G.R. No. L-7858 October 26, 1955
FRANCISCO L. DAYRIT, plaintiff-appellant, vs. NORBERTO L. DAYRIT and FLORA REGNER-DAYRIT, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On January 27, 1951, the Court of First Instance of Cebu granted the petition of Norberto L. Dayrit and Flora Regner-Dayrit for the adoption of the minor Lydia Duran in Special Proceeding No. 747-R. About a year later, on January 3, 1952, Francisco L. Dayrit filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that the decision was obtained through fraud, that he is the father of Lydia Duran (whose true name is Lydia Dayrit), and that his brother Norberto L. Dayrit knew of this relationship and concealed it from the court. The Cebu court granted this motion, set aside the adoption decision, and ordered a new trial on February 4, 1952. However, in a certiorari and prohibition case (G.R. No. L-5627) filed by Norberto L. Dayrit before the Supreme Court, the order of February 4, 1952 was annulled in a decision promulgated on February 27, 1953, on the ground that the Cebu court had no jurisdiction to issue it as the adoption judgment had already become final and executory. Meanwhile, Francisco L. Dayrit had also filed a habeas corpus case (G.R. No. L-6013) to obtain custody of Lydia Duran, which was denied on March 10, 1953. Subsequently, on September 4, 1953, Francisco L. Dayrit instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to annul the adoption decree on the ground of fraud, recover parental authority, obtain custody, and claim moral damages and attorney’s fees. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground of res judicata, citing the prior decisions in Special Proceeding No. 747-R, G.R. No. L-5627, and G.R. No. L-6013. The lower court granted the motion to dismiss on February 5, 1954.

ISSUE

Whether or not the present action is barred by prior judgments (res judicata).

RULING

No, the present action is not barred by prior judgments. The Supreme Court held that none of the prior decisions had passed upon the question of whether the adoption decree in Special Proceeding No. 747-R was secured through extrinsic fraud. In G.R. No. L-5627, the Supreme Court annulled the Cebu court’s order of February 4, 1952 solely on jurisdictional grounds (the adoption judgment having become final), without addressing the merits of the fraud allegation. In G.R. No. L-6013 (the habeas corpus case), the only issue resolved was the custody of the minor, which was decided in favor of the adoptive parents based on the existing adoption decree. The fraud issue, which is the very purpose of the present annulment case, was not adjudicated in those prior cases. Citing Uy Almeda vs. Cruz, the Court ruled that the doctrine of res judicata presupposes a prior valid judgment, and since the present action seeks precisely to annul that judgment on grounds of fraud, the judgment sought to be annulled cannot be invoked as a bar. The order of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.