G.R. No. L-13285; April 18, 1960
SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FLORENIO PELAYO, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellant Simeona Ganaden Vda. de Ursua filed an action to annul the decision and execution order in Civil Case No. 24465 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and to recover damages, on the ground that said decision and order were void for lack of due process. Defendant-appellee Florenio Pelayo moved to dismiss, arguing the action was barred by a prior judgment and the complaint stated no cause of action. The lower court dismissed the case, holding that a judge of one branch cannot annul the order or decision of a judge of another branch of the same court. Plaintiff appealed.
In the prior case (Civil Case No. 24465), Pelayo sued Ursua to declare him the absolute owner of Lot No. 6 and to recover damages for her interference. Ursua, in her answer, claimed a better right to purchase the lot and alleged fraud in Pelayo’s acquisition. Notice of the hearing was served on her counsel but was not transmitted to the attorney in charge. Consequently, neither Ursua nor her counsel appeared at the May 17, 1955 hearing, which proceeded ex parte before a deputy clerk authorized to receive evidence. A decision was rendered on May 24, 1955, in favor of Pelayo. Upon learning of the decision, Ursua filed a petition for relief from judgment on grounds of excusable negligence, which was denied. Her attempt to appeal failed due to untimely prosecution, making the decision final. She later moved to set aside the judgment and for a new trial, arguing the decision was rendered without due process because evidence was taken before a deputy clerk and the decision was likely not prepared by the judge personally. This motion was denied. She then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-9790) on the same grounds, but it was not given due course.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the present action for annulment of judgment.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal is affirmed, but on a different ground. The lower court’s view that it lacked authority to annul a decision of another branch of the same court is erroneous. Courts of First Instance have exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions incapable of pecuniary estimation, which includes an action for annulment of judgment. The cited case (Montesa vs. Manila Cordage Co.) is inapplicable as it dealt with an interlocutory order setting aside an attachment in another case, not a direct action for annulment.
However, the present action is barred by res judicata. The cause of action and relief sought in this case—annulment of the decision in Civil Case No. 24465 for lack of due process—were already raised and adjudicated in that prior case. Specifically, Ursua raised the issue of due process in her motion to set aside the judgment and for a new trial, and again in her petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. The court in the prior case had jurisdiction, and the parties are identical. Since the ruling on these matters was not appealed in due time, it became final. Therefore, the principle of res judicata precludes relitigation. The order of dismissal is affirmed on the ground of res judicata, with costs against plaintiff-appellant.