G.R. No. 51025. September 22, 1993
ANTONIO A. ENRIQUEZ, PETITIONER, VS. FELICIDAD ANGCO BOYLES, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND VENANCIO GUNAYAN AND LORETO AUMENTADO BOYLES ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND JOSE CURIBA, RESPONDENTS.
ROMERO, J.:
After his death
on January 18, 1955, the estate of the late Eutiquio Boyles was placed under
administration, with Filomena Boyles del Valle as administratrix thereof. With the decedent’s last will and testament
duly probated, Branch III, CFI Bohol appointed Atty. Ulysses B. Tirol as
commissioner to partition said estate among the surviving heirs, including
private respondents herein.
In the sketch
plan submitted by Commissioner Tirol for court approval, it appears that the
inheritance of the abovementioned heirs comes in the form of proportionate
shares in various real properties, to wit:
“Shares corresponding to Felicidad
Angco Boyles
1. Under Lot 1, B. L. II – 12672
Location – Poblacion (Basak) Ubay, Bohol
Lot 1-D
Boundaries:
North – Filomena B. del Valle
Lot 1-A
East –
Loreto Aumentado Boyles
Lot 1-E
South – Sergio Angco Boyles
Lot 1-C
West – Sergio Boyles
Lot 1-C
Area – 14,681 square meters
2. Under Lot 2, B. L.
II – 12672 and Tax Declaration No. D-8145
Lot 2-E
Location – situated at Sitio Popoc,
Barrio Basiao, Pitogo, Ubay, Bohol
Boundaries:
Northeast – Loreto Boyles Lot 2-F
East – Sergio
Boyles Lot 2-C
South – Loreto Boyles
Lot 2-D and
Sergio Boyles Lot 2-C
West – Swamp
Area – 32,110 square meters
3. Under Lot 4, B. L. II – 12672 and Lot 3,
B. L. 12672 and Tax Dec. No. R-9226
Parcel 1-B
Location – Poblacion, Ubay, Bohol
Boundaries:
North – Boyles Road
East – Loreto Boyles
Lot 1-C
South – F. B. del Valle
West – Plaridel Street
Area – 368 square meters
4. Under Lot 3-D, Tax
Dec. No. R-8868
Location – Poblacion, Ubay, Bohol
Boundaries:
North – Mabini Street
East – Plaridel
Street
South – Maria del Valle
Lot 3-E
West – Loreto Boyles
Lot 3-C
Area – 243 square meters
Shares corresponding to Loreto Aumentado
Boyles:
1. Under Lot 1, B. L. II – 12672
Location – Poblacion (Basak), Ubay, Bohol
Lot 1 – E
Boundaries:
North – Nicasia Boyles
East – Filomena B.
del Valle
Lot 1-A
South – Felicidad Angco Boyles
Lot 1-D
West – Felicidad Angco
Boyles
Lot 1-D
Area -14,681 square meters.
2. Under Lot 2, B. L.
II – 12672 and Tax Declaration No. D-8145
Lot 2-F
Location – Sitio Po-poc, Basiao,
Pitogo, Bohol
Boundaries:
North – Public Road
East – Filomena B.
del Valle
Lot 2-B
South – Felicidad Boyles
Lot 2-E and Sergio Angco Boyles
Lot 2-C
West – Swamp
Area – 28,130 square meters
3. Under Lot 2, B. L.
II – 12672, and Tax Declaration No. D-8145
Lot 2-D
Location – Sitio Po-poc, Basiao,
Pitogo, Bohol
Boundaries:
North – Felicidad Angco
Boyles
Lot 2-E
East – Sergio Boyles
Lot 2-C
South – Sergio Boyles
Lot 2-C
West – Felicidad Angco
Lot 2-E
Area – 3,880 square
meters
4. Under Lot 4, B. L.
II – 12672 and Tax Declaration No. R-9226
Parcel 1-C
Location – Poblacion, Ubay, Bohol
Boundaries:
North – Boyles Road
East – Sergio Boyles
Lot 1-D
South – Filomena B. del
Valle
Parcel 1-A
West – Felicidad Angco
Boyles
Parcel 1-B
Area – 368 square meters
5. Under Lot 3, B. L. II – 12672 and Tax Declaration
No. R-8868
Lot 3-C
Location – Poblacion, Ubay, Bohol
Boundaries:
North – Mabini Street
East – Felicidad
Angco Lot 3-D
South – Filomena B. del
Valle
Lot 3 – A and Maria del Valle Lot 3-E
West – Sergio Boyles
Lot 3-B
Area – 243 square meters.”
On September 11,
1974, the lower court ordered administratrix del Valle to deliver to said heirs
their rights, titles, interests, shares and participations over the
aforementioned parcels of land together with all improvements found thereon.
These
properties, however, became the subject of a series of civil cases, to
wit: Civil Case No. 2591[1] filed on July 10, 1974; Civil Case
No. 2686[2] filed on February 8, 1975 and Civil
Case No. 2807[3] filed on February 4, 1976. Such civil suits were filed with CFI Branch
III, Bohol by Antonio Enriquez, petitioner herein against the heirs of Eutiquio
Boyles, on the basis of a document of sale purportedly executed on February 25,
1959. Set forth in said document are
the following:
“KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
We, Felicidad Angco Boyles 55 years old, Filipino, married to
Venancio Gunayan and Loreto Aumentado Boyles 46 years old, Filipino, married to
Jose Curiba, both with residence and postal address at Ubay, Bohol,
Philippines, for and in consideration of the sum of Two Thousand Pesos
(P2,000.00) Philippine currency, to us in hand paid in cash to our entire
satisfaction by Antonio A. Enriquez 33 years old, Filipino, married to Noemi
Del Valle, residing and with postal address at Calamba St., Cebu City,
Philippines, do hereby Sell, Transfer and Convey absolutely and definitely unto
the said Antonio A. Enriquez his heirs and assigns, all our rights, titles,
interests and participations over those parcels of land together with all
improvements found thereon and personal properties belonging to the deceased
Eutiquio Boyles, now under administration as per Special Proceeding No. 278
pending before the Court of First Instance of Bohol, which rights, titles,
interests and participation over the said properties real and personal, we are
the absolute owner in fee simple in accordance with the last will and Testament
of the said deceased Eutiquio Boyles duly executed on August 4, 1945 which was
already allowed and probated by
the Probaye (sic) Court of Tagbilaran, Bohol.
That by virtue of these presents, we, Felicidad Angco Boyles and
Loreto Aumentado Boyles hereby renounced and waived whatever rights we may be entitled
to in the future by reason of the death of the deceased Eutiquio Boyles.
In witness whereof we have signed this deed this 25 day of
February, 1959 at Cebu City, Philippines.”
The
abovementioned cases suffered subsequent dismissals for non-suit. Thus, in Civil Case No. 2591, the lower
court held:
“For failure on the part of the plaintiff to amend the
complaint conformably with the order of the Court dated November 28, 1974, the
complaint in instant case should be, as it is hereby ordered, dismissed.”
While Civil Case
No. 2686 was disposed of by the trial court as follows:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations the
complaint in instant case is hereby considered withdrawn, and, consequently,
the same should be, as it is hereby ordered, dismissed without prejudice
to the refiling by Atty. Tomas Abapo, Jr. of the proper cause of action in
instant case against the two (2) different sets of defendants.”
In dismissing Civil Case No. 2807, the court a quo
said:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the
plaintiff is hereby declared non-suited, and the complaint in above-entitled
case should be, as it is hereby, dismissed without prejudice to re-ventilating the same when the
plaintiff shall have already the time to appear before this Court.”
Despite these
setbacks, petitioner, resolute and undaunted filed on April 25, 1977, a
complaint denominated as Civil Case No. 2929, for recovery of ownership of real
property and/or real rights and interests thereto plus damages. Unlike in the previous civil cases filed,
Civil Case No. 2929 impleads as defendants, only the private respondents
herein. In Civil Case No. 2929,
petitioner again predicates his claim on the same document of sale, insisting
that private respondents sold their respective shares in the abovementioned
pieces of land to him.
In their Answer, private respondents raised among others, the
affirmative defense of res judicata, claiming that petitioner’s
right, if any, had been barred by the prior dismissal of Civil Cases Nos. 2591,
2686 and 2807, which are all based on a single actionable document of sale
involving the same parties.
Agreeing with private respondents, Branch II, CFI Bohol dismissed
Civil Case No. 2929 on the ground of res judicata. The trial court ruled that the dismissal of
Civil Case No. 2591, the first civil case filed, operates as a bar to the
filing of Civil Case No. 2929.
From the evidence presented, the trial court found that Civil
Case No. 2591 and Civil Case No. 2929 involve the same parties and similar cause
of action. It also construed the Order
of dismissal of Civil Case No. 2591 as one with prejudice and, therefore,
tantamount to an adjudication on the merits pursuant to the provisions of
Section 3, Rule 17 of the Revised Rules of Court which reads:
“SEC. 3. Failure to prosecute. – If plaintiff fails to appear at the
time of the trial, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of
time, or to comply with these rules or any order of the court, the action may
be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion. This dismissal shall have the effect of an
adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise provided by the court.”
The
trial court further observed that petitioner failed to file a motion for
reconsideration from said order of dismissal; neither did it appeal
therefrom. Civil Case No. 2591,
concludes the trial court, had therefore become final and executory.
On the basis of the foregoing, the trial court held that all the
requisites of res judicata have been satisfied and accordingly,
Civil Case No. 2591 constitutes a bar to the filing of Civil Case No. 2929.
Petitioner now resorts to the filing of the present petition for
review of the decision below seeking its reversal by this Court.
According to petitioner, the principle of res judicata
is inapplicable to subject case below. Citing the case of Advincula v. Advincula,[4]
petitioner theorizes that it was not the intention of the trial court hearing
Civil Case No. 2591 to dismiss the same with prejudice, such that it will serve
as a bar to subsequent
litigations over the same issues and parties. For indeed, argued petitioner, he was able to file before the same court
the subsequent civil cases numbered 2686 and 2807, which though dismissed
thereafter, the orders issued thereon were expressly without prejudice.
We do not agree
with petitioner.
The case of Advincula v. Advincula is not
applicable in the case at bar. Advincula
concerns an action for acknowledgment and support in which the judgment does
not become final.
On the other
hand, the case at bar has all the elements of res judicata. The following requisites for res judicata
to operate are present: “(1) the
essence of a final former judgment; (2) the former judgment was rendered by a
court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the
former judgment is a judgment on the merits; and (4) there is between the first
and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of
action.”[5]
As borne out by
the facts, Civil Cases Nos. 2591 and 2929 implead the same parties and hinge on
the same issue. The only pivotal
inquiry for our consideration is whether the Order of dismissal of Civil Case
No. 2591 is actually a judgment on the merits and has acquired a status of
finality.
We rule in the
affirmative. A perusal of said order
shows that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 2591 was unqualified and occasioned
by petitioner’s failure to comply with the court’s directive to amend the
complaint. The trial court hearing
Civil Cage No. 2591 was, therefore, correct in applying Section 3, Rule 17 of
the Revised Rules of Court,[6] which clearly empowers the court to
issue a dismissal for failure of the plaintiff (petitioner in this instance) to
comply with any order of the court. Such dismissal is, under this Rule, with prejudice and tantamount
to an adjudication on the merits.[7] Thus,
failure of petitioner to move for reconsideration or to appeal from such order
dismissing Civil Case No. 2591 renders the same final. We reiterate
therefore, the inevitable conclusion: All the
requisites for the existence of res judicata are present. The dismissal of Civil Case No. 2591
consequently operates as a bar to the filing of Civil Case No. 2929.
The fact that petitioner was somehow able to file Civil Cases
Nos. 2686 and 2807 is of no moment. They cannot resurrect and restore life anew into Civil Case 2591 which
is already final, closed and terminated.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error committed by the
trial court, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED and
the decision in Civil Case No. 2929 AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Bidin, Melo, and Vitug,
JJ., concur.
Feliciano, J., (Chairman), on
official leave.
[1]
Antonio Enriquez v. Felicidad Angco Boyles, Loreto Aumentado Boyles and Filomena
Boyles del Valle. Complaint against
private respondents herein, defendants in Civil Case No. 2591, is based upon
the document executed by them on February 25, 1959.
[2]
Antonio Enriquez v. Felicidad Angco Boyles, Loreto Aumentado
Boyles, Filomena Boyles del Valle, Genoveva del VaIle Serologia, Rosalia del
Valle Hinaloc and Filomena del Valle. Complaint against defendants is based on the same document executed by
them on February 25, 1959.
[3]
Antonio Enriquez v. Felicidad Angco Boyles and Loreto Aumentado
Boyles. Complaint is based upon the same
document executed by defendnts on February 25, 1959.
[4]
G.R. No. L-19065, January 31, 1964, 10 SCRA 189.
[5]
Heirs of the Late Santiago Maningo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.
Nos. 73559-62, March 26, 1990, 183 SCRA 691.
[6]
Supra, p. 7.
[7]
Lirag, et al. v. Galano, G.R. No. 46244, August 18, 1988, 164 SCRA 471.