Professional Documents
Culture Documents
02) Spouses Ocampo v. Heirs of Dionisio
02) Spouses Ocampo v. Heirs of Dionisio
Heirs of Dionisio court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
G.R. No. 191101 parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be,
October 1, 2014 between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and
Forcible Entry causes of action.
Facts: The first 3 requisites are present in this case. The decision in the forcible entry
Dionisio filed a complaint for forcible entry against Mario and Felix case rendered by the MTC, a court which has jurisdiction over the subject
Ocampo. Dionisio sought to recover the possession of a portion of his property and the parties, had long become final. The said decision is an
property situated in Dalig, Cardona, Rizal, alleging that Mario and Felix adjudication on the merits. However, the fourth requisite is not present.
built a piggery thereon without his consent. Although there is identity of parties and subject matter as between the
In his answer, Mario denied Dionisios allegation, claiming that the forcible entry case and recovery of possession case, there is no identity of
disputed parcel of land is owned by his wife Carmelita, who inherited the causes of action.
same from her father. Mario further claimed that they have been in
possession of the said parcel of land since 1969. The forcible entry case only involves the issue of possession over the subject
The MTC dismissed the complaint, finding that Dionisio failed to property while the recovery of possession case puts in issue the ownership
establish his prior possession of the disputed parcel of land. of the subject property and the concomitant right to possess the same as an
Dionisio died. Consequently, his heirs filed a complaint for recovery of attribute of ownership.
possession against the spouses Mario and Carmelita. The respondents
sought to recover the same portion of land subject of the forcible entry In an action for forcible entry and detainer, the only issue is possession in
case. fact, or physical possession of real property, independently of any claim of
The heirs averred that the subject property was acquired by Dionisio in ownership that either party may put forth in his pleading. If plaintiff can
1945 when he purchased the same from a certain Capistrano. That prove prior physical possession in himself, he may recover such possession
Dionisio thereafter took possession of the subject property and was able even from the owner, but, on the other hand, if he cannot prove such prior
to obtain a free patent covering the subject property. An OCT was physical possession, he has no right of action for forcible entry and detainer
subsequently issued in the name of Dionisio in 1987. even if he should be the owner of the property.
The MTC dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata in the
light of the finality of the decision in the forcible entry case. Thus, the MTCs determination is only limited to the issue of who has "actual
The RTC reversed, declaring the heirs entitled to possession for being the prior possession" of the property regardless of ownership of the same.
lawful owners of the lands and ordering the spouses to vacate as well as
to pay the heirs P10,000. On the other hand, the recovery of possession case is actually an accion
The RTC opined that the forcible entry case only involves the question of reinvindicatoria or a suit to recover possession of a parcel of land as an
who has a better right to the possession of the subject property while element of ownership. A perusal of the complaint filed by the respondents in
the recovery of possession case not only involves the right to the the recovery of possession case shows that the heirs, as successors-in-interest
possession of the subject property, but the ownership thereof as well. of Dionisio, are asserting ownership of the subject property and are seeking
The RTC stressed that a judgment rendered in a forcible entry case will the recovery of possession thereof.
not bar an action for recovery of possession based on title or ownership
since there is no identity of cause of action as between the two cases. A judgment rendered in a forcible entry case will not bar an action between
Further, the RTC held that the heirs were able to establish that the the same parties respecting title or ownership because between a case for
subject property is indeed part of the parcel of land covered by the OCT forcible entry and an accion reinvindicatoria, there is no identity of causes
registered in the name of Dionisio. of action. Such determination does not bind the title or affect the ownership
of the land; neither is it conclusive of the facts therein found in a case
The CA affirmed.
between the same parties upon a different cause of action involving
possession.
Issue: Whether or not the finality of the decision in the forcible entry case
constitutes res judicata, which would warrant the dismissal of the
The decision in the forcible entry case is conclusive only as to the MTCs
respondents complaint for recovery of possession Yes.
determination that the petitioners are not liable for forcible entry since the
respondents failed to prove their prior physical possession; it is not
Held: The doctrine of res judicata is laid down under Section 47, Rule 39 1
conclusive as to the ownership of the subject property. Besides, Section 18,
comprehends two distinct concepts of res judicata: (1) bar by former
Rule 70 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that a "judgment rendered
judgment and (2) conclusiveness of judgment.
in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with respect to
the possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership
There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where
of the land."
judgment was rendered and the second case sought to be barred, there is
identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this instance, the
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court
judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action.
of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.
But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no
identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those
matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to
matters merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as
"conclusiveness of judgment."
For res judicata under the first concept, bar by prior judgment, to apply, the
following requisites must concur: (a) finality of the former judgment; (b) the
1 Sec. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. The effect of a judgment or final order action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the
rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final same capacity; and
order, may be as follows: x x x
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties of their successors in interest, that only
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its
or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or
the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the necessary thereto.