11/19/12

G.R. No. L-12541

Today is Monday, November 19, 2012 Search

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 plaintiffsappellants, 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.
w w w .law phil.net/judjuris/juri1960/mar1960/gr_l-12541_1960.html

11/19/12

G.R. No. L-12541

Paras, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

w w w .law phil.net/judjuris/juri1960/mar1960/gr_l-12541_1960.html

2/2

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.