ROSITA S. VDA. DE VOCAL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. MATILDE VDA. DE SURIA, SPOUSES ENRIQUE SURIA AND TERESITA VOCAL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Vocal versus Suria

The Case

This is Rosita Vocal versus Matilde Vda. de Suria and the Suria spouses and children. Rosita Vocal sues her co-heirs for reimbursement of one half of a debt of their common predecessor, Vicenta Morales, which she says she paid. The action is one for recovery of a sum of money. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to fix the test for identity of causes of action, and to remind every litigant that a final dismissal on the merits, even one that merely fails to state a claim, bars a second suit built on the same wrong. It is a res judicata case, and the doctrine it teaches is the one examiners reach for when a plaintiff splits her claim.

Procedural History

Rosita Vocal filed her complaint for recovery of a sum of money before the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. The defendants moved to dismiss on three grounds: that the claim was barred by a prior judgment in an earlier reconveyance case, that the action had prescribed, and that the complaint stated no cause of action. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. Rosita Vocal appealed that dismissal order directly to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Facts

Vicenta Morales died leaving one parcel of land in Manapla, Negros Occidental, known as Hacienda Buen Recuerdo. In the intestate estate proceedings, the hacienda was adjudicated one half to Rosita Vocal, Vicenta's daughter, and one half to the children of Vicenta's predeceased son Marcelino Suria. Rosita alleged that since 1918 she and her late husband Edilberto Vocal, and later she alone, had worked, cultivated, and improved the hacienda, while the Surias showed no interest and contributed nothing. To finance those improvements the spouses incurred debts, and after Edilberto died, Vicenta Morales executed a Deed of Assumption with Mortgage in favor of the Philippine National Bank for a total of 24,799 pesos and 85 centavos, exclusive of interest, annotated on the title. Rosita paid part of that obligation from her own funds.

Rosita first presented her claim for reimbursement in the intestate proceedings, but the probate court ruled that the parties should litigate it in a separate civil action. She then demanded that the defendants assume one half of the 24,799 pesos and 85 centavos plus interest. They refused.

Earlier, Rosita had already sued the same defendants in a complaint for reconveyance with damages. Among the causes of action in that earlier case were a claim for equitable compensation of 40,000 pesos for developing and preserving the hacienda and redeeming it from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation and the Philippine National Bank, on account of debts allegedly incurred by Vicenta Morales. That earlier case was dismissed, and the dismissal became final.

Issues

• Whether or not there is identity of causes of action between the earlier reconveyance case and the present action for reimbursement, such that the final judgment in the first bars the second.
• Whether or not the dismissal of the earlier case operates as an adjudication on the merits.

Applicable Provisions

Section 49 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, on the effects of judgment, provides:

In other cases the judgment or 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.

This is the provision the Court applies: it makes a final judgment conclusive not only as to what was directly adjudged but also as to any matter that could have been raised in relation to it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the causes of action are identical. Differences in the name of the action, in the relief prayed for, in the amounts sought, and in the object of the claims do not alter the similarity of the causes of action. The wrong alleged in the present case, the failure of the defendants to reimburse the plaintiff for what she spent for and in the interest of their predecessor, was already included in the earlier case. Both rest on the same theory: that the defendants, as co-heirs, have a duty to share in an obligation of their progenitor which the plaintiff discharged. The Court applied this test:

whether the same evidence would support and establish both the present and former causes of action.

Since the 24,799 pesos and 85 centavos represents payment of Vicenta Morales' obligation under the Deed of Assumption, and one cause of action in the earlier case sought reimbursement of payments to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation and the Philippine National Bank, the same evidence would have sustained both. Had the claim been allowed in the first case, there would have been no need for the second.

On the second issue, the Court held that the dismissal of the earlier case, having become final and not being based on lack of jurisdiction nor made without prejudice, has the effect of a dismissal upon the merits. The plaintiff cannot, by varying her form of action or adopting a different method of presenting her case, escape the effect of res judicata.

Doctrine

First, there is identity of causes of action when the same evidence would support and establish both the present and the former causes of action. A change in the label of the action, in the relief prayed for, or in the amount claimed does not defeat res judicata. Second, under Section 49 of Rule 39, a final judgment is conclusive not only as to the matter directly adjudged but also as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto. A party may not split a single claim and litigate it piece by piece. Third, a dismissal that is not grounded on lack of jurisdiction and is not made without prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The defendants won, and the complaint was dismissed, without costs.

Remember This

Memorize the test: the same evidence would support and establish both the present and the former causes of action. Examiners use this case for res judicata and splitting a cause of action, and for the rule that a final dismissal not based on jurisdiction and not without prejudice is a dismissal on the merits.