No, the petition will not prosper.

The issue to be considered is whether the denial of the first petition of declaration of nullity of
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity bars the subsequent filing of a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of lack of a valid marriage license.
In the case of Mallion vs Alcantara, the Supreme Court denied the subsequent petition of
declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of lack of a valid marriage license due to the
previous petition with the same cause of action but with a different ground of psychological
incapacity violating the prohibition against the splitting of a single cause of action and res
judicata.
The concept of res judicata is embodied in Section 47 (b) and (c) of Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court, thus:
SEC. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. — The effect of a judgment or final order rendered
by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may
be as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order against a specific thing or in respect to the probate of a
will, or the administration of the estate of a deceased person, or in respect to the personal,
political, or legal condition or status of a particular person or his relationship to another, the
judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will or administration, or the
condition, status or relationship of the person; however, the probate of a will or granting of
letters of administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death of the testator or
intestate;
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or
as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the
parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or
special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same
capacity; and,
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is
deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to
have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary
thereto.
The above provision outlines the dual aspect of res judicata. Section 47 (b) pertains to it in its
concept as "bar by prior judgment" or "estoppel by verdict," which is the effect of a judgment as
a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action. On
the other hand, Section 47 (c) pertains to res judicata in its concept as "conclusiveness of
judgment" or otherwise known as the rule of auter action pendant which ordains that issues
actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between
the same parties involving a different cause of action. Res judicata in its concept as a bar by prior
judgment obtains in the present case.
Res judicata in this sense requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) the former
judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; and (4) there is -- between the first and the
second actions -- identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.
Based on this test, petitioner would contend that the two petitions brought by him seeking the
declaration of nullity of his marriage are anchored on separate causes of action for the evidence
necessary to sustain the first petition which was anchored on the alleged psychological
incapacity of respondent is different from the evidence necessary to sustain the present petition
which is anchored on the purported absence of a marriage license.
Therefore in the instant case herein, premised on the claim that the marriage is null and void
because no valid celebration of the same took place due to the alleged lack of a marriage license,
Mario impliedly conceded that the marriage had been solemnized and celebrated in accordance
with law. Mario is now bound by this admission. The alleged absence of a marriage license
which Mario raises now could have been presented and heard in the earlier case. Suffice it to
state that parties are bound not only as regards every matter offered and received to sustain or
defeat their claims or demand but as to any other admissible matter which might have been
offered for that purpose and of all other matters that could have been adjudged in that case.
It must be emphasized that a party cannot evade or avoid the application of res judicata by
simply varying the form of his action or adopting a different method of presenting his case. As
explained further in Perez vs CA, a plaintiff is mandated to place in issue in his pleading, all the
issues existing when the suit began. A lawsuit cannot be tried piecemeal. The plaintiff is bound
to set forth in his first action every ground for relief which he claims to exist and upon which he
relied, and cannot be permitted to rely upon them by piecemeal in successive action to recover
for the same wrong or injury.
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.
Therefore, having expressly and impliedly conceded the validity of their marriage celebration,
Mario is now deemed to have waived any defects therein. For this reason, the present action for
declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of lack of marriage license is barred by the
decision on the previous petition of declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity.