ANGELITO F. MAGLALANG, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 11TH DIV., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 29, SAN PABLO CITY AND GIL C. MAGLALANG, RESPONDENTS.

The application of the principle of res
judicata is the main issue in this case.  The secondary issue is whether or not a case
involving the civil status of a person should first be referred to the
appropriate barangay officials for possible
settlement in accordance with the barangay
arbitration law.

Lourdes S. Flores is the
natural mother of Angelito Maglalang
who was born on July 6, 1966.  On March 13, 1981, she filed a complaint for
support against Gil C. Maglalang in the then Court of
First Instance of San Pablo City, alleging, among others, that she once served
as a domestic helper of Gil during which time they had sexual relations and
that as a consequence thereof, she begot a son, Angelito;
that the latter’s birth was not recorded in
the local civil registrar’s office due to inadvertence; that for four
years since the birth of the
child, she was given a weekly
allowance of P10.00 to cover expenses for milk; that she was given an allowance
of P15.00 a month for her own maintenance until the child graduated from
elementary school; that the said allowance was increased to P20.00 a month
until September, 1980; that thereafter, she had to wash clothes for other
people in order to survive so she
became sickly; and that she needed a monthly allowance of P500.00 for the
support and education of the child, and an additional sum of P200.00 monthly
for support pendente lite,
as well as attorney’s fees.

However, the parties eventually filed a joint motion to dismiss
alleging:

1) That plaintiff has decided to withdraw her complaint or to cause the dismissal of the same
against the defendant, for the reason that after pondering about the matter for
a considerable length of time, she now seriously doubts that the said defendant
is the person with whom she had her child named Angelito;

2) That by reason, thereof, Article 283 of the New Civil Code is
not applicable to the herein plaintiff and the defendant and to the above-named
child of the plaintiff, hence, plaintiff is no longer interested to prosecute
this case;

3) That the parties hereto waive and forego any and all their other
claims and counter-claims under their complaint and answer, respectively.

The motion was granted in an order of the Regional Trial Court in
San Pablo City
dated August 11, 1983.  The case was dismissed with prejudice.

On February 11, 1987,
Lourdes filed a motion for leave of
court in the same case for Angelito
Maglalang to continue and revive the case for support
inasmuch as he had already attained the age of majority.  The said motion was denied on March 23, 1987.  Two motions for the reconsideration of the
order of denial were also denied.

Thus, on April 29, 1987,
Angelito filed in the same court a complaint for
support and declaration of his
status as natural child of Gil C. Maglalang with hereditary
rights.  A motion to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of res judicata
and for lack of cause of action was filed by Gil.  The motion to dismiss was granted by the
trial court in an order dated June 2,
1987.  Angelito
elevated the case to the Court of Appeals wherein in due course a decision was
rendered on June 20, 1988
affirming the appealed order.^[1]
A motion for reconsideration filed by Angelito was
denied on August 5, 1988.

Hence, the herein petition the primordial issue being is whether
or not res judicata
has set in.

We affirm.  The original
action for support for petitioner Angelito filed by
his mother, Lourdes Flores, is predicated on the claim that Gil is the natural
father of petitioner.  However, in the
joint motion to dismiss signed by Gil and Lourdes as well as their counsels, it
is categorically stated that she
seriously doubts that Angelito is the son of Gil, so
that Article 283 of the Civil Code is not applicable; that she was no longer interested in prosecuting the
case; and that they were waiving any claim or counterclaim against each
other.  As above-stated, the case was
dismissed with prejudice.

Petitioner then filed the complaint for support and
acknowledgment as a natural child against Gil. 
He alleges that the cause of action in his complaint is different from
the one in the first complaint and that there is no identity of parties.

We disagree.  While it may
be true that in the first case the ostensible cause of action is for support
while in the second suit it is for support and acknowledgement as a natural
child, there can be no question that the causes of action in both cases are the
same.  As earlier observed, before
petitioner may be afforded support, it must be established that the petitioner
is the natural child of Gil.  The same
evidence is required in both cases.

By the same token, even considering that the plaintiff in the
first case was Lourdes, she
litigated not only in her own behalf but also in representation of her minor
child, the petitioner.  Obviously, there
is identity of parties in the two cases.

Thus, the questioned order of dismissal with prejudice issued by
the trial court, which order had already become final and executory,
amounts to res judicata
which bars the prosecution of any similar case.^[2]
By virtue of the said order, the issue of the alleged filiation
of Angelito had been put to rest when Lourdes
admitted that Gil is not the father of petitioner.^[3]

No rule is more settled in this jurisdiction than that there is res judicata when
the following requisites are present –

1. 
the judgment or order must be final;

2. 
the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter
and of the parties;

3. 
that it must be a judgment on the merits; and

4.  that
there must be identity of parties, identity of subject matter and identity of
cause of action.^[4]

The other issue relating to prior resort to barangay
arbitration proceedings as a pre-condition to the filing of a complaint before
the court can be resolved by a cursory examination of Section 6 of Presidential
Decree No. 1508, the law on barangay arbitration, to
wit:

“SECTION 6.  Conciliation,
pre-condition to filing of complaint.- No complaint, petition, action or
proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the Lupon
as provided in Section 2 hereof shall be filed or instituted in court or any
other government office for adjudication unless there has been a confrontation
of the parties before the Lupon Chairman or
the Pangkat and no conciliation or settlement
has been reached as certified by the Lupon
Secretary or the Pangkat Secretary, attested
by the Lupon or Pangkat
Chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated.  However, the parties may go directly to court
in the following cases:

(1)  Where the accused is
under detention;

(2)  Where a person has
otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus
proceedings;

(3) Actions coupled
with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery
of personal property, and support pendente lite; and

4)  Where the action may
otherwise be barred by the Statute of Limitations.”

From the foregoing, it is clear that a case involving the civil
status of a person i.e., the acknowledgment of a natural child is
not among the cases where prior resort to barangay
arbitration is not necessary.  The reason
is obvious.  The possibility of
settlement at this level is encouraged even in such cases before the issue is
brought to the courts.  More so when there is cogent basis for the civil status being sought to be
established.

In the instant case, the requirement of prior resort to barangay arbitration was not satisfied.  Thus, the dismissal of the case for lack of
cause of action is called for.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Segundino G. Chua and
concurred in by Justices Fidel P. Purisima and
Nicolas P. Lapeña, Jr.

^[2]
Malvar v. Pallingayan,
18 SCRA 121 (1966).

^[3]
Sangalang vs. Caparas,
151 SCRA 53 (1987).

^[4]
Viray vs. Mariñas,
49 SCRA 44 (1973).