Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
ManilaEN BANC
G.R. No. L-12541 March 30, 1960
ROSARIO U. YULO, assisted by her husband Jose C. Yulo,
plaintiffs-appellants,vs.
YANG CHIAO SENG,
defendant-appellee.
Punzalan, Yabut and Eusebio for appellants.A. Francisco and J. T. Ocampo for appellee.
LABRADOR,
J
.:
This concerns a "Petition to Reopen Case," dated December 14, 1959,presented by attorneys for
plaintiffs-appellants, alleging that the relationshipbetween Rosario U. Yulo, plaintiff-appellant
and Yang Chiao Seng, defendant-appellee, as lessor and lessee, has already been definitely
decided by the Courtof Appeals in the case of Sta. Marina, et al., and Rosario U. Yulo and
YangChiao Seng, C. A. G. R. No. 8143-R. We have gone out of our way to review
our conclusion that no relation of partnership existed between said parties becausewe had denied
the motion for reconsideration of plaintiff-appellant questioningthe conclusion of this Court
without explanation.The claim of plaintiff-appellant Rosario U. Yulo is that the relationship
betweenher and defendant-appellee Yang Chiao Seng as partners had already beenpassed upon
by the Court of Appeals in the above-indicated decision. Theportion of the decision of the Court
of Appeals is contained on page 8 of themotion for reconsideration in which it held that articles
of partnership of Young &Co., Ltd. show that the parties to this case are partners in the
construction of the Astor Theatre. It is to be noted, however, that the decision of the Court
of Appeals was one in which Emilia and Maria Carrion Sta. Marina are plaintiffs andthe
defendants are Rosario Yulo and Yang Chiao Seng; the action was one toeject the defendants
from the land occupied by them; the issue was thereasonable value for the use and occupation of
the land. The Court of Appealssaid that the plaintiffs in that case had claimed that the reasonable
value wasP3,000, while the defendants claimed that it was only P1,000, and the Court
of Appeals held that in view of the partnership papers P3,000 represent the share of
Rosario U. Yulo in the profits of the partnership and not the reasonable rent of the property.It is
evident that no res judicata can be claimed for the previous judgment of theCourt of Appeals. In
the first place, the parties in that case were Emilia and MariaCarrion Sta. Marina and the
defendants, Rosaria U. Yulo and Yang Chiao Seng;in the second place, the issue decided by the
Court of Appeals was the rentalvalue of the property in question; that the cause of action was for
ejectment of Rosario U. Yulo and Yang Chiao Seng. In the case at bar, the action is
betweenRosario U. Yulo as plaintiff and Yang Chiao Seng as defendant; the issue iswhether or
not the plaintiff is partner in the cinematograph business, as claimedby plaintiff, or said plaintiff
is merely a sublessee, as claimed by the defendant.There is, therefore, no identity of parties nor
identity of issue, nor identity of cause of action. We call attention to the very citation contained
in appellant'smotion for reconsideration, which reads as follows:Parties to a judgment are not
bound by it, in a subsequent controversybetween each other unless they were adversary parties in
the originalaction. There must have been an issue or controversy between them. Thereason for

this rule obviously is the same as that which underlies the wholedoctrine of res judicata, namely,
that a person should not be bound by a judgment except to the extent that he, or someone
representing him, hadan adequate opportunity not only to litigate the matters adjudicated, but
tolitigate them against the party (or his prodecessor in interest) who seeks touse the judgment
against him. (Sec. 422, 1 Freeman on Judgments, 5thed., p. 918).Without going further, we are
fully satisfied of the correctness of our conclusionthat the relationship between plaintiff-appellant
Rosario U. Yulo and Yang ChiaoSeng is merely that of sublessor and sublessee, and not that of
partners. Themotion to reopen the case is hereby denied and considering that judgment
hadbecome final since October 29, 1959, order is hereby given to remand the recordto the court
below.