G.R. No. L-18172 July 20, 1965
ROSA BUNGAY VDA. DE QUILLOSA, AURORA QUILLOSA DE PALMIANO, and RICARDO QUILLOSA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. TARCILA SALAZAR, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

On April 12, 1956, Martin L. Quillosa filed an action (Civil Case No. 1264) against Tarcila Salazar in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan for declaration of ownership and annulment of TCT No. 1447 in Salazar’s name, alleging his ownership under TCT No. 27253 and that the deed of sale leading to the issuance of TCT No. 1447 was fictitious, with his signature forged. The defendant moved for a bill of particulars, which the court granted on May 22, 1956, ordering Quillosa to submit it. Quillosa failed to comply within the ten-day period. Consequently, the defendant moved to strike out the complaint, which the court granted in an order dated July 7, 1956. Subsequently, on July 13, 1956, the defendant moved for dismissal of the case and cancellation of the notice of lis pendens, which the court granted in an order dated July 21, 1956, stating the striking out of the complaint was “tantamount to a dismissal of the case.” Martin L. Quillosa died on July 17, 1956, but his counsel did not promptly notify the court; notice was only filed on December 6, 1956, by a new lawyer for his heirs. No substitution of party-plaintiff was made. Instead, on June 29, 1957, Quillosa’s widow and children filed a new action (Civil Case No. 1529) against the same defendant, praying for the same relief based on the same grounds, this time attaching a copy of the deed. The defendant moved to dismiss based on res adjudicata, which the court granted on August 3, 1957, stating the striking out of the complaint in the first case was a dismissal on the merits. The plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No. 1264 constitutes res adjudicata, thereby barring the subsequent action (Civil Case No. 1529).

RULING

Yes. The dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No. 1264 constitutes res adjudicata, barring the subsequent action. Under Rule 30, Sections 3 and 4 of the old Rules of Court (now Rule 17, Section 3 of the Revised Rules), failure to comply with a court order, such as the order to submit a bill of particulars, is a ground for dismissal, and such dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits unless otherwise provided by the court. The court’s order of July 7, 1956, striking out the complaint for non-compliance was a dismissal under this rule. All elements of res adjudicata are present: a final order deemed a judgment on the merits; jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties; and identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action in both cases. The parties are identical (appellants are heirs of the original plaintiff), both complaints refer to the same land and allege the same grounds for nullity of the same title, and pray for the same relief. The appellants’ contention that the order of July 21, 1956, was issued after the plaintiff’s death and thus not final is unavailing, as the dismissal was effected by the July 7 order. Furthermore, the appellants’ failure to promptly notify the court of the death and seek substitution, or to seek relief under Rule 38, allowed the dismissal to become final. Their abandonment of the first case and filing of a new one indicates their own belief in its finality. The order appealed from is affirmed.