URBANA VELASCO AROC VS.

PHHC GR L-39674 JANUARY 31, 1978

FACTS: The case at bar in appeal of the decision to the CA the order of the Court
of First Instance dismissing on the ground of res judicata the complaint to declare
null and void the sale of a certain parcel of land. Appellants are occupants of one-
half of a parcel of land. They constructed a house and made some improvements
on the land. They later on filed with appellee corporation application for the
award and sale of such portion of land. They did this for several times without any
action from appellee corporation. They later found out that the parcel of land had
been unlawfully and in bad faith awarded and sold to appellee spouses, who
according to appellants, are disqualified from purchasing said land since they have
prior purchased a land already from appellee corporation together with other
properties. Appellants filed a case against the appellee corporation and spouses.
In defense of the spouses, they contend that the case should be dismissed due to
the ground of res judicata. A case was already decided in their favor, wherein the
issue was regarding quieting of title. They contend that appellants are barred by
prior judgment. The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint of the
appellants, using the ground raised by the appellees of res judicata. It contended
that the prior case had already been final and executory and that there is nothing
else for them to do but to dismiss the complaint of the appellant.

ISSUE: Whether or not res judicata is applicable in the case at bar?

HELD: No, it is not. For the principle of res judicata to apply, four requisites must
be present: the former judgment must be final, it must have been rendered by a
court with proper jurisdiction over the case, it must be a judgment on the merits,
and there must be, between the two cases, identity of parties, subject matter,
and cause of action. In Created by: Ma. Angela Leonor C. Aguinaldo Ateneo Law
1E 2010