G.R. No. 205194 , February 12, 2020
ATTY. FELINO M. GANAL, MANUEL G. ABAN AND AIDA ABAN, MILAGROS ABAN-JALOP, THE HEIRS OF ANDRES G. ABAN, JR., NAMELY: CONSUELO B. ABAN, CHERRY B. ABAN, BRENDA B. ABAN, YURI B. ABAN, ANDRES B. ABAN III, JOSEPH KEN B. ABAN AND JOSETTE G. ABAN, AND THE HEIRS OF ANITA ABAN-ALMAZORA, NAMELY: DANE A. ALMAZORA, YOLANDA A. JAMISOLA, JOSELITO A. ALMAZORA AND GERARDO A. ALMAZORA, ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT MANUEL G. ABAN, PETITIONERS, VS. ANDRES ALPUERTO, RICO ROQUITTE, ROSALINDA GABALLO AND LEONILA PALALA, AS OFFICERS OF BAYANIHAN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WHO FILED CIVIL CASE NO. 3747 AS A CLASS SUIT ON THEIR BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THEIR CO-OCCUPANTS OF THE SUBJECT LAND WHO ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners are the heirs and successors-in-interest of Andres Aban, who allegedly purchased a portion (Lot 427-C-1) of Lot 427 from Eleuterio Cuenca in 1941. Respondents, as officers of the Bayanihan Homeowners Association, filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 3749) against petitioners, the City of Butuan, and the Register of Deeds for the annulment of the 1941 Deed of Sale and the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. RT-22372) issued to petitioners, claiming their members were purchasers in good faith of portions of the same lot. On September 12, 2002, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed respondents’ complaint for failure to prosecute. Years later, on August 23, 2012, petitioners filed a Complaint for Revival of Judgment, seeking full implementation of the 2002 dismissal order, which they claimed affirmed their ownership and possession of the disputed property. The RTC (Branch 2, Butuan City) dismissed petitioners’ complaint in an Order dated September 26, 2012, ruling that a dismissal for failure to prosecute is not a judgment on the merits and thus there was no adjudicated right to execute or revive. The RTC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on December 5, 2012. Petitioners elevated the case via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly dismissed the Complaint for Revival of Judgment on the ground that the dismissal of the previous case (Civil Case No. 3749) for failure to prosecute was not a judgment on the merits, and thus, there was no judgment to revive or execute.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s dismissal. The Court held that a dismissal of a complaint for failure to prosecute is not an adjudication on the merits. Such a dismissal does not decide the substantive rights of the parties; it merely terminates the case due to the plaintiff’s inaction. Consequently, it does not constitute a judgment that can be enforced through execution or revived under an action for revival of judgment. The dismissal order dated September 12, 2002, in Civil Case No. 3749 did not grant any legal right or impose any correlative obligation in favor of petitioners, nor did it adjudicate possessory rights over the disputed property. Therefore, petitioners’ action for revival of judgment had no cause of action, as there was no judgment on the merits to enforce. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the RTC Orders dated September 26, 2012, and December 5, 2012.