G.R. No. 179556 February 13, 2009
Concordia Medel Gomez, Petitioner, vs. Corazon Medel Alcantara, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Concordia Medel Gomez filed a Complaint for specific performance and damages (Civil Case No. 97-84159) against respondent Corazon Medel Alcantara over the ownership of Lot No. 2259-A in Manila. Petitioner alleged that her father, Ponciano Medel, gave her the lot as a wedding gift in 1950, but in 1967, the title was placed in the name of her sister Teodora under an agreement that Teodora would hold it in trust for petitioner. In 1993, petitioner discovered that Teodora had donated the lot to respondent (Teodora’s niece) in 1980, transferring the title to respondent’s name. The RTC of Manila, Branch 50, dismissed this case for petitioner’s failure to prosecute when her counsel failed to appear at a hearing on May 31, 2000. The motion for reconsideration was denied, and the dismissal became final as petitioner did not appeal.
Less than four years later, on October 13, 2004, petitioner filed another Complaint for recovery of share of inheritance with damages (Civil Case No. 04-111160) against respondent before the RTC of Manila, Branch 27, seeking essentially the same relief—declaration of ownership over the same lot. Respondent moved to dismiss on the ground of res judicata, citing the prior dismissal. The RTC Branch 27 denied the motion to dismiss, prompting respondent to file a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of Civil Case No. 97-84159 for failure to prosecute constitutes res judicata, barring the subsequent filing of Civil Case No. 04-111160.

RULING

Yes. The Court of Appeals’ decision, which found that res judicata applied, was sustained. The Supreme Court held that a dismissal for failure to prosecute, having attained finality, is an adjudication on the merits and constitutes res judicata. The elements of res judicata are present: (1) the former judgment (dismissal of Civil Case No. 97-84159) is final; (2) it was rendered by a court with jurisdiction; (3) it is a judgment on the merits; and (4) there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the prior and subsequent cases. Both cases involve the same parties (petitioner vs. respondent) contesting ownership of the same parcel of land (Lot No. 2259-A), and the causes of action are identical as they arise from the same set of facts and seek the same relief—declaration of petitioner’s ownership and cancellation of respondent’s title. Therefore, the subsequent complaint (Civil Case No. 04-111160) is barred by res judicata.