G.R. No. L-51025 September 22, 1993
ANTONIO A. ENRIQUEZ, petitioner, vs. FELICIDAD ANGCO BOYLES, assisted by her husband VENANCIO GUNAYAN and LORETO AUMENTADO BOYLES assisted by her husband JOSE CURIBA, respondents.

FACTS

The estate of the late Eutiquio Boyles was placed under administration after his death in 1955. Following the probate of his will, the court appointed a commissioner to partition the estate among the heirs, including the respondents Felicidad Angco Boyles and Loreto Aumentado Boyles. On September 11, 1974, the lower court ordered the administratrix to deliver the heirs’ shares in specific real properties. However, these properties became the subject of multiple civil cases filed by petitioner Antonio A. Enriquez against the heirs, based on a document of sale purportedly executed by the respondents on February 25, 1959, conveying their rights and interests in the estate to Enriquez for P2,000.
Three prior civil cases were filed by Enriquez:
1. Civil Case No. 2591 (filed July 10, 1974) dismissed for failure to amend the complaint per court order.
2. Civil Case No. 2686 (filed February 8, 1975) dismissed without prejudice for improper joinder of parties.
3. Civil Case No. 2807 (filed February 4, 1976) dismissed without prejudice for non-suit.
Despite these dismissals, Enriquez filed Civil Case No. 2929 on April 25, 1977, against only the respondents, again seeking recovery of ownership based on the same 1959 document. The respondents raised the affirmative defense of res judicata, arguing that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 2591 barred the subsequent suit. The trial court agreed and dismissed Civil Case No. 2929 on the ground of res judicata, ruling that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 2591 was with prejudice and constituted a judgment on the merits. Enriquez appealed, contending that res judicata was inapplicable.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of Civil Case No. 2591 operates as res judicata to bar the filing of Civil Case No. 2929.

RULING

Yes, the principle of res judicata applies. All requisites for res judicata are present:
1. There is a final former judgment (the dismissal order in Civil Case No. 2591).
2. The court that rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties.
3. The dismissal was a judgment on the merits.
4. There is identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between Civil Case No. 2591 and Civil Case No. 2929.
The dismissal of Civil Case No. 2591 was unqualified and resulted from Enriquez’s failure to comply with the court’s order to amend the complaint. Under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Revised Rules of Court, such dismissal has the effect of an adjudication on the merits unless otherwise provided. The trial court did not specify that the dismissal was without prejudice; thus, it was with prejudice. Enriquez’s failure to move for reconsideration or appeal rendered the order final and executory. The subsequent filing of Civil Cases Nos. 2686 and 2807 did not revive Civil Case No. 2591. The petition was denied, and the trial court’s decision was affirmed.