Custodio vs. Corrado

Res judicata does not bar a subsequent plenary action for recovery of possession and ownership when the prior ejectment suit was dismissed on technical grounds without a determination on the merits, as there is no identity of causes of action between an ejectment suit (possession de facto) and an accion reinvindicatoria (ownership).

Respondent Rosendo F. Corrado is the registered owner of a residential lot in Barangay Balitoc, Calatagan, Batangas, covered by TCT No. T-21342, which he acquired from the government in 1970. Petitioner Melchor Custodio, claiming a tenancy relationship with respondent's father, Crisanto Corrado, demolished the old residential house on the lot and constructed a two-bedroom bungalow thereon without respondent's knowledge and consent.

• Prior Ejectment Suit: On July 12, 1993, respondent filed an ejectment case against petitioner, docketed as Civil Case No. 116. The MTC dismissed the complaint on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, non-compliance with barangay conciliation under P.D. 1508, and failure to state the date of deprivation. The RTC affirmed the dismissal on appeal.
• Present Action: On January 2, 1995, respondent filed another complaint for recovery of possession and damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 120. Petitioner claimed to be a legitimate leasehold tenant of respondent's father since 1961, with consent to construct the bungalow thirty years prior.
• Pre-trial Stipulations: The parties stipulated that: (1) the lot is registered in respondent's name; (2) petitioner was never a tenant of respondent; (3) the bungalow construction was without respondent's consent; (4) Civil Case No. 116 was dismissed due to non-compliance with P.D. 1508; and (5) no barangay certification was attached to the present complaint.
• Lower Court Findings: The MTC dismissed Civil Case No. 120, giving credence to milling tickets showing a tenancy relationship between petitioner and respondent's father. The RTC reversed the MTC, emphasizing the stipulation that petitioner was never respondent's tenant and noting respondent acquired the property from the government, not his father. The RTC classified the action as an accion reinvindicatoria rather than an accion publiciana. The CA affirmed the RTC.

• Res Judicata: Petitioner argued that the principle of res judicata applies because the material allegations in Civil Case Nos. 116 and 120 reveal an identity of causes of action, both seeking recovery of possession of the subject lot. It was maintained that substantial, not absolute, identity of causes of action suffices for res judicata to apply.
• Tenancy Relationship: Petitioner contended that a tenancy relationship with respondent's father was amply established by a preponderance of evidence, specifically the milling tickets presented during trial.

• Res Judicata: Respondent countered that while there may be identity of parties and subject matter, the causes of action are not identical; Civil Case No. 116 is an ejectment suit to recover material possession, whereas Civil Case No. 120 is an action for recovery of possession and ownership.

• Res Judicata: Whether the principle of res judicata bars the filing of Civil Case No. 120 given the prior dismissal of Civil Case No. 116.
• Tenancy Relationship: Whether petitioner established by preponderance of evidence a tenancy relationship with respondent and his father.

• Res Judicata: Res judicata is inapplicable because the prior ejectment case was not decided on the merits and there is no identity of causes of action. A judgment dismissing an action for want of jurisdiction cannot operate as res judicata on the merits. Furthermore, an ejectment suit involves a different cause of action (possession de facto) from an accion reinvindicatoria (recovery of ownership which includes possession).
• Tenancy Relationship: The tenancy relationship was not established. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts in a petition for review on certiorari, and the CA's finding that the milling tickets did not refer to the subject lot is conclusive. Moreover, petitioner is bound by the pre-trial stipulation that he was never a tenant of respondent.

• Res Judicata — For res judicata to bar a subsequent action, the following requisites must concur: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first and second actions, (a) identity of parties, (b) identity of subject matter, and (c) identity of cause of action. A judgment on the merits requires an unequivocal determination of the rights and obligations of the parties, as distinguished from a dismissal on preliminary, formal, or technical points.
• Actions for Recovery of Possession — There are three kinds of actions to judicially recover possession: (1) accion interdictal (forcible entry/unlawful detainer), which is limited to possession de facto; (2) accion publiciana, a plenary action to recover the right of possession; and (3) accion reinvindicatoria, an action to recover ownership which includes recovery of possession.
• Pre-trial Stipulations — Parties are bound to honor the stipulations they made during the pre-trial, which are deemed settled and need not be proven during trial.

• "A judgment on the merits is one rendered after argument and investigation, and when there is determination which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal or merely technical point, or by default and without trial."
• "What really distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer from a possessory action (accion publiciana) and from a reinvindicatory action (accion reinvindicatoria) is that the first is limited to the question of possession de facto."

• Serdoncillo v. Spouses Benolirao — Cited for the elements of res judicata.
• Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. v. Cabrigas — Cited for the definition of a judgment on the merits.
• Vda. de Villanueva v. Court of Appeals — Followed; held that a judgment in a forcible entry case does not bar an accion reinvindicatoria because there is no identity of causes of action.
• A. Francisco Realty and Development Corp. v. CA — Cited for the distinction between ejectment, accion publiciana, and accion reinvindicatoria.
• Gener v. De Leon — Cited for the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and the findings of fact of the appellate court are generally conclusive.
• Interlining Corporation v. Philippine Trust Company — Cited for the binding effect of pre-trial stipulations.

• P.D. 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay Law) — Mentioned as the ground for the dismissal of the prior ejectment case due to non-compliance with barangay conciliation.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.