Javier v.

Veridiano II
G.R. No. L-48050
October 10, 1994
Petitioner: Felicidad Javier
Respondents: Regino T. Veridiano II (Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales)

Facts:
Felicidad Javier claims that on December 12, 1970, Ben Babol forcibly occupied a portion of her
land and constructed a riprap along the Kalaklan River resulting in an exercise of illegal possession of the
said portion of land. She filed a complaint for forcible entry which was dismissed on November 7, 1972.
Eventually, Ben Babol the property he occupied to Reino Rosete. As a result, Javier also requested the
return of her alleged land from Rosete. After 4 years from the dismissal of the complaint for forcible
entry, Javier filed a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession with damages, now against
both Babol and Rosete. Rosete did not file a responsive pleading and instead moved that the complaint
be dismissed by reason of res judicata.

Issue: Whether or not the action can no longer prosper by reason of res judicata.

Held:
No, there is no res judicata, as the first case of forcible entry is different from the current case of
quieting of title and recovery of possession. The requisites of res judicata are: (1) there must be a final
judgment or order, (2) court rendering judgment must have jurisdiction over the matter, (3) the former
judgment is a judgment on the merits, and (4) there is between the first and second actions identity of
parties of subject matter and of causes of action. The issue in forcible entry is the physical possession of
real property that is not in accordance with law, while the quieting of possession is merely a judgment
to answer as to who has possession, and then recover the same as the lawful owner thereof. As such,
the latter is considered as an accion reinvidicatoria. It is important to note that the subject matter in
both cases is different. In the action for forcible entry, it was the possession of the land, which Javier
wants to reclaim, while in this second action, it is ownership of the thing demanded to be returned.

German Management v. CA
G.R. No. 76217
September 14, 1989
Petitioner: German Management & Services, Inc.,
Respondents: Court of Appeals and Ernesto Villeza

Caisip v. People
G.R. No. L-28716
November 18, 1970
Petitioners: Felix Caisip, Ignacio Rojales and Federico Villadelrey
Respondents: The People of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals

Cristino v. CA
G.R. No. 116100
February 9, 1996
Petitioners: Spouses Cristino and Brigida Custodio and Spouses Lito and Maria Cristina Santos
Respondents: Court of Appeals, Heirs of Pacifico C. Mabasa and Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro
Manila, Branch 181

Andamo v. IAC
G.R. No. 74761
November 6, 1990
Petitioners: Natividad V. Andamo and Emmanuel R. Andamo
Respondents: Intermediate Appellate Court and Missionaries of Our Lady of La Sallette, Inc.

NAPOCOR v. Ibrahim
G.R. No. 168732
June 29, 2007
Petitioner: National Power Corporation
Respondents: Lucman G. Ibrahim, Omar G. Maruhom, Elias G. Maruhom, Bucay G. Maruhom, Rarouk G.
Maruhom, Hidjara G. Maruhom, Rocania G. Maruhom, Potrisham G. Maruhom, Lumba G. Maruhom,
Sinab G. Marhom, Acmad G. Maruhom, Solayman G. Maruhom, Mohamad M. Ibrahim, and Caironesa M.
Ibrahim

Republic v. CA
G.R. No. L-43938
April 15, 1988
Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines (Director of Forest Development)
Respondents: Court of Appeals and Jose Y. De La Rosa