G.R. No. L-7192; January 31, 1955
RUFINO CASTAÑO, GUALBERTO CASTAÑO, BRIGIDO CASTAÑO, SOCORRO CASTAÑO and SERVILLANO CASTAÑO, who are all of minor age, and JACINTA PALAGAN, as guardian ad litem, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. CONRADO CASTAÑO, ESPERANZA CASTAÑO, GUADALUPE CASTAÑO, JOSE CASTAÑO, FELIX CASTAÑO, MARGARITO CASTAÑO, FRANCISCO VIOLANCO, as husband of Esperanza Castaño, and TOMAS NERI, as husband of Esperanza Castaño, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellants, who are minor adulterous children of the deceased Ramon Castaño by Jacinta Palagan, filed a pauper’s case in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental on June 14, 1949. They sought support and maintenance from the defendants-appellees, who are the legitimate children of Ramon Castaño by his legal wife, Antonina Paburada. The complaint alleged that Ramon Castaño died on October 21, 1936, leaving considerable private property worth not less than P100,000; that proceedings for the distribution of his properties were instituted and the properties were partitioned, with each defendant receiving a share; and that the plaintiffs and their mother had no property or means of support. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds: (1) the plaintiffs had no legal capacity to sue because the guardian ad litem proposed in the complaint was not actually appointed at the time of filing; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction over the defendants because the order appointing the guardian was not attached to the original summons; (3) the complaint stated no cause of action because no final judgment had acknowledged the plaintiffs’ filiation; and (4) the cause of action was barred by a prior judgment in Civil Case No. 602, which was dismissed on July 18, 1940, for the plaintiffs’ failure to amend their complaint after a demurrer was sustained. The trial court dismissed the case on the first, second, and fourth grounds. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified it to the Supreme Court as only questions of law were involved.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiffs had no legal capacity to sue and that the court had no jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants.
2. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the cause of action was barred by a prior judgment.

RULING

1. Yes, the trial court erred. The record showed that although no guardian ad litem was appointed when the complaint was filed, the court appointed the plaintiffs’ mother as guardian ad litem on September 17, 1949, before the motion to dismiss was heard and granted on October 22, 1949. Thus, the first ground for dismissal was not sustainable. Regarding the second ground, the failure to attach the appointment order to the summons was a mere technicality; the proper remedy was to order a new summons with the appointment or serve the appointment separately. The service of summons was sufficient to subject the defendants to the court’s jurisdiction.
2. Yes, the trial court erred. The prior dismissal in Civil Case No. 602 was not a bar to the present action. The demurrer in the first case was sustained because the complaint failed to allege a sufficient cause of action, specifically that the defendants had not yet received their shares in the inheritance of Ramon Castaño at that time. The order of dismissal was final only as to the absence of a cause of action at that time, not as to a new complaint alleging that the defendants had since received their shares. The dismissal was because the action was premature; thus, it did not constitute res judicata. A judgment dismissing an action as premature does not bar another action when the right of action becomes complete. The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.