G.R. No. L-26281 May 31, 1979
ROSITA S. VDA. DE VOCAL, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MATILDE VDA. DE SURIA, SPOUSES ENRIQUE SURIA and TERESITA VOCAL, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

This appeal stems from the dismissal of Civil Case No. 7628 by the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. Plaintiff-appellant Rosita S. Vda. de Vocal filed the case for recovery of a sum of money against defendants-appellees, her co-heirs. The parties inherited Hacienda Buen Recuerdo from Vicente Morales, with plaintiff receiving a 1/2 share and defendants sharing the other 1/2. Plaintiff alleged that she and her late husband had solely worked on and improved the hacienda since 1918, incurring debts. Vicente Morales had executed a Deed of Assumption with Mortgage for a PNB obligation of P24,799.85, which plaintiff partly paid. She sought reimbursement from defendants for one-half of this amount, having previously presented this claim in the intestate proceedings of Vicente Morales, where the probate court directed her to file a separate civil action.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of res judicata, prescription, and lack of cause of action. They argued the claim was barred by a prior judgment in Civil Case No. 6673, an action for reconveyance with damages filed by plaintiff against some defendants, wherein she sought P40,000.00 for expenses in improving the hacienda. The trial court dismissed Case No. 6673. The lower court, in dismissing the present case, agreed that the cause of action was barred by the prior judgment in Civil Case No. 6673.

ISSUE

Whether the final decision in Civil Case No. 6673 constitutes res judicata, thereby barring the present action for recovery of a sum of money.

RULING

Yes, the principle of res judicata applies. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding there is identity of causes of action between the two cases. The test for such identity is whether the same evidence would support both the former and the present causes of action. The Court found this test satisfied. The P24,799.85 sought in the present case, representing the obligation under the Deed of Assumption, is logically encompassed within the broader P40,000.00 claim for expenses and reimbursement sought in the prior case. The reimbursement claim for payments made on Vicente Morales’s obligation was a matter that could have and should have been raised in the earlier action for reconveyance and damages.
The dismissal of Civil Case No. 6673 was final and on the merits, not based on lack of jurisdiction or without prejudice. Consequently, under Rule 39, Section 49(b) of the Rules of Court, the judgment is conclusive not only as to matters directly adjudged but also as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto. A party cannot escape the effect of res judicata by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting the case. Since the same parties, acting in the same capacity, are litigating over the same fundamental claim, the prior judgment is a bar to the instant suit. The Court thus found no error in the order of dismissal.