The Supreme Court clarified the application of res judicata and tolerance in unlawful detainer cases. The Court ruled that a previous judgment based on a compromise agreement does not necessarily bar a subsequent unlawful detainer action if the cause of action—specifically, a new breach of the implied promise to vacate—is distinct. This decision underscores the importance of enforcing judgments promptly and the impact of inaction on property rights.

From Father to Son: When Does a Property Dispute Truly End?

This case revolves around a protracted property dispute in Legazpi City, originating from a complaint filed in 1992 by Jose Diaz, Jr. and Adelina D. McMullen against Salvador Valenciano Sr. for unlawful detainer. The Diaz siblings claimed ownership of a parcel of land (Lot No. 163-A) covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 20126. Valenciano Sr. countered that his family had been in possession since 1958, following a mortgage agreement with Diaz. To settle, they entered into a Compromise Agreement, where Valenciano Sr. would vacate the property by January 31, 1994, and Diaz would pay him P1,600.00. The Municipal Trial Court in the Cities (MTCC) approved this agreement. However, Valenciano Sr. failed to vacate, but Diaz never enforced the writ of execution, tolerating their continued stay. Years later, after Valenciano Sr.’s death, Diaz demanded that his son, Salvador Valenciano Jr., vacate the property, leading to a new complaint for unlawful detainer.

The central legal question is whether this second unlawful detainer case against Salvador Jr. is barred by res judicata, given the previous case against his father and the judicially-approved Compromise Agreement. The MTCC initially dismissed the second complaint, invoking res judicata, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed this decision, finding no judgment on the merits in the first case. The Court of Appeals (CA) then reversed the RTC, reinstating the MTCC’s dismissal, arguing that the Compromise Agreement had the effect of a final judgment and that Salvador Jr. was in privity with his father. This brings us to the Supreme Court, where the Diaz siblings argue that res judicata does not apply due to the absence of a final judgment on the merits, identity of parties, and identity of cause of action.

To fully understand this case, one must grasp the principle of res judicata. It prevents parties from relitigating issues that have already been decided by a competent court. The Supreme Court outlined the requisites for res judicata to apply in the concept of “bar by prior judgment”:

(1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be, between the first and the second action, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.

The petitioners argued that the Compromise Agreement was not a judgment on the merits. However, the Supreme Court disagreed. A judgment is considered to be “on the merits” when it legally declares the rights and duties of the parties based on the disclosed facts. Judgments based on Compromise Agreements are indeed judgments on the merits. In such agreements, the parties have entered into valid stipulations, and the court has duly considered the evidence. Therefore, the Resolution approving the Compromise Agreement in the first case had the same effect as an ordinary judgment, immediately becoming final and executory.

The petitioners also contended that there was no identity of parties between the first and second cases, arguing that Salvador Jr. was not a successor-in-interest to his father. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. There is identity of parties when the parties in both actions are the same, or there is privity between them, or they are successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity. Privity exists between a decedent and his heir. Salvador Jr., as the son of Salvador Sr., shared the same interest in the property and occupied it prior to the institution of the first case, satisfying the requisite of substantial identity of parties.

Despite these points, the Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners on one crucial aspect: the lack of identity of the cause of action. A cause of action is an act or omission by which a party violates the right of another. To determine the identity of causes of action, courts apply the “same evidence rule.” If the same evidence fully supports and establishes both the present and former causes of action, the former judgment bars the subsequent action. In unlawful detainer cases based on tolerance, what must be proven is that such possession is by mere tolerance and that there was a breach of implied promise to vacate upon demand.

In this case, the Supreme Court found that while the petitioners relied on the same transfer certificate of title (TCT No. 20126), separate and distinct demand letters were required to prove the different breaches of implied promise to vacate. The demand letter addressed to Salvador Sr. and the demand letter dated February 9, 2009, addressed to Salvador Jr., created different causes of action. The refusal to comply with the first demand constituted a cause of action in the first case, while the refusal to comply with the second demand created a separate cause of action in the second case. Thus, the cause of action in the first unlawful detainer case was Salvador Sr.’s breach of the implied promise to vacate, while the cause of action in the second case was Salvador Jr.’s breach of a similar implied promise.

The Supreme Court also addressed the CA’s ruling on estoppel by laches. The CA held that the petitioners’ inaction for 15 years after the issuance of the writ of execution barred the second case. The Supreme Court clarified that Article 1144 (3) of the New Civil Code pertains to the prescriptive period to enforce or revive a final judgment. While the petitioners could no longer enforce the judgment in the first unlawful detainer case, they could still file a similar action based on a different cause of action. As the registered owners, the petitioners’ right to eject any person illegally occupying their property could not be barred by laches. The right of a registered owner to demand the return of property is never barred by laches, as long as the possession was unauthorized or merely tolerated.

The Court also addressed the conflicting claims of ownership. Salvador Jr.’s claim was based on a tax declaration dated October 13, 1978, and a sworn statement of the current and fair market value dated June 23, 1983, both under the name of his father. In contrast, the petitioners’ claim was based on TCT No. 20126, a tax declaration, and a certification of payment of realty taxes issued under the name of petitioner Diaz Jr. The Court reiterated that tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive proof of ownership. A certificate of title under the Torrens system serves as evidence of an indefeasible title. Thus, the Court held that the petitioners had proven by preponderant evidence their better right to ownership and possession of the subject property.

Finally, the Court emphasized that Salvador Jr.’s occupation was by mere tolerance of the petitioners, analogous to a lessee whose term of lease has expired but whose occupancy continued by tolerance of the owner. The adjudication of ownership in an ejectment case is merely provisional and does not bar or prejudice a separate action involving title to the property.

FAQs

What is res judicata?	Res judicata is a legal principle that prevents the same parties from relitigating issues that have already been decided by a competent court. It ensures finality in judicial decisions and avoids repetitive litigation.
What are the elements of res judicata?	The elements are: (1) a final judgment, (2) a judgment on the merits, (3) a court with jurisdiction, and (4) identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action. All these elements must be present for res judicata to apply.
What is a judgment on the merits?	A judgment on the merits is a legal declaration of the rights and duties of the parties based on the facts presented. It concludes controversies and determines the rights of the parties, unlike dismissals based on technicalities.
Does a Compromise Agreement constitute a judgment on the merits?	Yes, a judgment based on a Compromise Agreement is considered a judgment on the merits. In such agreements, parties make reciprocal concessions to end litigation, and the court’s approval gives it the force of res judicata.
What is the “same evidence rule” in determining identity of cause of action?	The same evidence rule tests whether the same evidence supports both the present and former causes of action. If the same evidence is sufficient, the former judgment bars the subsequent action.
What is the effect of tolerance in unlawful detainer cases?	When someone occupies land by the owner’s tolerance without a contract, there’s an implied promise to vacate upon demand. Failure to do so allows the owner to file an ejectment case.
Can the right to eject be barred by laches?	No, the right of a registered owner to eject an illegal occupant cannot be barred by laches. This right is imprescriptible and remains with the owner as long as the possession is unauthorized.
What is the significance of a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)?	A TCT is strong evidence of ownership under the Torrens system. It serves as proof of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person named on the certificate.

In conclusion, this case serves as a crucial reminder of the nuanced application of res judicata and the significance of promptly enforcing court judgments. While a Compromise Agreement carries the weight of a final judgment, a new cause of action arising from a subsequent breach can justify a new legal action. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the enduring rights of property owners and the limits of tolerance in property disputes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JOSE DIAZ, JR. VS. SALVADOR VALENCIANO, JR., G.R. No. 209376, December 06, 2017