GR L 18707; (February, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18707 February 28, 1967
AGUSTIN O. CASEÑAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ VDA. DE ROSALES (Substituted by her heirs), ROMEO S. ROSALES, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
On August 21, 1952, Rodolfo Arañas and Agustin O. Caseñas filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 261) for specific performance and damages against spouses Jose A. Rosales and Concepcion Sanchez. They alleged that Caseñas acquired from Arañas the rights to a parcel of land (Lot No. 445-A), which Arañas had earlier acquired from the Rosales spouses under a deed of sale dated March 18, 1939, with the stipulation that the final transfer would be made on or before February 18, 1941. The vendors refused to execute the final deed. The principal relief sought was an order directing the defendants to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of Caseñas. During the pendency of the case, counsel notified the court that plaintiff Rodolfo Arañas and defendant Jose A. Rosales had died. The lower court, instead of ordering the substitution of legal representatives as required by the Rules of Court, directed the surviving plaintiff, Caseñas, to amend the complaint. When Caseñas failed to comply, the court dismissed the case on July 18, 1957, for abandonment and lack of interest. No appeal was taken, and the dismissal became final. On April 18, 1960, Caseñas filed a new complaint (Civil Case No. 780) against the widow and heirs of Jose A. Rosales, seeking to quiet title and for reconveyance of the same property, based on the same allegations and deed of sale from the previous case. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including res judicata, prescription, and lack of cause of action. The lower court dismissed the complaint, holding it was barred by prior judgment (res judicata), stated no cause of action for quieting title (as plaintiff had no title yet), and that any action for specific performance was barred by prescription.
ISSUE
1. Whether Civil Case No. 780 is barred by the prior dismissal of Civil Case No. 261 (res judicata).
2. Whether the complaint in Civil Case No. 780 states a cause of action.
3. Whether the action is barred by prescription.
RULING
1. No, Civil Case No. 780 is not barred by res judicata. The dismissal order in Civil Case No. 261 was void. Upon the death of parties, the trial court should have ordered the substitution of legal representatives in accordance with Rule 3, Section 17 of the Rules of Court, not directed the amendment of the complaint. The order to amend was void, and the subsequent dismissal for non-compliance was likewise void. A void judgment cannot constitute a bar to a subsequent action.
2. Yes, the complaint states a cause of action. A cause of action exists when an act or omission violates the legal right of another. The complaint alleged that the defendants refused to convey the title as stipulated, violating the plaintiff’s rights under the deed of sale.
3. The Supreme Court deferred resolution on the issue of prescription. It held that this issue should be resolved after a trial on the merits in Civil Case No. 780, considering the appellant’s defense alleging the existence of a trust relationship over the property.
The order dismissing Civil Case No. 780 was set aside, and the case was remanded to the court of origin for trial on the merits. Costs were imposed on the appellees.