TEODULO DOMINGUEZ, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. ROMAN B. DE JESUS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

On July 18, 1951, Roman B. de Jesus, et al. filed a complaint against Teodulo
Dominguez, et al. before the Court of First Instance of Tarlac praying that they
be declared absolute owners of certain properties situated in the municipality
of Capas of said province (Civil Case No. 583). The court was then presided over
by Judge Filomeno B. Ibañez. After trial on the merits, the case was submitted
to said judge for decision. However, before said judge could prepare and decide
the case he was transferred to the province of Zambales where he prepared and
signed the decision on March 2, 1953 and sent it to the clerk of court of
Tarlac, having been received by him on March 6, 1953.

On June 24, 1956, Teodulo Dominguez et al. filed a motion for reconsideration
contending that the decision rendered by Judge Filomeno B. Ibañez was null and
void because at the time it was promulgated he was no longer the judge of the
Court of First Instance of Tarlac he having already been transferred to the
Court of First Instance of Zambales by virtue of an administrative order issued
by the Secretary of Justice on January 6, 1953. After considering the merits of
the motion, the court denied it for lack of merit. No appeal was taken either
from the order denying the motion nor from the decision of the court on the
merits, so the decision became final and executory on April 11, 1953.

On November 21, 1956, Teodulo Dominguez, et al. filed another action against
the same defendants before the same court for the purpose of securing a
declaration of nullity of the decision rendered by Judge Ibaiiez (Civil Case No.
3086). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint
states no cause of action since the issue relative to the alleged nullity of the
decision of Judge Ibañez has already been raised and passed upon by the court in
Case No. 583. Acting favorably on the motion, the court dismissed the complaint,
sustaining the allegations of defendants. Again, from the order dismissing the
complaint, no appeal was taken by the plaintiffs as in the previous case.

On December 7, 1957, Teodulo Dominguez, et al. filed a third action against
the same defendants before the same court wherein they sought the same
declaration of nullity of the decision predicated on the same grounds already
alleged in the two previous cases (Civil Case No. 3196). Defendants again filed
a motion to dismiss on the ground that the cause of action alleged therein being
the same aa the one pleaded in the previous complaints is already barred by the
principle of res judicata. The court sustained the motion and the case
was dismissed. This time plaintiffs have appealed.

It appears that plaintiffs raised the issue relative to the validity of the
decision of Judge Ibañez in Civil Case No. 583 when they filed a motion for
reconsideration, but that their argument was disregarded for lack of merit. They
did not appeal from the ruling, and instead filed another case wherein they
raised the same issue. Again, the case was decided against them on the ground of
res judicata. And not content with these two adverse rulings, plaintiffs filed a
third action wherein they reiterated the same issue. The court again disregarded
their plea on the same ground. And in this appeal they assigned as error not
only the dismissal of the case on the ground of res judicata but the
failure of the court a quo in not squarely deciding the issue relative to
the validity of the decision.

The contention cannot be sustained, for upon the facts appearing in the
record it clearly appears that appellants are now barred from raising the issue
of nullity after the same has been passed upon by the court on their motion for
reconsideration in Civil Case No. 583. If appellants were not agreeable to this
ruling what they should have done was to appeal therefrom and not file a new
case. But what this record discloses is that the issue was pleaded by appellants
not only once but thrice and each time the court decided it adversely to them.
It, therefore, appears that appellants are barred from raising it now under the
principle of res judicata. As a consequence, we are now prevented, much
to our regret, from passing upon the validity of the decision of Judge
Ibañez.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against
appellants.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and
Paredes, JJ., concur.