A+ A A-

JAVIER V. VERIDIANO II- Action for Determination of Ownership

JAVIER V. VERIDIANO II- Action for Determination of Ownership

A final judgment on forcible entry or unlawful detainer is NOT a bar against to an action for determination of ownership. A judgment rendered in a case for recovery of possession is conclusive only as to possession, not ownership. It is not a bar against an action for determination of ownership.


FACTS:

Petitioner bought a land on a subdivision by filing a Miscellaneous Sales Application. Pending the approval of the sale, Ben Babol entered a portion adjacent to the land being bought by Petitioner. Petitioner claims that the occupied land by Babol is part of his land so he filed a forcible entry case. However, the trial court found Petitioner wrong and so sustained the possession of Babol. Later on, Babol would sell this portion to private Respondent. In the meantime, the application was approved and a TCT was delivered to Petitioner. This motivated the Petitioner to demand the land again, this time from Respondent, and this time on the basis of ownership. He filed a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession. Respondent countered that the first case on forcible entry constituted res judicata against the second complaint.


ISSUE:

W/N the first case on forcible entry was res judicata against the second case on quieting of title


RULING:

No! Once again, for res judicata to arise, four requisites must concur: Final judgment, Court with competent jurisdiction, judgment based on merits, identity of parties and cause of action.
The Court said that in the two cases, there were identity of parties because Respondent, having acquired the contested land by sale and tradition, is a successor in interest.


However, there was no identity of the causes of action. In forcible entry, the only issue is prior possession and not ownership. In accion reivindicatoria, the issue is the ownership. The Court held that the second case was actually an accion reivindicatoria as Petitioner set up title for herself, prayed that Respondent to be ejected and that she be declared the owner. Thus a final judgment on forcible entry or detainer is NOT a bar against to an action for determination of ownership.


JAVIER V. VERIDIANO II- Action for Determination of Ownership

JAVIER V. VERIDIANO II- Action for Determination of Ownership

A final judgment on forcible entry or unlawful detainer is NOT a bar against to an action for determination of ownership. A judgment rendered in a case for recovery of possession is conclusive only as to possession, not ownership. It is not a bar against an action for determination of ownership.


FACTS:

Petitioner bought a land on a subdivision by filing a Miscellaneous Sales Application. Pending the approval of the sale, Ben Babol entered a portion adjacent to the land being bought by Petitioner. Petitioner claims that the occupied land by Babol is part of his land so he filed a forcible entry case. However, the trial court found Petitioner wrong and so sustained the possession of Babol. Later on, Babol would sell this portion to private Respondent. In the meantime, the application was approved and a TCT was delivered to Petitioner. This motivated the Petitioner to demand the land again, this time from Respondent, and this time on the basis of ownership. He filed a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession. Respondent countered that the first case on forcible entry constituted res judicata against the second complaint.


ISSUE:

W/N the first case on forcible entry was res judicata against the second case on quieting of title


RULING:

No! Once again, for res judicata to arise, four requisites must concur: Final judgment, Court with competent jurisdiction, judgment based on merits, identity of parties and cause of action.
The Court said that in the two cases, there were identity of parties because Respondent, having acquired the contested land by sale and tradition, is a successor in interest.


However, there was no identity of the causes of action. In forcible entry, the only issue is prior possession and not ownership. In accion reivindicatoria, the issue is the ownership. The Court held that the second case was actually an accion reivindicatoria as Petitioner set up title for herself, prayed that Respondent to be ejected and that she be declared the owner. Thus a final judgment on forcible entry or detainer is NOT a bar against to an action for determination of ownership.


BATASnatin The Firm

Lawyers in the Philippines

Latest @ Forums

Popular

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

SUGGESTED ANSWERS …

ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...

Read more

Oral Defamation l S…

Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation   Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood   Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander   A. Factor...

Read more

Article I – THE NAT…

Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...

Read more

Random

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

RIGHT OF PLEDGOR AN…

Art. 2113. At the public auction, the pledgor or owner may bid.  He  shall,  moreover,  have  a  better  right  if  he  should offer the same terms as the highest bidder.  The pledgee may also bid, but his offer shall not be valid if he is the only b...

Read more

FOSSUM V. FERNANDEZ…

FOSSUM V. FERNANDEZ 44 PHIL 675  FACTS: Fernandez  Hermanos  placed  an  order  with  the  products  company  for  the manufacturing of a chain given a set of specifications.  The chain was duly prepared  and  delivered.    A  draft  was  drawn  by  ...

Read more

RIGHT TO SPEEDY, PU…

RIGHT TO SPEEDY, PUBLIC AND IMPARTIAL TRIALHOW SHOULD THE TRIAL BE CONDUCTED? > The trial should be speedy, public and impartial  WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL? > The  right  means  that  the  trial  should  be  conducted  accordin...

Read more

Featured

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

Right to Strike

SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...

Read more

People vs. Tolentin…

G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...

Read more

Perfection Of A Con…

In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...

Read more


BATASnatin.com- The Best Philippine Law Library

Login

Sign in with Facebook