G.R. No. L-14715; January 30, 1962
MARCELA JULIAN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. MARTA GONZALES, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Maria Gregorio died intestate in 1932, leaving a parcel of land, Lot No. 954. She was survived by her children Marta, Lucas, Policarpio, and Nemesio Gonzales, and her granddaughters Tecla del Rosario (child of deceased daughter Maria) and Marcela and Melitona Julian (children of deceased daughter Gregoria). In 1947, the Gonzales siblings executed an extrajudicial partition excluding their nieces, transferring the title to themselves and later selling the lot to Rosalina Ramos, who subsequently mortgaged and sold it to other parties.
On August 24, 1950, Marcela and Melitona Julian filed Civil Case No. 482 for partition and recovery of their shares against their relatives and subsequent transferees. The court dismissed this case on July 25, 1951, for failure to prosecute. On March 2, 1954, the same plaintiffs filed a second action, Civil Case No. 845, involving the same property and parties. This was dismissed on June 10, 1954, as barred by the prior dismissal. The plaintiffs then filed the present action, Civil Case No. 1121, on July 16, 1955, seeking to annul all transactions involving the lot and to declare their ownership share.

ISSUE

Whether the orders dismissing Civil Cases Nos. 482 and 845 operate as res judicata, barring the present action.

RULING

Yes, the doctrine of res judicata applies. For res judicata to bar a subsequent action, the following must concur: (1) a final former judgment rendered by a court with jurisdiction; (2) the former judgment is a judgment on the merits; and (3) identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first and second actions. All these elements are present.
First, the order of dismissal in Civil Case No. 482 dated July 25, 1951, was issued by a competent court and had become final and executory. Second, a dismissal for failure to prosecute, under then Rule 30, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, is an adjudication on the merits unless otherwise provided. The 1951 order contained no such contrary provision, thus constituting a judgment on the merits. Third, there is complete identity of parties (the same plaintiffs and defendants), subject matter (Lot No. 954 and the claim of co-ownership), and cause of action (the enforcement of the plaintiffs’ alleged hereditary rights to the property).
The subsequent filing of Civil Case No. 845 and the instant case merely re-litigates the same fundamental issue already settled by the final dismissal in Civil Case No. 482. The second dismissal order in Civil Case No. 845 correctly affirmed this preclusive effect. Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed Civil Case No. 1121 on the ground of res judicata. The order appealed from is affirmed.