Title
Javier vs. Veridiano II
Case
G.R. No. L-48050
Decision Date
Oct 10, 1994
Felicidad Javier, granted title to Lot No. 1641, sued Ben Babol and Reino Rosete for quieting of title after losing a forcible entry case. SC ruled no res judicata, as causes of action (possession vs. ownership) differed. Case remanded for trial.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-48050)

Key Dates

  • 25 January 1963: Javier’s application for Lot 1641 filed with Bureau of Lands.
  • December 1970: Complaint for forcible entry (Civil Case No. 926) lodged against Babol.
  • 7 November 1972: City Court dismisses forcible entry suit.
  • 30 April 1973: CFI-Zambales affirms dismissal on appeal.
  • 17 December 1973: Patent No. 5548 and OCT No. P-3259 issued to Javier.
  • 29 June 1977: Quieting of title and recovery suit (Civil Case No. 2203-O) filed against Babol and Rosete.
  • 27 January 1978: CFI-Zambales, Branch 1, grants Rosete’s motion to dismiss for res judicata.
  • 10 October 1994: Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution: protection of property rights and due process (Art. III, Secs. 1, 4; Art. XIII, Sec. 4).
  • Rules of Court, Rule 39, Sec. 49 (b) on res judicata and successors in interest.
  • Civil Code remedies for real property:
    • Accion interdictal (forcible entry/detainer)
    • Accion publiciana (plenary recovery of possession)
    • Accion reivindicatoria (recovery of ownership, Art. 434)

Facts

  1. 1963–1969: Javier applies for and holds physical possession of Lot 1641 in Lower Kalaklan, Olongapo.
  2. December 1970: She alleges forcible dispossession by Babol of a 200 sqm portion and sues for forcible entry.
  3. The City Court finds the disputed portion outside Lot 1641 and dismisses her suit. CFI-Zambales affirms on appeal, holding Javier failed to prove boundaries.
  4. December 1973: Javier obtains patent and certificate of title for Lot 1641.
  5. Babol sells his interest, including the disputed portion, to Rosete.
  6. June 1977: Javier files a quieting-of-title and recovery of possession suit (Civil Case No. 2203-O) against Babol and Rosete.

Procedural History

  • Forcible Entry Case (C.C. No. 926): Dismissed by City Court (1972); affirmed by CFI on appeal (1973).
  • Quieting of Title Case (C.C. No. 2203-O): Rosete moves to dismiss on res judicata (1978); CFI grants and denies reconsideration.
  • Supreme Court review via certiorari.

Issue

Does the prior final judgment in the forcible entry case bar the subsequent action for quieting of title and recovery of possession on the ground of res judicata?

Analysis – Res Judicata Requirements

The Court reiterated four requisites:

  1. Final judgment or order.
  2. Jurisdiction over subject matter.
  3. Judgment on the merits.
  4. Identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.

Particulars not in dispute: the first three requisites and identity of subject matter.

Analysis – Identity of Parties

– Res judicata requires only substantial identity of parties or their successors in interest.
– Under Rule 39, Sec. 49 (b), the judgment is conclusive between parties “and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action.”
– Rosete, as purchaser pendente lite of Babol’s interest, qualifies as a successor in interest.
– Conclusion: identity of parties is established.

Analysis – Identity of Causes of Action

– Forcible entry (accion interdictal) concerns only de facto prior possession, irrespective of title.
– Quieting of title and recovery (accion reivindicatoria) concerns ownership and full rights to possess (jus utendi, jus fruendi).
– The first suit adjudicated who ha


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.