G.R. No.

200858 August 7, 2013 Thereafter, a truckload of fully-armed military personnel entered the Baello property and ejected the
family caretaker at gunpoint. The soldiers demolished the two-storey residential structure and
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, vs.CORAZON B. BAELLO, WILHELMINA BAELLO- destroyed the fishpond improvements on the Baello property.
SOTTO, AND ERNESTO B. BAELLO, JR., RESPONDENTS.
The NHA then took possession of the Baello and Rodriguez properties. The Baello and Rodriguez
FACTS heirs, for fear of losing their lives and those of their families, decided to remain silent and did not
complain.
LRC CASE NO. 520
The NHA executed separate conditional contracts to sell subdivision lots in favor of chosen
 1951 - Pedro and Nicanora Baello filed an application for registration of a parcel of land with
beneficiaries who were awarded 620 lots from the Baello property and 275 lots from the Rodriguez
the (CFI) of Rizal, covering the land they inherited from their mother, Esperanza Baello.
property.
The land, situated in Sitio Talisay, Municipality of Caloocan.
1986 - Minister of Natural Resources issued BFD Administrative Order declaring and certifying
The case was docketed as LRC Case No. 520. forestlands in Caloocan City, Malabon, and Navotas as alienable or disposable for cropland and other
purposes.
 1953 - the CFI of Rizal rendered its decision confirming the title of the applicants to the land
in question. The CFI of Rizal awarded the land to Pedro and Nicanora, pro indiviso. The Republic of 1987 - After the EDSA People Power Revolution, the heirs of Baello executed an extrajudicial partition
the Philippines, through the Director of the Bureau of Lands, did not appeal. The decision became of Pedro’s estate, which included the Baello property. Respondents were issued TCT over an
final and executory. undivided portion of the Baello property. Corazon and Wilhelmina later sold their shares to Ernesto
who was issued TCT in his name.
 1954- The Register of Deeds issued Original Certificate of Title in favor of Pedro and
Nicanora. The property was later subdivided into two parcels of land: Pedro’s lot was Lot A (Baello
property) while Nicanora’s lot was Lot B (Rodriguez property) ACTION FOR EMINENT DOMAIN [Civil Case No. C-169]
 1971 - The subdivision plan was approved. Pedro died intestate, leaving 32 surviving heirs
including respondents. Nicanora died intestate. Nicanora’s husband died a few days later. Still in 1987- the NHA filed an action for eminent domain against the heirs of Baello and Rodriguez
before the RTC of Caloocan City. The NHA also secured a writ of possession.
DAGAT DAGATAN PROJECT
1990 - RTC: dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata and lack of cause of action.
1974 - during the martial law regime, President Marcos issued PD No. 569 creating a committee to
expropriate the Dagat-Dagatan Lagoon and its adjacent areas, including the Baello and Rodriguez CA: Affirmed
properties.
G.R. NO. 107582
The government wanted to develop the properties into an industrial/commercial complex and a
The NHA filed a petition for review before the SC, SC denied due course to the petition on the ground
residential area for the permanent relocation of families affected by the Tondo Foreshore Urban
that the Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error in affirming the order of the RTC. Filed
Renewal Project Team.
a MR - Denied.
First Lady Marcos also launched the Dagat-Dagatan Project, a showcase program for the homeless. It
The Clerk of Court later made an Entry of Judgment.
also covered the Baello and Rodriguez properties.
1993 - Civil Case No. C-16399
The National Housing Authority (NHA) was tasked to develop the property into a residential area,
subdivide it, and award the lots to the beneficiaries.
The NHA filed a complaint for nullity of OCT issued in the names of Pedro and Nicanora. The first, known as "bar by prior judgment," or "estoppel by verdict," is the effect of a judgment as a
bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action.
1994 - During the pendency of the complaint for nullity respondents filed an action for Recovery of
Possession and Damages against the NHA and other respondents. [with regards to the Expropriation
or Action for Eminent Domain]
The second, known as "conclusiveness of judgment," otherwise known as the rule of auter action
NHA, in its Answer, alleged that OCT respondents’ derivative title, was obtained fraudulently because pendent, ordains that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in
the land covered was declared alienable and disposable only on 1986. any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action. x x x.

1995 - RTC: dismissed the complaint for nullity on grounds of estoppel and res judicata and because In this case, the NHA’s petition is barred by conclusiveness of judgment which states that -
the issue on the legal nature and ownership of the property covered by OCT was already barred by a
final judgment in LRC Case No. 520. x x x 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
CA: Affirmed 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
2004 - G.R. No. 143230 same.

the NHA went to the SC to assail the decision of the Court of Appeals. The validity of OCT had long been settled by this Court in G.R. No. 143230. In that case, the Court
ruled that the action to annul OCT was barred by the decision in LRC Case No. 520. The Court noted
SC denied the NHA’s petition for lack of merit. The Court ruled that NHA’s action was barred by the
that the Republic did not oppose Pedro and Nicanora’s application for registration in LRC Case No.
decision of the CFI of Rizal in LRC Case No. 520. This Court held that the NHA was already barred
520, and neither did it appeal the decision. OCT was issued by the Register of Deeds in 1959 and the
from assailing the validity of OCT and its derivative titles based on judicial estoppel.
Republic did not file any action to nullify the CFI’s decision until the NHA filed a complaint for nullity
ISSUE: of OCT only on 1993, the case which was the origin of G.R. No. 143230. As pointed out by this Court
in G.R. No. 143230, the NHA was already barred from assailing OCT No. (804) 53839 and its derivative
W/N CA committed a reversible error in adopting the facts in G.R. No. 143230 when the case was not titles.
tried on the merits.

RULING:

NO.

The doctrine of res judicata has been explained as follows:

The rule is that when material facts or questions, which were in issue in a former action and were
admitted or judicially determined are conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein, such facts
or questions become res judicata and may not again be litigated in a subsequent action between the
same parties or their privies regardless of the form of the latter.

Jurisprudence expounds that the concept of res judicata embraces two aspects.