G.R. No. L-10423; January 21, 1958
Amado P. Jalandoni and Paz Ramos, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Angela Martir-Guanzon, in her own behalf and as Judicial Administratrix of the Testate Estate of the late spouses Hilarion and Ligoria Martir, and Antonio Guanzon, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On January 9, 1947, the appellant spouses filed a suit (Case No. 573) against the appellees for partition of certain cadastral lots and for recovery of damages due to the defendants’ refusal to partition and account for the plaintiffs’ share of crops from 1941-1942 to 1946-1947. The Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental decided in favor of the plaintiffs on February 22, 1955, ordering partition but denying the claim for damages due to failure to prove actual damages. This decision became final as no party appealed.
Subsequently, on August 26, 1955, the plaintiffs instituted the present action (Civil Case No. 3586) seeking to recover: (1) P20,000 as moral and exemplary damages for suffering caused by the defendants’ refusal to partition; (2) P55,528.20 as their share of the property’s products from 1947 (when the first case was filed) until 1955 (when judgment was rendered); (3) P4,689.54 as unpaid land taxes on the properties; and (4) P2,500 for attorney’s fees. Upon the defendants’ motion, the trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the second complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal was correct.
1. On Moral and Exemplary Damages: Recovery for moral and exemplary damages (allegedly due to suffering from the refusal to partition in 1941) was not allowed under the Civil Code of 1899, which governed at the time of the act. The New Civil Code, which first established recovery for such damages, cannot be applied retroactively to acts that occurred before its effectivity. This is expressly prohibited by Article 2257, paragraph 1, of the New Civil Code.
2. On Share of Products (Damages from 1947-1955): The claim for the value of the plaintiffs’ share of the land’s products during the pendency of the first action is barred by the prior judgment in Case No. 573. These damages stem from the same cause of action—the defendants’ continuing refusal to recognize the plaintiffs’ rights since 1941. They could and should have been claimed in the first action, either in the original complaint or by supplemental pleading. Allowing a subsequent suit for these damages violates the rule against splitting a cause of action under Rules 2, Sections 3 and 4, of the Rules of Court. A final judgment on the merits is conclusive not only on matters actually litigated but also on all matters that could have been litigated in the prior suit. The denial of the damages claim in Case No. 573 therefore bars the present claim for subsequent damages arising from the same cause.
3. On Unpaid Land Taxes: The plaintiffs have no right to compel payment of the overdue land taxes to themselves, as taxes are due to the government. Their complaint does not allege that they paid these taxes to prevent forfeiture of the common property, which could have entitled them to seek contribution.
4. On Attorney’s Fees: If the claimed attorney’s fees are for services in the former case (No. 573), their recovery is barred for the same reasons as the damages. If they are for services in the present case, there is no basis for awarding them since the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action.
The order of dismissal is affirmed. Costs against the plaintiffs-appellants.