Facts:

• The case involves the Spouses Rodrigo Imperial, Jr. and Jocelyn Imperial, along with Fe Imperial as petitioners, against the Spouses Rogelio and Asuncion Pinigat as respondents.
• The dispute centers on a 248-square-meter residential lot in San Roque, Baao, Camarines Sur.
• The property was originally declared for tax purposes in the name of Isabelo Imperial, the brother of Juan Imperial and uncle of Rodrigo Imperial, Sr.
• In 1979, Rodrigo Jr. testified that Isabelo sold the property to his father, Rodrigo Sr., supported by an Absolute Deed of Sale.
• Isabelo continued to live in the house, allowing Juan and Betty to stay under the condition they would vacate upon demand.
• After Isabelo's death in 1985, Rodrigo Sr. allowed Juan and Betty to remain until Rodrigo Jr. finished college.
• In 1997, Rodrigo Jr. and his father discovered that the respondents had registered a deed of sale for half of the property.
• Betty claimed Isabelo sold half of the property to Juan for P10,000, which she later sold to Rogelio.
• The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of the respondents on October 28, 2002, recognizing their ownership of half the property.
• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Rodrigo Sr.'s appeal, making the MTC's decision final.
• A survey revealed that parts of the petitioners' houses encroached on the respondents' property, leading to a complaint for unlawful detainer.
• The MTC ruled in favor of the respondents on June 16, 2006, ordering the petitioners to vacate and pay rentals.
• The RTC reversed the MTC's ruling on March 29, 2007, citing lack of jurisdiction.
• The Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the MTC's ruling on March 25, 2010, and denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration on September 27, 2010.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Court of Appeals did not err in reinstating the MTC's decision.
• The petitioners are bound by the final and executory decision in Civil Case No. 627.
...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, noting that the MTC's ruling established the respondents' right to half of the property, supported by credible evidence.
• The petitioners' claim of not being parties to the original case was rejected; a final judgment binds not only the parties but also their successors-in-interest.
• The Cou...continue reading