This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-07-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| There is also no identity of causes of action between Civil Case Nos. 116 and 120. We agree with the findings of the CA which we find no reason to set aside, to wit: …In Civil Case No. 116, the case as found by the MTC is an ejectment suit and for failure of plaintiff-private respondent to state the date when he was deprived of his possession, the court held that it did not entitle him to file an ejectment suit against herein defendant-petitioner. In Civil Case No. 120, the cause of action is for recovery of possession and not ejectment. These are two separate causes of action and therefore the principle of res judicata does not apply to the present case.[19] Indeed, an ejectment case such as Civil Case No. 116, involves a different cause of action from an accion publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria, such as Civil Case No. 120, and the judgment of the former shall not bar the filing of another case for recovery of possession as an element of ownership. A judgment in a forcible entry or detainer case disposes of no other issue than possession and establishes only who has the right of possession, but by no means constitutes a bar to an action for determination of who has the right or title of ownership.[20] Incidentally, we agree with the findings of the RTC that Civil Case No. 120 is not an accion publiciana but more of an accion reinvindicatoria as shown by the respondent's allegation in the complaint that he is the registered owner of the subject lot and that the petitioner had constructed a bungalow thereon and had been continuously occupying the same since then. | |||||