GR L 24736; (September, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24736; September 27, 1966
FRANCISCO MALVAR and NATIVIDAD LOPEZ, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. PABLO PALLINGAYAN and CATALINO CHUA, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The spouses Francisco Malvar and Natividad Lopez (plaintiffs-appellants) filed an action for annulment of a contract of lease executed on October 3, 1962, between defendants Pablo Pallingayan and Catalino Chua over a two-storey building in Olongapo, Zambales. The Malvars claimed absolute ownership of the building by virtue of a deed of sale executed in their favor by Pablo Pallingayan and his spouse on February 26, 1961. They alleged that Pallingayan, without their knowledge, consent, or authority, falsely represented himself as the owner and leased the building to Chua. The defendants raised the defense of res judicata, asserting that the ownership of the building had been previously litigated in Civil Case Nos. 2399 and 2359 of the Court of First Instance of Zambales. In those prior cases, the Malvars had intervened, claiming ownership of the same building. After the issues were joined, the cases were set for joint hearing. On October 4, 1962, the court issued an order dismissing the complaints, counterclaims, and the Malvars’ intervention in both cases due to the Malvars’ failure to appear at the hearing despite notification. No appeal was taken from this order.
ISSUE
Whether the present action for annulment of the contract of lease is barred by res judicata due to the prior dismissal of the Malvars’ intervention in Civil Case Nos. 2399 and 2359.
RULING
Yes, the action is barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal from the lower court. For res judicata to apply, the following requisites must be present: (a) a final judgment or order; (b) rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties; (c) a judgment or order on the merits; and (d) identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the two cases. All these requisites are met. The order of dismissal dated October 4, 1962, is final and was issued by a court with jurisdiction. Under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, a dismissal for failure to prosecute, as in the Malvars’ case, has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits. There is identity of parties (the Malvars and Pallingayan), subject matter (ownership of the same building), and cause of action (the claim of ownership by the Malvars). Therefore, the prior dismissal constitutes res judicata, barring the present suit.