LAURO IMMACULATA, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE AMPARO VELASCO AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, PETITIONER, VS. HON. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST IN…

Lauro Immaculata versus Judge Pedro Navarro

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Lauro Immaculata, represented by his wife Amparo Velasco as guardian ad litem, against Judge Pedro Navarro in his capacity as presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch Two, and the heirs of Juanito Victoria. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to reverse the trial court's dismissal of his complaint for annulment of judgment and of a deed of sale with reconveyance of real property. The case matters because it is a compact illustration of two doctrines every examinee must command: the requisites of res judicata, and the rule that a party who invokes a court's jurisdiction cannot later repudiate it.

Procedural History

In the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch Two, Lauro Immaculata filed a complaint for annulment of judgment and deed of sale against the heirs of Juanito Victoria and the sheriff. The private respondents moved to dismiss on three grounds: lack of jurisdiction, res judicata, and failure to state a cause of action. The trial court, in an order dated July 21, 1975, dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing that res judicata does not apply when the very cause of action is the annulment of the judgment. The trial court denied the motion on December 5, 1975. The petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The First Division initially denied the petition for late filing and late payment of legal fees, but on motion for reconsideration the Court reconsidered and required the respondents to comment. After the comment and the filing of briefs, the Court gave due course to the petition and eventually submitted the case for decision.

Facts

Sometime in or before December 1969, Juanito Victoria, with the cooperation of Juanita Naval and others, allegedly caused Lauro Immaculata to execute a deed of absolute sale over a five thousand square meter parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Number 76069, for fifty-eight thousand pesos. The complaint alleged that the petitioner was then suffering from chronic mental illness, that the price was never in truth received, and that the sale was fictitious and simulated.

On the strength of that deed, Juanito Victoria filed an action for specific performance against Lauro Immaculata in August 1970, docketed as Civil Case Number 13734, to compel the execution of a registrable document. The original summons was not served because Lauro was confined at the National Mental Hospital, but his wife Amparo was appointed guardian ad litem in March 1971. She received and accepted the alias summons on March 6, 1972, yet no answer was filed. The trial court declared Lauro in default and, on October 4, 1972, rendered judgment ordering him to deliver the owner's copy of the certificate of title and to execute the necessary documents so that the sale in favor of Juanito Victoria could be registered.

Lauro later filed a petition to set aside that decision and the order of execution, which the trial court denied in November 1973. He then filed the present complaint in Civil Case Number 20968, seeking annulment of the judgment and the deed of sale, alleging lack of valid service of summons and lack of jurisdiction over an admittedly insane person. The trial court dismissed it as barred by res judicata.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for annulment of judgment and deed of sale on the ground of res judicata.
• Whether or not the judgment by default in the earlier specific performance case was void for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner and for denial of due process.
• Whether or not there is identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the two cases such that the earlier judgment bars the later complaint.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text; it applies the settled requisites of res judicata as restated in its own words:

In order for a judgment to be a bar to a subsequent case, the following requisites must be present: (1) it must be a final judgment; (2) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be identity between the two cases, as to parties, subject matter and cause of action.

These requisites are the measure against which the Court tested the dismissal, and all four were found present.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The dismissal on the ground of res judicata was correct because every requisite was satisfied: the judgment in the specific performance case had become final and executory, the court that rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, it was a judgment on the merits, and there was identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.

On the second issue, the Court held that the judgment by default was not void. When the alias summons and a copy of the complaint were served on the petitioner through his guardian ad litem, the court acquired jurisdiction over his person. The guardian ad litem had a reasonable opportunity to answer, and the trial court did not act hastily in declaring him in default. Even assuming invalid service, the petitioner voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction when he filed a petition to set aside the decision and the order of execution. The Court adopted the rule that:

a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to serve affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.

On the third issue, the Court held that although the earlier case was one for specific performance, the judgment therein in effect ruled on the validity of the contract of sale when it ordered the delivery of the title and the execution of the documents of sale. The petitioner could no longer question that validity in the later case, and the issues he raised were substantially the same issues already resolved against him in his earlier petition to set aside the judgment.

Doctrine

A final judgment bars a subsequent action under res judicata when four requisites concur: a final judgment, rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, on the merits, with identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action. A judgment by default rendered after valid service of summons through a duly appointed guardian ad litem is not void, and the court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. A party who invokes the jurisdiction of a court to obtain affirmative relief cannot afterwards repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. Finally, a judgment in a specific performance case that necessarily passes upon the validity of a contract of sale settles that issue and may bar a later action to annul the same sale.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the orders of the trial court dismissing the complaint and denying reconsideration were upheld.

Remember This

Memorize the four requisites of res judicata and the rule that one who seeks affirmative relief from a court cannot later question its jurisdiction. Examiners use this case to test res judicata, jurisdiction over the person through a guardian ad litem, and the principle of voluntary submission to jurisdiction.