G.R. No.

L-55152

Flordeliza L. Valisno and Honorio D. Valisno

Petitioners

-vs-

Hon. Judge Andres B. Plan, Presiding Judge of the

Court of First Instance of Isabela, and Vicencio Cayaba
Respondents

Facts of the case:

Up for resolution is a petition for certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining order of
two issued orders by respondent Judge in Land Registration Case.

The herein petitioners-spouses, Flordeliza and Honorio Valisno, purchased two

parcels of land situated at Municipality of Cauayan, Isabela from the legal heirs of Agapita
Blanco. Petitioners declared the land under their name for taxation and exercised exclusive
possession in the concept of owners by installing Fermin Lozano who serves as a
caretaker, who also built his house in the subject land. Vicencio Q. Cayaba, who claims to
be the owner of the land by virtue of a deed of sale, ousted Fermin Lozano. He
subsequently erected a six-door apartment on said land.
Thereafter, spouses Valisno, filed a complaint against Cayaba for recovery of
possession of said parcels of land which was consequently resolved in favor of the spouses
Valisno. In response to the resolution, private respondent filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals
where the decision was reversed and dismissed the complaint of sps. Valisno.
Subsequently, Cayaba filed an application for registration in his name of the title of
the lands in question. His application is based on the deed of sale and the decision of the
Court of Appeals. Petitioners who have known the application filed an opposition to the
application. However private respondent moved for the dismissal of said opposition on the
ground that the same is barred by a prior judgment.

Issue: Whether or not res judicata applies in the instant case.

Held:
The Court held that the principle of res judicata applies in the instant case and moreover
sited the requisites of the principle: (a) the former judgment must be final, (b) it must have been'
rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, (c) it must be a
judgment on the merits and (d) there must be between the first and second actions identity of
parties, of subject matter and of cause of action.
These aforementioned requisites are present in the case at bar. Between the
registration case and the prior civil action for recovery of property, there is the existence of
the (1) identity of parties; (2) subject matter; and (3) cause of action and the decision
rendered by the Court of Appeals which had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties, is a final judgment on the merits.
 The lands sought to be recovered by petitioners are the same parcels of land being
sought to be registered in Cayaba and Noriega's names . While the complaint in the first action
is captioned for recovery of possession, the allegations and the prayer for relief therein raise the
issue of ownership. In effect, it is in the nature of an accion reinvidicatoria. Between the two cases
there is identity of causes of action because in accion reinvidicatoria, possession is sought on the
basis of ownership and the same is true in registration cases. Registration of title in one's name is
based on ownership. In both cases, the plaintiff and the applicant seek to exclude other persons
from ownership of the land in question. The only difference is that in the former case, the
exclusion is directed against particular persons, while in the latter proceedings, the exclusion is
directed against the whole world. Nonetheless, the cause of action remains the same. It does not
matter that a court of general jurisdiction decided the first case, while the second case is being
heard by one of a limited jurisdiction, such as a registration court. It is enough that the court,
which decided the first case on the merits, had validly acquired jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties. That both courts should have equal jurisdiction is not a requisite of res
judicata. Petition dismissed.