GR L 7331; (May, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-7331 May 6, 1955
CLEMENTE PASILAN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANCISCO VILLAGONZA, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The plaintiff-appellant, Clemente Pasilan, filed a complaint on July 1, 1953, in the Court of First Instance of Surigao. He alleged that in 1947, he had previously filed an action (Civil Case No. 61) against the defendant-appellee, Francisco Villagonza, to recover a parcel of land. In that prior case, after the issues were joined, the parties submitted a verbal agreement in open court, which was approved by the court in an order dated December 3, 1947. The agreement adjudicated one hectare of the property in question to Villagonza. Pasilan claimed he was illiterate and did not understand the agreement’s true import, believing it meant an equal division of the property. He moved to set aside the order on December 31, 1947. He also alleged the records of Civil Case No. 61 were lost or destroyed and not reconstituted. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint, attaching as an annex the court’s December 3, 1947 order, which indicated the judgment was based on a sketch submitted by the parties. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by a prior final judgment.
ISSUE
Whether the present action is barred by the prior final judgment in Civil Case No. 61.
RULING
Yes, the action is barred. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The Court found that the plaintiff’s allegation that his motion to set aside the judgment was not acted upon was untrue, as the order denying that motion was annexed to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. This order of denial had become final and barred the present action. The Court also held that the new allegations in the complaint—lack of authority of counsel and fraud—were conclusions of law without specific factual allegations. These matters were not raised in the original motion to set aside and were deemed waived under the principle of the omnibus motion rule. Furthermore, the issue of error or mistake was expressly adjudicated by the order denying the motion to set aside. The principles of res judicata, specifically under Section 44(b) and Section 45 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, barred the re-litigation of these issues. Costs were awarded against the appellant.