G.R. No. L-12205; September 30, 1959
FORTUNATO MILLARE, ET AL., plaintiffs. JOSE CARINO and FELIX TABOR, cross-claim plaintiffs-appellees, vs. ISIDRO MILLARE, ET AL., defendants. MARCELA TABOR, cross-claim defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiffs Millare-Ballena filed an action for recovery of ownership over eight parcels of land. Regarding Parcel 1, a three-cornered controversy arose among plaintiffs Millare-Ballena, defendants Adame-Tabor (spouses Pio Adame and Marcela Tabor), and additional defendants Carino-Tabor (Jose Carino and Felix Tabor). The lower court dismissed the complaint, confirmed the title of another defendant over other parcels, and affirmed the claim of Carino-Tabor over Parcel 1. Plaintiffs Millare-Ballena appealed to the Court of Appeals, but their appeal was dismissed for failure to pay fees, and the judgment became final. Defendant Marcela Tabor (substituted for Adame-Tabor) appealed directly to the Supreme Court only the portion of the decision awarding Parcel 1 to Carino-Tabor and ordering her to pay them sums of money.
The trial court’s decision was based on a prior case (Case No. 35) involving the same Parcel 1 and the same parties. In that prior case, Carino and Tabor sued Pio Adame for partition, alleging joint purchase. Adame disclaimed interest. Marcela Tabor intervened, claiming ownership via a donation from the original owner, Francisca Flores, and impugning the deed of sale to Carino, Tabor, and Adame as fraudulent. The trial court in Case No. 35 found that: (a) Francisca Flores sold the land absolutely to Carino, Tabor, and Adame via a public document in 1937; (b) the purchasers possessed the land and shared its produce until 1940; (c) in 1941, Adame refused to share, claiming a donation to his wife; (d) Carino declared the land for taxes; (e) Carino and Tabor paid taxes; (f) in 1940, Flores donated the land to Marcela Tabor; (g) Marcela Tabor also declared and paid taxes since 1943; (h) Flores was not blind at the time of the sale; and (i) she died in 1943. The court held the deed of sale was not void and, since Flores was no longer owner at the time of the donation, Marcela Tabor acquired no rights. It dismissed her complaint in intervention. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment, holding the deed of sale “valid and subsisting.”
In the present case, the trial court held that Marcela Tabor was estopped from questioning the validity of the sale to Carino-Tabor, as the matter was already res adjudicata due to the final judgments in Case No. 35.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in not considering Marcela Tabor’s evidence in support of her cross-claim, based on its conclusion that the issue of the validity of the deed of sale in favor of Carino-Tabor was already res adjudicata.

RULING

No, the lower court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision.
The Court rejected appellant Marcela Tabor’s argument that only the dispositive portions (fallo) of the prior decisions in Case No. 35 constituted the judgment and that the findings on the validity of the deed of sale within the body of those decisions were not conclusive. The Court distinguished the cited cases (Government vs. Ramon y Vasquez and Contreras vs. Felix), noting their limited application to situations where the dispositive part is unambiguous and complete by itself or where general statements in the body are opposed to the dispositive part.
In Case No. 35, the dispositive parts, while not ambiguous, were not complete adjudications by themselves. The findings in the body of the decisions—specifically that the deed of sale was valid and subsisting and that Marcela Tabor acquired no rights—were not opposed to the result but were the very ratio decidendi (reasoning) for dismissing her complaint in intervention and for the appellate affirmance. Therefore, the principle of res adjudicata properly applied, barring Marcela Tabor from relitigating the validity of the sale.
The Court also denied a separate motion for contempt filed by Marcela Tabor against the appellees, finding no basis for it in view of the merits of the case and the absence of relevant court orders like attachment or injunction.
The appealed decision was affirmed, with costs against appellant Marcela Tabor.