Alcantara v Mallion GR No. 141528| Oct.

31, 2006 Does a previous final judgment denying a petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity bar a subsequent petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of lack of marriage license? PETITIONER: Oscar P. Mallion RESPONDENT: Editha Alcantara PONENTE: Azcuna, J. FACTS ♥ Oct. 24, 1995: Mallion filed @ RTC-San Pablo a petition for decalaration for nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity o RTC: DENIED! Failure to adduce preponderant evidence

o CA: DISMISSED! Mallion’s failure to pay the docket fees within the reglementary period July 12, 1999: When decision on the first case attained its finality (the one with grounds of Psychological incapacity), Mallion filed another petition of declaration of nullity, this time, on the ground of lack of marriage license @ RTC-San Pablo
WoN the marriage is void for the absence of Marriage License Petition is DENIED! The case is barred by res judicata! Res judicata- a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided o “there should be an end to litigation” o dual aspect: 1. Bar by prior judgment upon the same claim or cause of action 2. Issues resolved in former suit cannot again be raised between same parties involving different cause of action Requisites of res judicata: o Former judgment is final

ISSUE ♥ HELD ♥ RD ♥

o o o
♥ ♥

it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; it is a judgment or an order on the merits there is -- between the first and the second actions -- identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action

Mallion invoked the same cause of action on different grounds o Same cause: declaration of nullity o What differs is the ground upon which the cause of action is predicated upon Mallion conceded in the first civil case that the marriage had been solemnized and celebrated in accordance with law. The alleged absence of marriage license could have been presented in the earlier case. The Court ruled in Perez v CA ,“A party seeking to enforce a claim, legal or equitable, must present to the court, either by the pleadings or proofs, or both, on the grounds upon which to expect a judgment in his favor. He is not at liberty to split up his demands, and prosecute it by piecemeal or present only a portion of the grounds upon which a special relief is sought and leave the rest to the presentment in a second suit if the first fails. There would be no end to litigation if such piecemeal presentation is allowed.” In Carter v CA, “In sum, litigants are provided with the options on the course of action to take in order to obtain judicial relief. Once an option has been taken and a case is filed in court, the parties must ventilate all matters and relevant issues therein. The losing party who files another action regarding the same controversy will be needlessly squandering time, effort and financial resources because he is barred by law from litigating the same controversy all over again”

*Mian’s Annotation: according to Atty. Legarda, Mallion is ESTOPPED kasi it was implied from the first marriage that there was a Marriage License. Regarding the validity of marriage (since this is under the “absence of requisites”), I think the marriage is VALID, kasi if he was estopped from filing the 2nd petition, then it’s tantamount to acknowledging that a marriage license really exists. Likewise, his petition on the ground of psych incapacity was also dismissed. What do you think?)*