Salud vs CA 1.

Poblacion, Habay Properties and Nicolas Properties are registered in the name of Isidora Salud and Clemente Guerrero who are sister and brother. Clemente is the deceased husband of pri ate respondent !elania Guerrero. ". Isidora and her husband sold their # share in Poblacion to their daughter !aripol Guerrero, the Habay property to their children Norma and $usebio %Saluds& and # share in San Nicolas to $usebio and 'eodoro. (. It was alleged that after the e)ecution of deeds, the petitioner changed her mind and did not register the deeds of sale and retained possession of the properties. *. +elationship between Guerrero and Salud soured. Clemente Guerrero filed " complaints %Ci il Case (,"" - (,"(& against the Saluds to e)ercise his right of redemption as a co. owner of the properties. /. In Case (,"", defendants were declared in default. 'hey were in the 0S and were unable to answer the complaint. 'he C1I ruled in fa or of Guerrero and was affirmed by the C2. 3. In Case (,"(, it was tried on its merit and dismissed the complaint stating that the sale 4is not in esse5 thus Guerrero has no right to redeem the property. 6. 'o frustrate the redemption, Isidora filed an action to 7uiet title. Guerrero mo ed to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res 8udicata. 9. 'he 'C granted the motion to dismiss, C2 affirmed the dismissal. ISS0$: ;<N res 8udicata will apply in the case at bar. H$=>: Negati e. Discussion on Res Judicata please see the original case. 1. 1irst, Isidora Salud was not a party in case (,"" and was not gi en a chance to contest the claim of Guerrero. It was her children that were sued, but since they were in the 0S they were declared in default. Isidora attempted to inter ene but her motion was denied. Guerrero then obtained fa orable 8udgment because his claim was not disputed. ". In contrast with Case (,"(, the case was tried on its merit, and was decided against Guerrero. (. 'he difference on the two 8udgments accentuates the necessity not to gi e res 8udicata effect to the default 8udgment in (,"" where Isidora was a non.party. *. Here in the case, pri ity does not e)ist, for Isidora was not a successor.in.interest of her children in case (,"". Her children were not sued in a representati e capacity. She did not also participate nor control case (,"" where 8udgment was obtained by default.

/. 'o allow res 8udicata to apply in the case will result to in8ustice and denial of due process that should be accorded to Isidora.