G.R. No. 173148, April 06, 2015 ELSA DEGAYO vs. CECILIA MAGBANUA-DINGLASAN, JOHNNY DINGLASAN, et al.

 The present case involves a property dispute, which gave rise to two civil cases for ownership and damages between conflicting claimants over a parcel of land located on the northeastern bank of Jalaud River.

FACTS: 

Lot No. 861, 36,864 sqm. in Dingle, Iloilo, registered in the name of Degayo's deceased parents, was used to be bounded on the southwest by the Jalaud River that serves to separate Dingle from Pototan Iloilo. Opposite is Lot No. 7328, a 153,028 square meter parcel of land, at Pototan, Iloilo. The Jalaud River, which separates these parcels of land, thus flows along the northeast side of Lot 861 and the southwest side of Lot No. 7328.

In 1970's, the Jalauad River steadily changed its course and moved southwards towards the banks of Pototan, where Lot No. 7328 lies, leaving its old riverbed dry. As a result, Lot No. 7328 progressively decreased in size while the banks adjacent to Lot No. 861 gradually increased in land area.

Degayo and the tenants believed that the area was an accretion to Lot No. 861. As a result, her tenants, commenced cultivating and tilling that disputed area with corn and tobacco. The area allegedly added to Lot No. 861 contains 52,528 sqm, came from the 26,106 sqm. original abandoned river bed and 26,419 sqm. resurfaced area of Lot No. 7328. 

CASE No. 16047:  

On October 2, 1984, the respondents filed a complaint against the tenants, arguing that the disputed property was an abandoned riverbed and should rightfully belong to them to compensate for the erstwhile portion of Lot No. 7328.

Degayo, the owner, sought to intervene but her motion was denied. However, she was able to participate in the proceedings as a witness for the defense. She testified on the same matters and raised the same arguments she alleged in her complaint in Civil Case No. 18328.

On May 7, 1996, the RTC of Iloilo, Branch 27, rendered its decision in favor of the respondents. The tenants promptly filed an appeal but they failed to file an appeal brief. Thus, the decision in became final and executory on August 6, 1999.

CASE No. 18328:

Instead of filing petition for certiorari, Degayo initiated a suit against the respondents. In her complaint, Degayo alleged to have acquired Lot No. 861 by inheritance and stressed that the area in dispute was an accretion to Lot No. 861.

The court found in favor of Degayo and declared the property in question as an accretion to Lot No. 861. The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration but their motion was denied. Hence, the respondents filed an appeal with the CA.

On November 7, 2005, the CA granted the respondents' appeal and reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC Branch 22 in Civil Case No. 18328.

Degayo sought a reconsideration of the CA Decision but the CA denied her motion in its May 19, 2006 Resolution. Aggrieved, Degayo filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with this Court.

ISSUES:

1. WON CA erred in declaring the disputed property as an abandoned riverbed and not an accretion to Lot 861.

2. WON CA erred in taking judicial notice of the RTC decision in Civil Case No. 16047, which was not even presented during the hearing of the present case.

3. WON CA erred in declaring the RTC Branch 27 decision in Civil Case No. 16047 conclusive upon Degayo when she was not even a party in the said Civil case.

HELD: 

1. CA is correct in declaring that the disputed property is an abandoned riverbed and not an accretion. 

The Supreme Court noted that the ownership of the disputed parcel of land has been unequivocally settled in Civil Case No. 16047. RTC opined that the claim of accretion has no valid basis. The Jalaud River naturally changed its course and moved southward which resulted to abandonment of its previous bed and encroached upon a portion of Lot No. 7328. It further held that the claim of accretion could not be sustained because the 26,419 sqm. portion is ostensibly within the metes and bounds of Lot No. 7328. On the other hand, the 26,106 sqm. portion refers to an abandoned river bed, and is thus governed by Article 461 of the Civil Code, which states that River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost.

2. CA is correct in taking judicial notice of the RTC decision in Civil Case NO. 16047.

SC ruled that CA may take judicial notice of Civil Case No. 16047. At present case, there was no denial of the existence and the decision in Civil Case No. 16047. In fact, Degayo stated on record her full knowledge of Civil Case No. 16047 and clearly and frequently referred to it in her pleadings, and sufficiently designated it by name, parties, cause of action and docket number from the court a quo, to the CA and even before this Court. Under the circumstances, the CA could certainly take judicial notice of the finality of a judgment in Civil Case No. 16047. There was no sense in relitigating issues that have already been passed upon in a previous civil case. 

3. CA is correct in declaring the RTC Branch 27 decision in Civil Case 16047 conclusive upon Degayo.

The decision in Civil Case No. 16047 constitutes res judicata. SC found that there is an identity of parties in Civil Case No. 16047 and the present case. There is identity of parties where the parties in both actions are the same, or there is privity between them, or they are "successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity. Absolute identity of parties is not required, shared identity of interest is sufficient to invoke the coverage of this principle. Thus, it is enough that there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case.

Principles:

1. Article 461 of the Civil Code, which states that River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost.

2. The taking of judicial notice is a matter of expediency and convenience for it fulfills the purpose that the evidence is intended to achieve, and in this sense, it is equivalent to proof. Courts are not authorized to "take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge." While the principle invoked is considered to be the general rule, this rule is not absolute.

3. Res judicata literally means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment." It also refers to the "rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the former suit. It rests on the principle that parties should not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once; that, when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or an opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of the court, so long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate.