, it appearing that the nature of the action is not a petition for review of the decision of the Director of Lands but one for annulment of the title falsely obtained by appellants. It appears that Patent V-1007 was issued by the Director of Lands covering Lot 162 in the name of the heirs of Obot (Bagoba), and when the latter died, appellants, upon the claim that they were the only heirs of the deceased, were able to obtain another title in their name to the prejudice of appellee who was then in Japan. It is for the purpose of annulling this title that he brought Civil Case 765. His action cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a petition for review under Section 38 of Act 496, which prescribes after one year from the issuance of the decree. Rather, it is an action for annulment of the new title issued to appellants on the ground of fraud.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Padilla, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Labrador and Concepcion, JJ., concur in the result.

Endnotes:



1. San Diego v. Cordona, 72 Phil., 281; Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Corporation (ACCFA) v. Goyena Lumber Company, Et Al., G.R. No. L-18078, October 31, 1962.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17759 December 17, 1962 - ISABEL V. SAGUINSIN v. DIONISIO LINDAYAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17698 December 27, 1962 - BENJAMIN DAYAO v. ENRIQUE LOPEZ ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18554 December 27, 1962 - AMERICAN OXYGEN & ACETYLENE COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12174 December 28, 1962 - MARIA R. CASTRO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17318 December 29, 1962 - IN RE: ANTONIO GO KAY SEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • A.C. No. 215 December 29, 1962 - MERCEDES H. SOBERANO v. EUGENIO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-13343 December 29, 1962 - EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, SR. v. SOFRONIO FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. L-14916 December 29, 1962 - BENJAMIN R. ABUBAKAR, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14938 December 29, 1962 - MAGDALENA S. DE BARRETTO, ET AL. v. JOSE G. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15077 December 29, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAYATON MANIBPEL

  • G.R. No. L-15398 December 29, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. TEODOSIO MACALINDONG

  • G.R. No. L-15752 December 29, 1962 - RUPERTO SORIANO, ET AL. v. BASILIO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15756 December 29, 1962 - YU TIONG v. GENOVEVA YU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15794 December 29, 1962 - CHIN GUAN GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16291 December 29, 1962 - KER AND COMPANY, LTD. v. ANDREW GOTIANUN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16437 December 29, 1962 - DOMINGO Z. VILLACARLOS v. JOSE B. JIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. L-17333 December 29, 1962 - JULIANA ABAD, ET AL. v. BLAS SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. L-17781 December 29, 1962 - FILIPRO, INC., ET AL. v. F. A. FUENTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17809 December 29, 1962 - RESURRECCION DE LEON, ET AL. v. EMILIANA MOLO-PECKSON ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17889 December 29, 1962 - EULALIA LLABAN ABELLA, ET AL. v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-18019 December 29, 1962 - PHILEX MINERS UNION v. NATIONAL MINES & ALLIED WORKERS UNION, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18189 December 29, 1962 - JUAN BENSON, ET AL. v. ISABELO G. OCAMPO

  • G.R. No. L-18354 December 29, 1962 - CHENG BAN YEK CO., INC. v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-18377 December 29, 1962 - ANASTACIO G. DUÑGO v. ADRIANO LOPENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18434 December 29, 1962 - MARTINA LAMBINO, ET AL. v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18464 December 29, 1962 - ARING (BAGOBA), ET AL. v. JOSE (NAKAMURA) ORIGINAL

  • G.R. No. L-18816 December 29, 1962 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v. TOMAS DE VERA

  • G.R. No. L-18820 December 29, 1962 - HADJI ABUBAKAR TAN v. EDUARDO GUA TIAN HO

  • G.R. No. L-18852 December 29, 1962 - LEE KIM PIO v. FRANCISCO DY CHIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18919 December 29, 1962 - ABELARDO JAVELLANA, ET AL. v. SUSANO TAYO

  • G.R. Nos. L-18995-96 December 29, 1962 - AGUEDO DEL ROSARIO v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19052 December 29, 1962 - MANUEL F. CABAL v. RUPERTO KAPUNAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19198 December 29, 1962 - ANTONIO D. LORIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19278 December 29, 1962 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. ALFREDO CAJIGAL, ET AL.

  • R-G.R. No. 46500 December 29, 1962 - LUTGARDA YATCO, ET AL. v. DANIEL F. CRUZ, ET AL.