G.R. No. L-7401 June 25, 1955
ARSENIO ESCUDERO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. GERTRUDO FLORES, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiffs-appellants Arsenio Escudero, et al. (the Escuderos) filed a complaint in the Laguna court of first instance seeking to annul a prior judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 9296 of the same court. In that prior case, the defendants-appellees Gertrudo Flores, et al. (the Flores heirs) had sued the Escuderos and won. The judgment in Civil Case No. 9296, which was affirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court with modifications in March 1953, ordered the Escuderos to deliver one-sixth (1/6) of a property to the Flores heirs and pay monthly rentals. In their present complaint to annul that judgment, the Escuderos alleged that the Flores heirs filed the previous case knowing they had no right to the land, secured judgment based on an agreed statement of facts, and committed fraud by concealing the true fact that their mother, Romualda Beltran, had already received her corresponding share from her parents’ estate, meaning the litigated land was not part thereof. The Flores heirs filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it stated no cause of action, was barred by prior judgment, and that the plaintiffs had no personality to sue. The trial court, through Judge Nicasio Yatco, sustained the motion to dismiss in an order dated June 30, 1953.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint to annul the prior judgment in Civil Case No. 9296 is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

RULING

Yes, the complaint is barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order of dismissal. The decision in Civil Case No. 9296 was final, rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties, and was a judgment on the merits between the same parties over identical subject matter and cause of action. The Escuderos’ claim of fraud does not overcome the bar of res judicata. Their allegation that the Flores heirs concealed the fact that their mother had already received her share constitutes intrinsic fraud (such as perjured testimony or false evidence), which is not a ground to nullify a final judgment. Only extrinsic fraud in the procurement of a judgment is a ground for nullity. The Court held that if a losing party could renew litigation by simply asserting concealment of facts, the doctrine of res judicata would become worthless. The Flores heirs received the land with a just title—the final decision, which is conclusively presumed to be right. Furthermore, there was no duty for the Flores heirs, as opponents in an adversarial litigation, to disclose facts to the Escuderos. The order of dismissal is affirmed.