GR 91670; (February, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 91670 ; February 7, 1991
ALBERT NABUS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and MARIANO LIM, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Albert Nabus sold a parcel of land to private respondent Mariano Lim in 1965. In 1970, Nabus filed Civil Case No. 2159 for reconveyance, seeking to repurchase the land under Section 119 of the Public Land Act. The trial court ordered Nabus to deposit the repurchase price. Upon his failure to comply, the case was dismissed with prejudice in 1981 for lack of interest. No appeal was taken from this dismissal. In 1982, Nabus filed Civil Case No. 4293, initially for annulment of the prior dismissal order and later amended to include causes of action for rescission of the sale contract and damages, alleging Lim’s failure to pay the full purchase price.
The trial court dismissed Civil Case No. 4293, ruling it was barred by res judicata. The Court of Appeals affirmed, additionally finding the action for rescission had prescribed. Nabus elevated the case via petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 4293 on the grounds of res judicata and prescription.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The principle of res judicata bars the second action. The first case (Civil Case No. 2159) was a final judgment on the merits, having been dismissed with prejudice for Nabus’s failure to deposit the repurchase price as ordered, which constituted an adjudication on the merits under the Rules of Court. The identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action exists between the two suits. While the first case was for reconveyance under the Public Land Act and the amended complaint included rescission under the Civil Code, both actions ultimately stem from and seek resolution of the same 1965 sale transaction. A party cannot split a single cause of action and pursue it piecemeal through successive suits.
Furthermore, the action for rescission had prescribed. Based on Nabus’s own allegations, the breach—non-payment of installments—occurred at the latest on July 1, 1970. An action upon a written contract prescribes in ten years. The cause of action accrued on July 2, 1970, and the prescriptive period expired on July 2, 1980. The amended complaint invoking rescission was filed only on May 3, 1985, well beyond the prescriptive period. The petition was therefore denied.