G.R. No.

198356
ESPERANZA SUPAPO and the HEIRS OF ROMEO SUPAPO, Petitioners,
Vs
SPOUSES ROBERTO and SUSAN DE JESUS, MACARIO BERNARDO, , Respondents

FACTS:
The Spouses Supapo filed a complaints for accion publiciana against Roberto and Susan de Jesus Macario Bernardo
(Macario), and persons claiming rights under them with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City.
The complaint sought to compel the respondents to vacate a piece of land located in Novaliches, Quezon City. Registered
and titled under the Spouses Supapo’s names. The Spouses Supapo did not reside on the subject lot. They also did not
employ an overseer but they made sure to visit at least twice a year.
The Spouses Supapo demanded from the respondents the immediate surrender of the subject lot by bringing the dispute
before the appropriate Lupong Tagapamayapa.
The Spouses Supapo then filed a criminal case against the respondents for violation of Presidential Decree No. 772 or the
Anti Squatting Law. The trial court convicted the respondents.
The respondents appealed their conviction to the CA. While the appeal was pending, Congress enacted Republic Act (RA)
No. 8368, otherwise known as “An Act Repealing Presidential Decree No. 772,” which resulted to the dismissal of the
criminal case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the complaint for accion publiciana is barred by res judicata.
HELD:
NO. Res Judicata is not present in the case. The respondents’ reliance on the principle of res judicata is misplaced.
Res judicata embraces two concepts: (1) bar by prior judgment as enunciated in Rule 39, Section 47(b) of the Rules of Civil
Procedure; and (2) conclusiveness of judgment in Rule 39, Section 47.
“Bar by prior judgment” means that when a right or fact had already been judicially tried on the merits and determined by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the final judgment or order shall be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them
and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand or cause of action.
It is obvious that the there is no identity of subject matter, parties and causes of action between the criminal case prosecuted
under the Anti-Squatting Law and the civil action for the recovery of the subject property.
Under this particular concept of res judicata, any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in
the determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled
by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies, whether or not the claim,
demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same.
The only issue in accion publiciana is whether the Spouses Supapo have a better right than the respondents to possess
and occupy the subject property.
For all these reasons, the defense of res judicata is baseless.