Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LCD GMDP Digest For Rem 1 Session 5 Dism
LCD GMDP Digest For Rem 1 Session 5 Dism
DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
Estelita and Lolita filed an action for annulment of the CFI’s decisions.
GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL They point out that the judgements are void for being coram non judice and for
LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER HIS PERSON want of jurisdiction. CA dismissed the petition.
LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
LITIS PENDENCIA
RES JUDICATA Issue:
NO CAUSE OF ACTION
1. Was the judgement void for being coram non judice?
LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER HIS PERSON 2. Did the CFI acquire jurisdiction over the persons of Estelita and Lolita?
AMIGO AND VDA DE SALINAS V. CA Held:
GR NO. 102833 FEBRUARY 9, 1996
1. No.
Facts: a. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the
allegations of the complaint. It does not matter if later on, the
Lolita Amigo and Estelita vda de Salinas, hereinafter called “Lolita” and merits of case veer away from the claims asseverated by the
“Estelita” leased from Mercedes Inigo hereinafter called “Mercedes” a land. They plaintiff.
constructed their houses on the land. Meanwhile, Mercedes sold the land to i. The suit is for the recovery of real property, which fell
Bosquit and Wee. Bosquit and Wee instituted a deed of exchange with the city of within the jurisdiction of the RTC
Davao. Later on, they filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the City of ii. That the City of Davao owns the land is belied by the
Davao but was dimissed. Bosquit sold his rights to Wee. titles showing that Wee owned the subject property.
Later on, Wee instituted a complaint for recovery of real property against 2. Yes.
Lolita and Estelita before the CFI. After Lolita and Estelita filed their answer, the a. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in a civil action is
court appointed a geodetic engineer to survey the property. The court allowed acquired either by his voluntary appearance in court and his
Wee’s amended complaint, where he also prayed for the abatement of nuisance submission to its authority or by service of summons.
over portions of improvements introduced by Lolita and Estelita. In their amended i. by their filing of an answer and amended answer,
answer, Lolita and Estelita denied the material allegations of the amended Estelita and Lolita are deemed to have formally and
complaint. They insisted that their properties are not nuisances. After full reception effectively appeared before the lower court.
of evidence, CFI ruled in favour of Wee. b. Estelita and Loliita have allowed the issue of jurisdiction over
their persons to pass unquestioned until the rendition of
Estelita and Lolita appealed before the CA. CA dismissed for appeal judgment. It is now too late for them to assail the lower court’s
because they did not submit their brief. A petition for relief from the order of the jurisdiction over them.
dismissal was likewise denied because it was filed beyond the reglementary period.
Wee was able to secure a writ of execution from the CFI. CFI denied Estelita and
Lolita’s omnibus motion to quash the writ of execution. CFI granted Wee’s motion Notes:
for special order for demolition.
1
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
1. Voluntary appearance is a waiver of the necessity of a formal Thereafter, in response to the amended petition, La Naval prayed for
notice. dismissal of the action for failure to pay the filing fees, apart from its averment
a. Appearance in whatever form, without expressly that as it is an ordinary civil action that requires a full blown trial, the prayer for
objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the summary hearing of arbitration issue is procedurally untenable. It also filed a
person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court motion to set the case for preliminary hearing of its special and affirmative
over the person. defenses which are grounds for its motion to dismiss.
b. While the formal method of entering an appearance in a
cause pending in the courts is to deliver to the clerk a The Court issued an order where it held that two arbitrators chose Mr.
written direction ordering him to enter the appearance Narciso as the third arbitrator, and that parties should submit position papers as
of the person who subscribes it, an appearance may regards the issue of Yao’s claim for damages which may be litigated upon in
be made by simply filing a formal motion or plea summary proceeding to enforce the arbitration agreement.
or answer.
c. The formal method is not necessary. La Naval moved for the reconsideration of the order. It argued that the
2. Unlike the question over the subject matter which may be lower court sits as a special court exercising limited jurisdiction. Hence it is not
invoked at any stage of the proceedings [ even on appeal], the competent to act on Yao’s claim for damages. The Regional Trial Court denied the
issue of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant must be motion for reconsideration.
seasonably raised.
a. It can be pleaded in a motion to dismiss or by way of an Responding to the original action for certiorari and prohibition for
affirmative defense in answer. annulment of that order filed by petitioner, the Court of Appeals ruled that the
Regional Trial Court, acting within the limits of its special jurisdiction, may rule on
LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER the issue of whether the litigants may proceed to arbitration. It further held that La
Naval was in estoppel for failing to question the competence of the Trial court to
LA NAVAL DRUG V. CA hear and decide yao’s claim for damages.
GR NO. 103200 AUGUST 31 1994
Issue:
Facts:
Would the submission of other issues in the motion to dismiss or of an affirmative
La Naval rented a portion of the commercial owned by Yao. When the defense in the answer bar the defendant from setting up lack of jurisdiction over
lease expired on April 30, 1989, La Naval considered extending the lease for his person?
another five years. Given the disagreement as to the rental rate, both La Naval
agreed to submit it for arbitration. La Naval appointed Domingo Almarez Jr as his Held:
arbitrator, while Yao chose Atty Sabile. With respect to the third arbitrator, the
appointment of Mr. Aurelio was held in abeyance, since La Naval insisted the Board Not inevitably.
of Directors approve Mr. Aurelio’s appointment. Subsequently, Yao filed an
amended petition for the enforcement of the Arbitration agreement with damages.
1. Jurisdiction over the person must be seasonably raised, i.e., that it is
Notwithstanding La Naval Drug’s opposition, the lower court admitted it.
pleaded in a motion to dismiss or by way of an affirmative defense in an
answer.
2
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
a. Voluntary appearance shall be deemed a waiver of this defense. a.a special law has limited the exercise of its normal
b. The assertion, however, of affirmative defenses shall not be jurisdiction on a particular matter or
constructed as an estoppel or as a waiver of such defense. b. the type of action has been reposed by law in certain
other courts or quasi-judicial agencies for
determination.
3. the rules relating to the effects of want of jurisdiction over the
subject matter should apply with equal vigor to cases where the
2. Where the court itself clearly has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
court is similarly bereft of jurisdiction over the nature of the
or the nature of the action, the invocation of this defense may be done at action.
any time.
a. It is neither for the courts nor the parties to violate or disregard
that rule, let alone to confer that jurisdiction, this matter being ILOCOS SUR ELECTRIC V. NLRC
legislative in character. GR NO. 106161 FEBRUARY 1, 1995
b. Barring highly meritorious and exceptional circumstances, such
as hereinbefore exemplified, neither estoppel nor waiver shall Facts:
apply.
Engr Sabio filed a case before the Labor Arbiter against ISECO for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in his favour. ISECO appealed to the NLRC.
The want of jurisdiction by the court is indisputable, given the nature of NLRC dismissed the appeal as the appeal had been filed out of time. The motion
the controversy. The arbitration law explicitly confines the court's authority only to
for reconsideration has been denied. ISECO filed a petition for certiorari before the
pass upon the issue of whether there is or there is no agreement in writing Supreme Court.
providing for arbitration.
Issue:
All considered, the court a quo must then refrain from taking up the
claims of the contending parties for damages, which, upon the other hand, may be 1. Does NLRC have jurisdiction over the case of Engr Sabio?
ventilated in separate regular proceedings at an opportune time and venue. The 2. will ISECO be estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of NLRC
circumstances obtaining in this case are far, we hold, from justifying the over the case?
application of estoppel against either party.
Held:
Notes:
1. yes
a. PD 269 as amended by PD 1645 has given NEA the power of
1. Jurisdiction over the nature of the action, in concept, differs from
supervision and control over electric cooperatives and other
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
borrowers. It does not give NEA authority to hear and decide
2. Illustrated, lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action is the
termination cases of employees in electric cooperatives. The
situation that arises when a court, which ordinarily would have
authority is vested in the labor arbiter.
the authority and competence to take a case, is rendered without
2. yes.
it either because:
3
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
Issue: 2. yes.
4
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
Notes: Issue:
1. Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction over the subject matter may 1. Was the Republic Estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction?
put at naught whatever proceedings the court might have had. 2. did the MTC have jurisdiction over the case?
a. Hence, even on appeal, and even if the parties do not
raise the issue of jurisdiction, the reviewing court is not Held:
precluded from ruling that it has no jurisdiction over the
case. 1. No.
b. jurisdiction is vested by law and cannot be conferred or a. the CA’s ruling that a party may be estopped from raising such
waived by the parties or even by the judge. [jurisdictional] question if he has actively taken part in the very
c. It is also irrefutable that a court may at any stage of the proceeding which he questions, belatedly objecting to the courts
proceedings dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. jurisdiction in the event that the judgment or order subsequently
For this matter, the ground of lack of jurisdiction in rendered is adverse to him [22] is based on the doctrine of
dismissing a case is not waivable. estoppel by laches. this ruling is inapplicable.
2. With the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction, it then i. Republic filed its Opposition to the application for
becomes inconsequential whether the court acted on the Urgent registration when the records were still with the RTC.
Motion to Dismiss or on the Omnibus Motion without the ii. At that point, it could not have questioned the
requisite notice as provided in Secs. 4 and 6 of Rule 15 of the delegated jurisdiction of the MTC, simply because the
Rules of Court. case was not yet with that court. When the records
3. The determination of lack of jurisdiction over Abadia being were transferred to the MTC, Republic neither filed
apparent from the face of the amended complaint, the defect of pleadings nor requested affirmative relief from that
want of prior notice and hearing of the Omnibus Motion could court.
not by itself confer jurisdiction upon the court a quo.
5
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
6
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
its opposition on the ground that RTC Davao had not acquired jurisdiction over c. As worded, the rule does not contemplate that there be a prior
[c1]. RTC rendered its order in Anderson’s favour. On appeal, the Court of Appeals pending action, since it is enough that there is a pending
set aside the orders of the RTC. action.[8]
3. the rule on litis pendentia does not require that the later case should
Should the action in Kalookan RTC be dismissed on the ground of lis pendens? yield to the earlier.[10] The criterion used in determining which case
should be abated is:
Held:
a. which is the more appropriate action[11] or
Yes.
b. which court would be "in a better position to serve the interests
1. All the requisites for lis pendens are present. The parties in the of justice.
Davao and Caloocan cases are the same. They are suing each other
for sums of money which arose from their contract of agency. As 4. Applying these criteria, and considering that both cases involve a
observed by the appellate court, the relief prayed for is based on the sum of money collected in and around Davao, the Davao Court would
same facts and there is identity of rights asserted. Any judgment be in a better position to hear and try the case, as the witnesses and
rendered in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. evidence would be coming from said area.
7
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
of the complaint only after it had filed its own action Was the dismissal proper?
against them, is immaterial.
3. The fact is, at the time it brought the present case, there was Held:
already another pending action between the same parties
seeking to assert identical rights with identical prayers for relief Yes.
based on the same facts, the decision in which would be res
judicata herein. 1. in his basic petition for review, one of the assigned errors of Ramos is
that the lower court erred in not holding that the parties in [c1] are not
RAMOS V. PERALTA the same as the parties in [c2]. 8
GR NO 108538 JANUARY 22 1996 a. However, in his brief, no further mention of this assigned error
was made; a clear indication of Ramos’ admission of the identity
Facts: of parties in [c1] and [c2], particularly as he filed a third party
complaint in [c1] against the spouses Ortanez and Mindanao
Ramos leased a fishpond to Sps Ortanez. Unknown to him, the property Insurance.
was in the name of Philippine International Surety, a corporation founded and 2. Ramos’ approach to his consignation case is quite constricted.
99.5% owned by the Salgado Spouses. Later renamed Mindanao Insurance, it was 3. Whatever decision may be handed down in [c1] would constitute res
placed under receivership upon application of the Insurance Commissioner. judicata. Should CFI Bataan rule that the lease is valid and effective
against PR Roman.
PR Roman Inc. purchased from Mindanao Insurance the fishpond. The a. His contention that the only issue in a consignation case is
deed of sale was signed by the receiver and duly approved by the liquidation court. whether or not the defendant is willing to accept the proffered
Later on, Ramos received a letter from PR Roman informing him that of the sale payment is true only where there is no controversy with respect
and extended him the company’s intention of possessing the fishpond. to the obligation sought to be discharged by such payment. His
consignation case, however, is not as simple.
Ramos filed before CFI a complaint [c1] against sps cruz, Mindanao b. While ostensibly, the immediate relief sought for in his
Insurance and PR Roman Inc. for consignation of 70,000.00 representing advance consignation case is to compel therein defendants to accept his
rentals of the fishpond which was previously tendered to, but refused by Sps advance rentals, the ultimate purpose of such action is to
Ortanez and Pablo Roman. compel the new owner of the fishpond to recognize his leasehold
rights and right of occupation.
PR Roman inc filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that venue is c. In the last analysis, therefore, the issue involved in [c2] is the
improperly laid, the complaint states no cause of action and the court has not right of possession over the fishpond intertwined with the
jurisdiction over the subject of the action or suit. It cited the case it filed and validity and effectivity of the lease contract.
pending before in CFI bataan [c2] against Ramos to quiet the title over the
fishpond. CFI dismissed the complaint, averring that there is already a case Notes:
pending between the same parties and for the same cause of action in CFI Bataan.
Ramos’ motion for reconsideration was denied. 1. the rules of venue of personal actions are laid down generally for
the convenient of the plaintiff and the witnesses.
Issue:
8
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
2. the rule on litis pendencia does not require that the later case 2. Yap filed his complaint for the annulment of the checks he issued to
should yield to the earlier case. What is required merely is that Chua after he was adjudged by the RTC of General Santos City
there be another pending action, not a prior pending action. liable.
a. Considering the broder scope of inquiry involved [c2]
and the location of the property involved, the lower a. This strikes the Court as indicative of his deliberate and willful
court decision should be sustained. attempt to render nugatory and defeat the adverse decision of
the RTC of General Santos City and relieve himself of his
YAP V CHUA obligation to pay by having the checks he issued annulled,
GR NO. 186730 JUNE 13 2012 albeit the remedy of appeal was available and which he, in
fact, resorted to.
Facts: b. Chuas complaint is anchored on the amounts Yap received
from her and the RTC of General Santos City decided in her
Yap filed a complaint against Chua and Te [c1] with RTC Makati for the favor on the strength of the checks that Yap issued and
cancellation and discharge of several checks that he drew against his account in endorsed to her.
BPI. Thereafter, Chua also filed with RTC Gen San [c2] a complaint for sum of
money against Yap and his wife, Bessie. RTC General Santos rendered its decision c. By seeking to cancel or discharge such checks, Yap attempted
in favour of Yap. Thereafter, Chua moved for the dismissal of [c1] on the grounds to use the RTC of Makati City to destroy the evidentiary
of litis pendentia and forum shopping. Chua averred that Yap committed forum foundation of the decision of the RTC of General Santos City.
shopping when he failed to inform RTC Makati of [c2]. RTC Makati refused to
dismiss the case. Upon RTC’s denial of Chua’s Motion for reconsideration, Chua d. In doing so, Yap trifled with court processes and exposed the
filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. CA ordered the dismissal of [c1]. courts to the possibility of rendering conflicting
decisions. Worse, Yap sought to accomplish the prohibited - a
Issue: court reversing a decision rendered by a court of co-equal
rank.
Did the CA err when it dismissed [c1]? Notes:
9
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
3. The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical Suarez and Delos Reyes sued the heirs of Machoca for unlawful detainer.
is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both The lower court ruled in their favour. Since the appeal filed by the heirs was
actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to dismissed, the decision became final and executory. A writ of execution and order
the maintenance of the two actions. of demolition were issued.
a. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two
actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the first While the case for unlawful detainer was pending, the heirs of Machoca
case is a bar to the subsequent action. filed an action for prohibition before CFI against the judge hearing the unlawful
b. Hence, a party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting detainer. [c1]. However, it was dismissed. The heirs filed a complaint with the
a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation same CFI for removal of clouds of title but it was dismissed for failure to prosecute
of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not [c2]. They moved for reconsideration but it was denied. The decision became final.
be twice litigated between the same parties or their privies. The heirs filed another case, this time before the RTC for conventional redemption
and damages [c3]. The complaint was dismissed on the ground of res judicata.
4. Among the several tests resorted to in ascertaining whether two suits
relate to a single or common cause of action are: Issue:
a. whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the
first and second causes of action; and Did the lower court err when dismissed the complaint for conventional redemption
b. whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate on the ground of res judicata?
the complaint in the other.[17]
c. Also fundamental is the test of determining whether the cause of Held:
action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the
first complaint. No.
1. The order of dismissal rendered in [c2] had become final because the
VDA DE CRUZO V. CARIAGA heirs failed to appeal after their MFR has been denied. While the dismissal
GR NO. 75109-10 JUNE 28, 1989 was for failure to prosecute, it had the effect of adjudication on the merits
and operates as res judicata, since the court did not direct that the
Facts: dismissal was without prejudice.
Machoca borrowed a sum of money to Ang. She mortgaged her lot and 2. Actions [c2] and [c3] seek to have the deed of agreement considered as
delivered the certificate of title to him. Machoca borrowed another sum of money. mere equitable mortgage and the titles issued in the name of Suarez null
It was claimed that Ang prepared a deed of sale over the lot and had Machoca, an and void on the ground of fraud. Parties are in effect litigating for the
illiterate, affix her thumb mark in the belief that the deed of sale was similar to the same thing and seeking the same relief- that is to recover possession and
deed of mortgage. On the following day, Machoca sought the reformation of the ownership of the lot.
instrument. Instead of reforming the instrument, Ang prepared a deed of
agreements where it was stipulated that Gabina has the right to repurchase the 3. it is of no moment that the later remedy is for conventional redemption
property within three yrs from the execution of the deed of sale. Machoca did not while [c2] was for removal of clouds on the title. Both actions are
redeem the property during her lifetime. Ang sold the lot to Suarez. anchored on exactly the same cause of action, are based on
identical facts, and even claim the same relief. The present petition
10
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
11
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
sustain the second action would have been sufficient to toto. Hacienda filed a petition for review before CA. CA dismissed the petition,
authorize a recovery in the first, 27 even if the forms or nature of totally affirming the RTC and MTC decision.
the two actions be different. 28
a. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the Issue:
two actions are considered the same within the rule that
the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent Was the dismissal of the forcible entry case on the ground of res judicata proper?
action; otherwise it is not.
b. this method is the best and most accurate test as to Held:
whether a former judgment is a bar in subsequent
proceedings between the same parties, and it has even Yes.
been designated as infallible
1. The issue of possession as it related with the ownership of the disputed
HACIENDA BIGAA V CHAVEZ property has been conclusively resolved in the antecedent cases.
GR NO. 174160 APRIL 20 28 2010 a. in the cases of Dizon, Ayala y Cia, and Delos Angeles, the Court
held that all expanded subdivision titles issued in the names of
Facts: Ayala y Cia, Zobels and the Hacienda Calatagan are null and
void. In Delos Angeles, it was further held that the Republic, as
the rightful owner of the expanded areas of the public domain
Hacienda Bigaa filed with MTC a complaint for ejectment ( forcible entry) has the right to place its lessees and permitees ( among them
and damages with application for writ of preliminary injunction against Chavez. Zoila, Chavez’ mother) in possession of the fishpond lots whose
Chavez alleged in his answer that his mother was a fishpond permitee and lessee ownership and possession were in issue in the case.
of the Bureau of fisheries. The areas covered by the permits are the same parcels
of land that her mother and the hacienda claims. As Hacienda Bigaa’s predecessor 2. In conclusiveness of judgment, the dictum laid down in the earlier final
in interest, the Ayalas and the Zobels illegally expanded their property to include judgment or order becomes conclusive and continues to be binding
lots that form part of the public land, Hacienda Bigaa’s titles covering the lot in between the same parties, their privies and successors in interest, as long
dispute have no probative value as they are dubious and nullified by the Supreme as the facts on which that judgement was predicated continue to be the
Court. facts of the case or incident before the court in a later case.
a. The binding effect and enforceability of the earlier dictum can no
Chavez also argues that the suit is barred by prior judgments in (1) the longer be re-litigated in a later case since the issue has already
suit for unlawful detainer filed by Zobels against her mother before the justice of been resolved and finally laid to rest in the earlier case.
the peace [c1] and (2) the case for accion reinvindicatoria with prayer for
preliminary injunction against Zobels [c2]. As the subject matter and issues 3. in this case:
involved in the previous suits are squarely similar and /or identical to the subject
matter and issues involved in the present ejectment care, the ruling in [c1] and Identity of Virtually the same parties i..e. Enrique zobel
[c2] constitute res judicata with respect to the present ejectment case. parties predecessor of Hacienda Bigaa and Zoila Chavez,
predecessor in interest of Chavez
The MTC dismissed the complaint of forcible entry on the ground of res Identity of the Lot in dispute form part of the areas made to
judicata. Upon appeal before the RTC, the decision of the MTC was affirmed in subject matter appear as covered by the title held by Zobels,
12
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
Ayalas and Hacienda Calatagan, and declared public between the same parties, their privies and successors-in-
domain by the Supreme Court interest.
Identity of Ownership and better right of possession. a. as long as the facts on which that judgment was
issues predicated continue to be the facts of the case or
incident before the court in a later case;
4. Hacienda Bigaa never bothered to object to or rebut the allegation that b. the binding effect and enforceability of that earlier
the areas in dispute are the same areas covered by the fishpond permit, dictum can no longer be re-litigated in a later case since
to show that the presently disputed lot are not part of the areas the issue has already been resolved and finally laid to
expanded by Ayala et al titles and reverted to the Republic. rest in the earlier case.
5. The right of Republic’s lessees and public fishpond permitees ( among
them Zoila, Chavez’ mother and predecessor in interest) to possess the 4. res judicata, under the concept of conclusiveness of judgment,
fishpond lots in question are recognized in De los Angeles. They derive operates even if no absolute identity of causes of action
their right of possession from the Republic the rightful owner of these exists. Res judicata, in its conclusiveness of judgment concept,
lots. merely requires identity of issues.
6. that there can be no res judicata because the present suit is for forcible
entry while the antecedent cases were based on different causes of action NO CAUSE OF ACTION
i.e. quieting of title, annulment of titles, and accion reinvindicatoria does
not hold. SAN LORENZO VILLAGE ASSOCIATION V. CA
a. Res judicata under the scope of conclusiveness of GR NO. 116825 MARCH 26, 1998
judgment operated even if no absolute identity of
cause of action exists. Facts:
b. Res judicata, it its conclusiveness of judgment concept,
merely requires an identity of issues. ADEC filed a case against San Lorenzo Company [ SL]. It prayed for the
Notes: issuance of Temporary Restraining Order directing SL and its agents to cease and
desist from making ADEC a member of the San Lorenzo Village Association [ SLVI],
1. Only the identities of parties and issues are required for the prohibit SL from constructing a taller building on its lot and prohibit San Lorenzo
operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment. Village Association from collection membership fees and monthly dues. ADEC also
prayed for the cancellation of the entries in their title.
2. While conclusiveness of judgment does not have the same
barring effect as that of a bar by former judgment that SLVAI filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds of lack of
proscribes subsequent actions, the former nonetheless estops cause of action and lack of ADEC’s personality to sue. It pointed out thata ADEC
the parties from raising in a later case the issues or points that was not the registered owner of the lot and that the sale by Almeda to ADEC could
were raised and controverted, and were determinative of the not bind third parties and that as ADEC is not the owner of the lot, it had no right
ruling in the earlier case. [42] to pray for the cancellation of entry on the title.
3. In other words, the dictum laid down in the earlier final judgment ADEC opposed the motion to dismiss. ADEC argued that that it had a cause of
or order becomes conclusive and continues to be binding action against SLVAI because as the new owner of the lot in question, it cannot be
compelled to become a member of the association, for doing so unduly limits its
13
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
uses of the property. It also asserted that it had the capacity and personality to i. These averments satisfy the three (3) elements of a
sue because the actual notice of sale is equivalent to registration. cause of action.
ii. In other words, the complaint did state a cause of
The RTC denied the Motion to dismiss. Upon the denial of the motion for action.
reconsideration, SLVAI filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. CA denied the
petition. 3. what SLVAI essentially puts at issue is whether substantively, ADEC, as
plaintiff in the case below, possesses a tenable right of action.
Issue: a. said issue is not a ground for a motion to dismiss.
b. As a matter of law, neither are the efficacy of the sale
Did the lower court err when it denied the MTD filed by SLVAI? to pass title to the property, and consequently, ADECs
acquisition of the status of successor-in-interest, specific
Held: mandatory modes to challenge the restrictions in
question, or the change in the physical environment
No. along Pasay Road, grounds for a motion to dismiss
under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
1. A motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action in c. Instead, the aforementioned issues may be properly
the complaint hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged therein. raised in the Answer.
However, the hypothetical question is limited to the relevant and 4. the third issue of whether ADEC is a real party in interest, said issue is
material facts well pleaded in the complaint and the inferences likewise not a proper ground for a motion to dismiss.
deductible therefrom. a. Certainly, as successor-in-interest of the original vendor,
who is the unquestioned title holder, ADEC has the
2. SLVAI cannot successfully invoke the ground that the complaint fails to prerogative to assert all the latters rights, including the
state a cause of action in its motion to dismiss. impugnation of the restrictions on the title.
b. The tenability of the grounds for that
a. the complaint asserts that plaintiff purchased the property in impugnation, while proper under the pleadings,
question from the person admittedly holding title thereto. It then should be threshed out at the trial on the merits.
infers that by this mode, it became the successor in interest of 5. “That even assuming ADEC became owner of the property; it cannot seek
the vendor, if not indeed the owner of the property. Hence the cancellation because, under SLVAIs rules, the cancellation process can
restrictions in the title should be nullified not only because it is only be initiated by members of the SLVAI who are the registered owners
contary to law but also conditions under which they were of the lots in the village and by their two-thirds vote” cannot be raised in
imposed had ceased to exist. MTD.
a. those rules were not dealt with in the complaint at all.
b. The averments in the complaint like the title of ADECs vendor, b. They may thus be raised only by way of defense in the
the execution of the sale by said vendor to ADEC, the latters Answer, but not as ground for a motion to dismiss
status as the vendors successor-in-interest, and the altered available as cause for dismissal of the action at this
physical environment along Pasay Road, are allegations well early stage.
within the hypothetical-admission principle. 6. Even assuming that the allegation of the facts constituting ADECs cause
of action is not as clear and categorical as would otherwise be desired,
14
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
a. the legal right of the plaintiff, Erlinda Gruta was employed as house helper of Sps Calalang. She died of
b. the correlative obligation of the defendant, and Malathion Poisoning. The son of the sps, Ferdinand, was charged with the crime of
c. the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said murder. The fiscal dismissed the complaint on the ground of failure to prove a
legal right. prima facie case of the offense charged. Two years after the death of Erlinda, a
complaint for damages had been filed by the heirs of Erlinda against the
If these elements are absent, the complaint becomes Ferdinand and the sps. Ferdinand and the sps filed their answer with affirmative
vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to defenses and counterclaim. They also submitted a request for admission.The heirs
state a cause of action. of Erlinda filed an opposition to the motion for admission which was not resolved
by the trial court. After the preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses of
2. If the allegations are vague, indefinite, or in the form of Ferdinand and sps Calalang, the court issued an order dismissing the case on the
conclusions, the defendants recourse is not a motion to dismiss ground of lack of cause of action. On appeal, the IAC reversed the lower court’s
but a bill of particulars. order of dismissal.
15
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
16
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
does not carry with it the extinction of the civil par. g., Section 1, Rule 16 "that the complaint states no cause of
action. action." In determining sufficiency of cause of action, only the
ii. The reason most often given for this holding is facts alleged in the complaint should be considered.
that the two proceedings are not between the
same parties. Different rules as to the 2. In a motion to dismiss based on the failure of the complaint to
competency of witnesses and weight of state a cause of action, the question submitted for determination
evidence necessary to the findings in the two is sufficiency of allegation in the complaint itself. The sufficiency
proceedings also exist of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint
itself in order to sustain a dismissal on the ground This rule
3. yes applies when the only affirmative defense is the failure of the
a. the trial court dismissed the case against Ferdinand complaint to state a cause of action. It does not apply when the
Calalang motu proprio based on the ground that there is no valid grounds relied upon by way of affirmative defenses state other
cause of action against him. matters.
i. This is not a ground for dismissal of action
under Rule 16; but the failure of the complaint 3. the court is not allowed to dismiss the case motu proprio
to state a cause of action. when the ground for dismissal is failure of the complaint to
ii. The pleadings, memorandum and motion for state a cause of action. As long as there is a cause of action in
reconsideration and opposition, thereto, might the complaint itself, procedural due process demands that there
show that there is no valid cause of action must be a hearing on the merits with the complaint as "prima
against Ferdinand Calalang; facie evidence of the facts therein stated."
b. the court is not allowed by law to dismiss the case motu
proprio. As long as there is a cause of action in the complaint
itself, procedural due process demands that there must be a PERPETUAL SAVINGS BANK V JOSE ORO B. FAJARDO AND EMMANUEL DEL MUNDO
hearing on the merits with the complaint as "prima GR NO. 79760 JUNE 28 1993
facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
Facts:
17
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
Del Mundo and Fajardo filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA b. the bank had pleaded with sufficient clarity its claimed rights
rendered its decision granting their petition, and reversed the Order of the RTC. against alternative defendants : JJ Mining and Fajardo and Del
The CA ruled that the Bank’s complaint did not state a cause of action against Mundo.
Fajardo and Del Mundo in their personal and individual capacities as no evidence c. That the rights pleaded against JJ are prima facie inconsistent
had been presented to support the liability on the so called “alternative cause of with the rights pleaded against Fajardo and Del Mundo is also
action” ( hearsay and/or third hand information). clear:
i. either JJ corporation alone is liable or
Issue: ii. Fajardo and Del Mundo are alone liable in lieu
of JJ Mining or
1. did the complaint have a cause of action? iii. Fajardo and Del Mundo are solidarily liable with
2. is the rule on alternative defendants applicable in this case? JJ Miing.
18
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
19
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
Did the CA err when it dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of closed by the respondent for illegal advertisement, fraud and
action? misrepresentation of itself as a university.
a. Such acts, according to the RTC undermined the public’s
Held: confidence in Indiana as an educational institution.
[18]
This was a clear statement of a sufficient cause of
action.
Yes.
4. When a motion to dismiss is grounded on the failure to state a cause of
action, a ruling thereon should be based only on the facts alleged in the
1. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory, and so the proper complaint.[19]
remedy in such a case is to appeal after a decision has been rendered. a. The court must pass upon this issue based solely on such
a. A writ of certiorari is not intended to correct every allegations, assuming them to be true.
controversial interlocutory ruling; it is resorted to only to b. For it to do otherwise would be a procedural error and a denial
correct a grave abuse of discretion or a whimsical of plaintiffs right to due process
exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
b. Its function is limited to keeping an inferior court within
its jurisdiction and to relieve persons from arbitrary acts BANGKO SILANGAN DEVELOPMENT BANK V. CA
-- acts which courts or judges have no power or GR NO. 110480 JUNE 29 2001
authority in law to perform.
c. It is not designed to correct erroneous findings and Facts:
conclusions made by the court.
2. There is no grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s denial of the motion to
Banko Silangan filed with RTC Manila a complaint for damages [c1]
dismiss.
against Bausas, Villadolid, Philippine Journalist Inc, Nuguid (publisher), Marquez
a. The trial court stated in its Decision that petitioner was an ( managing editor), Cabaluna ( News Editor) and Ayllon ( City Editor) and Beltran (
educational institution, originally registered with the Securities reporter) for the series of publications that are clearly defamatory and libellous
and Exchange Commission as the Indiana School of Aeronautics, under the ART 353 of the RPC. In their answer with compulsory counterclaim,
Inc. That name was subsequently changed to Indiana Aerospace Bausas and Villadolid alleged lack of actual malice as a defense and interposed a
University after the Department of Education, Culture and Sports compulsory counterclaim. On the other hand, Bausas filed a complaint for a sum of
had interposed no objection to such change. money with damages against Bangko Silangan before RTC Batangas. Instead of
3. CHED issued a formal Cease and Desist Order directing petitioner to stop filing a responsive pleading, the bank filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that there
using the word university in its corporate name. The former also was another action pending between the same parties for the same case; the
published an announcement in the March 21, 1998 issue of Freeman, a action caused the splitting of cause of action raised in the answer and
local newspaper in Cebu City, that there was no institution of learning by counterclaim in [c1]; action violated the principle of multiplicity of suits; and the
that name. The counsel of respondent was quoted as saying in the March filing of the complaint constituted forum shopping.
28, 1998 issue of the newspaper Today that Indiana had been ordered
20
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
RTC Batangas issued a resolution denying the motion to dismiss. Upon 3. These limitations were not transgressed by the trial court in the case at
the denial of the Bank’s MFR, it filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and bar when it denied the Banko Silangan's motion to dismiss.
mandamus before the CA. CA dismissed the petition and held that an order 4. The alleged "chaos and confusion" arising from conflicting decisions that
denying a motion to dismiss, being interlocutory, cannot be the subject of a petitioner purportedly seeks to avert by the dismissal of [c2] are actually
petition for certiorari. far-fetched and contrived considering that any adverse decision of the
CTA can be made the subject of a proper appeal.
Issue:
Notes:
Did the CA err when it dismissed the petition?
1. citing Espao Sr v CA, the order denying the motion to dismiss
Held: may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal
from the judgment after trial.
2. The ordinary procedure to be followed in that event is to file an
No.
answer, go to trial, and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the
issue on appeal from the final judgment.
1. The petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus interposed by banko
silangan before the Court of Appeals is not the proper remedy to question
YUTINGCO V. CA
the denial of its motion to dismiss in [c2].
GR NO. 137264 AUGUST 1 2002
2. The Resolution and Order of the RTC of Batangas denying the motion to
dismiss are merely interlocutory
a. An interlocutory order does not terminate nor finally Facts:
dispose of the case, but leaves something to be done by
the court before the case is finally decided on the DBP filed a complaint against Tensuan for the collection of sum of money
merits.[25] with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment before RTC Makati.
b. It is always under the control of the court and may be Yutingco, Tensuan et al filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint
modified or rescinded upon sufficient grounds shown at failed to state a cause of action; that the condition precedent for filing of the claim
any time before final judgment. was not complied with and the Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
c. This proceeds from the court's inherent power to control RTC denied the Motion to dismiss. Upon the denial of Tensuan Yutingco et al
its process and orders so as to make them conformable motion for reconsideration, they filed motion for extension of time to file petition
to law and justice. for certiorari [ 15 days] before the CA. Three weeks later, they filed their petition
for certiorari before the CA. The CA denied the motion for extension of time.
d. The only limitation is that the judge cannot act with
Subsequently, CA dismissed the petition as Tensuan, Yutingco et al filed to file it
grave abuse of discretion, or that no injustice results
within the reglementary period.
thereby.[26]
21
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
In the case filed before the SC, Tensuan, Yutingco et al assert that their petition
should not have been dismissed on a technicality, considering that what was being 1. exception to the rule that appeal, not certiorari, is proper remedy for the
questioned in their petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, was the denial of MTD:
propriety of the lower courts denying their motion to dismiss.
a. when the trial court issued the order without or in
excess of jurisdiction;
Issue: b. when there is patent grave abuse of discretion by the
trial court
Was the dismissal of CA proper? c. when appeal would not prove to be a speedy and
adequate remedy as when an appeal would not
promptly relieve a defendant from the injurious effects
Held:
of the patently mistaken order maintaining the plaintiffs
baseless action and compelling the defendants to
Yes. needlessly go through a protracted trial and clogging
the court dockets with another futile case
Notes:
22
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
Fast forward to 2005, the trial of the case had not yet been completed. Moreover, GR NO. 142439 DECEMBER 6, 2006
the heirs failed to present their evidence. As the heirs’ counsel on record failed to
appear, the RTC dismissed the complaint for their failure to prosecute but Pinga DOCTRINE: A dismissal for failure to prosecute has the effect of an
was allowed to present evidence ex-parte. adjudication on the merits, and operates as res judicata, particularly
when the court did not direct that the dismissal was without prejudice.
The heirs filed an MR praying for the dismissal of the entire action and that Pinga
be disallowed from presenting evidence ex-parte as the same was not in accord Facts:
with established jurisprudence. The RTC granted the MR and dismissed the
counterclaim, citing as the only ground therefor that “there is no opposition to the DAR awarded Ricardo Alvarez the right to purchase land of the Laguna
MR of the respondents.” Resettlement Project. Alvarez purchased the same and under the Deed of Sale, it
specifically prohibited the transfer of the land within 10 years from the issuance of
Issue: the Cert. of Title to any person other than the vendee’s relatives within the 3rd
civil degree by consanguinity or affinity who are, at the same time, qualified
W/N the dismissal of the complaint, upon motion of the defendant, on the ground beneficiaries.
of the failure to prosecute on plaintiff’s part carries with it the dismissal of pending
counterclaims Pending issuance of the certificate, PD 1474 was passed so it repealed the
prohibition found in the Deed of Sale as such prohibition was by virtue of RA 3844.
Held: The RD of Laguna issued the TCT and 16 days after, Alvarez sold the land to
Mercedes Oliver. 10 years later, Oliver sold the land to Filinvest.
NO. The RTC clearly erred when it ordered the dismissal of the counterclaim, since
S3R17 mandates that the dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice to the Heirs of Alvarez filed a case for reconveyance, redemption and damages against
right of the defendant to prosecute the counterclaim in the same or separate Oliver, Ramos and Nunez before RTC Biñan. They later filed an Amended
action. If the RTC were to dismiss the counterclaim, it should be on the merits of Complaint for Annulment of Title with Reconveyance as the sale was void since it
such counterclaim. Reversal of the RTC is in order, and a remand is necessary for was executed in violation of the law prohibiting the sale of the land.
trial on the merits of the counterclaim.
The case was however dismissed for failure of the heirs and counsel to appear
The present rule embodied in Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 17 ordains a more equitable during hearing for the reception of their evidence, despite due notice and after 8
disposition of the counterclaims by ensuring that any judgment thereon is based postponements. The RTC ordered for the dismissal of the complaint as well as the
on the merit of the counterclaim itself and not on the survival of the main counterclaim as the defendants manifested that they were waiving their right to a
complaint. Certainly, if the counterclaim is palpably without merit or suffers counterclaim. The order became final and executory as the heirs failed to file a MR
jurisdictional flaws which stand independent of the complaint, the trial court is not despite receipt of the order.
precluded from dismissing it under the amended rules, provided that the judgment
or order dismissing the counterclaim is premised on those defects. At the same Heirs filed a complaint with the PARAD seeking the annulment of the Deed of Sale
time, if the counterclaim is justified, the amended rules now unequivocally protect and subsequent transfer of the land on grounds similar to the previous complaint
such counterclaim from peremptory dismissal by reason of the dismissal of the filed. Oliver filed a MTD on the grounds of res judicata and lack of jurisdiction over
complaint. the subject matter by PARAD. Filinvest also filed a MTD based on res judicata and
laches. PARAD dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata and ruled
FILINVEST V. CA that the sale was valid. However, DARAB reversed the decision as there was no
23
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
adjudication on the merits on the complaint previously filed at RTC Biñan and Facts:
ordered reversion of the property to the government. CA affirmed DARAB’s
decision. Felix and Juana were siblings and co-owners of a parcel of land. Felix sold to Juana
his one-half share in lot 4156 when he executed Escritura. A statement in the
Issue: Escritura said that the lot was declared under a certain tax declaration but the
same was for another parcel of land, lot 4389..
W/N DARAB’s ruling that res judicata does not apply is correct as there was no
adjudication of the merits on the case previously filed at RTC Biñan. Juana’s heirs, the Isos, believed that the sale included two lots so they filed a
pleading to direct the RD to issue them a new title. Felix’s heirs opposed the same
Held: so the pleading was withdrawn.
NO. The Isos tried two more times to acquire title in their name but it was dismissed
on the second time for their failure to prosecute and to comply with the orders of
The heirs filed the case before the PARAD because they were already barred from the court. When the judgment on the second try became final, the Isos refused to
filing the case before the proper forum. The allegations and relief found in the surrender possession of Felix’s one-half portion to his heirs.
Complaint filed by the heirs before the PARAD are conspicuously similar to those in
the Amended Complaint which they had earlier filed before the trial court of Binan. Felix’s heirs then filed the present case for partition of Lot 4389 and the trial court
rendered a decision in their favor because Felix did sell his one-half portion in lot
As earlier discussed, the trial court ordered the dismissal of the case for failure to 4389 to Juana; what was sold was lot 4156. Moreover, the dismissal of the Isos’
prosecute. When the respondents failed to file a motion for reconsideration, second case for quieting of title due to failure to prosecute and for failure to
despite due notice, such order became final. comply with court orders had the effect of adjudication on the merits so their claim
of exclusive ownership over Lot 4389 was without merit because it was barred by
Res judicata applies in the present case as there was a concurrence of the the order of dismissal dated Jan. 10, 1985. The CA affirmed the trial court’s
requisites. The Order is clearly final as it disposed of all the rights and obligations decision.
of the parties before it. At the same time, the decision or order was based on the
merits of the case as the same fell in situations contemplated in S3R17, where a Issue:
complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with a lawful order of the court, such
dismissal has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits. A dismissal for failure W/N the dismissal of the quieting of title case barred the Isos from pursuing their
to prosecute has the effect of an adjudication on the merits, and operates as res cause of action in their present defense
judicata, particularly when the court did not direct that the dismissal was without
prejudice. Held:
HEIRS OF GAUDIANE V. CA YES. SC can no longer dwell into the legality and validity of the order of dismissal
GR NO. 119879 MARCH 11, 2004 dated Jan. 10, 1985 as it had already become final and executory for failure to file
an appeal. The order thus had the effect of judgment on the merits although no
DOCTRINE: Partition and an action for Quieting of Title have identical trial was conducted because it did not contain any statement that the case was
cause of action and can therefore be the subject of res judicata. dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a similar future action.
24
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
Based on the principle of res judicata, they are barred in another action (involving Held:
the same subject matter, parties and issues) from raising a defense and from
asking for a relief inconsistent with an order dismissing an earlier case with YES. Once a case is dismissed for failure to prosecute, this has the effect of an
prejudice. adjudication on the merits and is understood to be with prejudice to the filing of
another action unless otherwise provided in the order of dismissal. In other words,
Partition and an action for Quieting of Title have identical cause of action and can unless there be a qualification in the order of dismissal that it is without prejudice,
therefore be the subject of res judicata. Considering the similarity of petitioners’ the dismissal should be regarded as an adjudication on the merits and is with
defense in this case with their main averment in the case for quieting of title, prejudice.
petitioners are barred by res judicata from claiming sole ownership of Lot 4389. The court order said that the case was dismissed, upon petitioners’ motion, for
failure of private respondents and their counsel to attend several scheduled
CRUZ V. CA hearings for the presentation of their evidence.
GR NO. 164797 FEBRUARY 13 2006
Since the order did not contain a qualification whether same is with or without
DOCTRINE: A ruling based on a motion to dismiss, without any trial on prejudice, following Section 3, it is deemed to be with prejudice and shall have the
the merits or formal presentation of evidence, can still be a judgment on effect of an adjudication on the merits.
the merits.
DAEL V. SPS BELTRAN
Facts: GR NO. 156470 APRIL 30 2008
The controversy involves four cases filed between the parties: first (Unlawful DOCTRINE: Under S1R17, it is mandatory that the trial court issue an
Detainer) was decided in favor of Cruz and Concepcion; second (Quieting of Title) order confirming such dismissal and, unless otherwise stated in the
was dismissed for failure to prosecute; third (Injunction) was dismissed because of notice, the dismissal is without prejudice and could be accomplished by
res judicata due to substantial identity of parties in this case and the previous; and the plaintiff through mere notice of dismissal, and not through motion
fourth (Annulment of Title with Damages). subject to approval by the court. Dismissal is ipso facto upon notice, and
without prejudice unless otherwise stated in the notice. The trial court
Cruz and Concepcion filed a Motion for Outright Dismissal of the present case and has no choice but to consider the complaint as dismissed, since the
the court granted the same due to res judicata. However, the same court reversed plaintiff may opt for such dismissal as a matter of right, regardless of the
itself after the Bunags filed their MR and the court reinstated the case. ground.
The CA dismissed the petition filed by Cruz and Concepcion because one of the Frederick Dael filed a complaint for breach of contract and damages against sps
elements of res judicata was not present. Beltran alleging that when the latter sold to him a parcel of land, they did not
disclose that the land was previously mortgaged and it was only later when he
Issue: discovered that an extrajudicial foreclosure of the property was already instituted.
The spouses filed a MTD on the ground that Dael had no cause of action as he had
W/N the dismissal on the Quieting of Title case was a dismissal on the merits as entered the contract to sell with a certain Frederick George Ghent Dael.
there was no litigious consideration of the evidence as well as submitted
stipulations
25
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
The RTC ordered Dael to clarify whether he and Frederick George Ghent Dael were EMPCT participated in the bidding of NIA-Casecnan Multi-Purpose Irrigation and
one and the same, among other things. Dael did not comply and instead filed a Power Project (NIA-CMIPP) and was awarded Packages A-10 and B-11. Mendoza
Notice of Dismissal. The RTC dismissed the complaint with prejudice. received the Notice of Award signed by the Acting Proj. Manager of NIA-CMIPP.
Then Cruz, through meetings with Mendoza and Paule, signed two Job
Issue: Orders/Agreements for the lease of his heavy equipments to EMPCT as the latter
was in need of heavy equipment for use in the NIA project.
W/N the order of dismissal with prejudice was proper despite the Notice of
Dismissal filed by Dael After a year, Paule revoked the SPA he previously issued in favor of Mendoza;
consequently, NIA refused to make payment to Mendoza on her billings. Cruz was
Held: also unpaid for the rent of the equipment and NIA refuse to acknowledge the lease
rentals as it would only be remitting payment to EMPCT.
NO. Beltrans’ argued that the MTD they filed precedes the Notice of Dismissal filed
by the Dael so the RTC correctly dismissed the complaint based on the MTD. Cruz demanded payment of outstanding rentals from Mendoza and/or EMPCT. He
then filed a complaint for collection of sum of money against Paule, Coloma, and
The Court ruled that such argument is erroneous as S1R17 does not encompass a NIA. Paule in turn filed a third-party complaint against Mendoza, who filed her
MTD. The provision specifically provides that a plaintiff may file a notice of Answer with a cross-claim against Paule.
dismissal before service of the or a motion for answer summary judgment. Thus,
upon the filing of the Notice of Dismissal by the plaintiff, the Motion to Dismiss The other parties were declared in default during pre-trial conference and the RTC
filed by respondents became moot and academic and the trial court should have decided in Cruz’s favor when it rendered judgment. Paule and Mendoza appealed
dismissed the case without prejudice based on the Notice of Dismissal filed by the the decision to the CA and the CA dismissed the complaint as well as Mendoza’s
petitioner. appeal.
Moreover, to allow the case to be dismissed with prejudice would erroneously ISSUE:
result in res judicata and imply that petitioner can no longer file a case against
respondents without giving him a chance to present evidence to prove otherwise. W/N Mendoza’s cross-claim against Paule was properly dismissed
26
PENALOSA- LCD DIGESTS SESSION V [UNTIL 3.9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SYLLABUS]
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
ATTY CUSTODIO.
RTC granted Benedicto’s MTD as the respondents were guilty of forum shopping
for failure to report in their original anti-forum shopping certification that they had
filed a similar case with the RTC Pasig; that a perusal of the copies of the
complaints in two cases (Hector Lacson and Ramon Monfort Cases) show
similarities with the present Bacolod Case such that different decisions or rulings
would give rise to conflicting rules on law on similar issues.
Lacson et al. appealed the RTC order to the CA. CA reversed the RTC after finding
merit in the appeal.
Issue:
Held:
27