G.R. No. L-2534. October 13, 1950.
Lino Gorospe y otro, demandantes-apelantes, vs. Luciano Millan y otro, demandados-apelados.

FACTS

The plaintiffs (appellants) filed a complaint in August 1941, alleging that in 1913 they entrusted Amadeo Millan with funds to purchase lands in their name. Amadeo Millan bought eight parcels but fraudulently registered them in his own name. Upon discovery, he promised to execute a deed of conveyance but died in 1927 without doing so. His heirs (defendants) likewise promised but failed to execute the deed. The plaintiffs sought conveyance and damages. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the cause of action was barred by a prior judgment. They referenced Civil Case No. 8390, involving the same parties and cause of action, which was dismissed by the court on March 5, 1941, for the plaintiffs’ failure to appear at the hearing. Initially, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, but upon reconsideration and review of the documentary evidence (the record of the prior dismissal), it granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of Civil Case No. 8390 for failure of the plaintiffs to appear at the hearing constitutes res judicata, barring the present action.

RULING

Yes. The order of dismissal in Civil Case No. 8390 is a dismissal with prejudice, constituting an adjudication on the merits. The dismissal was ordered under the then-governing Rules of Court (which took effect July 1, 1940), specifically Rule 30, Section 3. This rule provides that a dismissal for the plaintiff’s failure to appear or to prosecute “shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise provided by the court.” Since the dismissal order in the prior case did not state it was provisional or without prejudice, it operated as a final adjudication on the merits. Therefore, the present action is barred by a prior judgment. The appealed order dismissing the complaint is affirmed.

AI Generated by Armztrong.