Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN 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
relationship between Rosario U. Yulo, plaintiff-appellant and Yang Chiao Seng, defendant-appellee, as lessor and lessee, has already been
definitely decided by the Court of Appeals in the case of Sta. Marina, et al., and Rosario U. Yulo and Yang Chiao 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 because we had denied the
motion for reconsideration of plaintiff-appellant questioning the conclusion of this Court without explanation.
The claim of plaintiff-appellant Rosario U. Yulo is that the relationship between her and defendant-appellee Yang Chiao Seng as partners had
already been passed upon by the Court of Appeals in the above-indicated decision. The portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals is
contained on page 8 of the motion 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 and the defendants are Rosario Yulo and Yang Chiao Seng; the action was one to eject the
defendants from the land occupied by them; the issue was the reasonable value for the use and occupation of the land. The Court of Appeals
said that the plaintiffs in that case had claimed that the reasonable value was P3,000, 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 the Court of Appeals. In the first place, the parties in that case were
Emilia and Maria Carrion 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 rental value 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 between Rosario U. Yulo as plaintiff and Yang Chiao Seng as defendant; the issue is whether or not the
plaintiff is partner in the cinematograph business, as claimed by 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's motion for reconsideration, which reads as follows:
Parties to a judgment are not bound by it, in a subsequent controversy between each other unless they were adversary parties in the
original action. There must have been an issue or controversy between them. The reason for this rule obviously is the same as that
which underlies the whole doctrine of res judicata, namely, that a person should not be bound by a judgment except to the extent that
he, or someone representing him, had an adequate opportunity not only to litigate the matters adjudicated, but to litigate them against
the party (or his prodecessor in interest) who seeks to use the judgment against him. (Sec. 422, 1 Freeman on Judgments, 5th ed., p.
918).
Without going further, we are fully satisfied of the correctness of our conclusion that the relationship between plaintiff-appellant Rosario U. Yulo
and Yang Chiao Seng is merely that of sublessor and sublessee, and not that of partners. The motion to reopen the case is hereby denied and
considering that judgment had become final since October 29, 1959, order is hereby given to remand the record to the court below.
Paras, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.