ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-9456 & L-9481 January 6, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DOMINGO DE LARA

    102 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-9692 January 6, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    102 Phil 822

  • G.R. Nos. L-8845-46 January 7, 1958 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. MARTIN SOUZA

    102 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-10202 January 8, 1958 - IN RE: SY CHHUT alias TAN BING TIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-10420 January 10, 1958 - IN RE: LIM KIM So alias FRANCISCO LIM KIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 843

  • G.R. Nos. L-10249-60 January 14, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO CRISOSTOMO

    102 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. L-10285 January 14, 1958 - SAMPAGUITA SHOE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    102 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-10423 January 21, 1958 - AMADO P. JALANDONI v. ANGELA MARTIR-GUANZON

    102 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-11000 January 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALICIA RAPIRAP

    102 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-11014 January 21, 1958 - VICTORIANA ESPIRITU v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

    102 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. L-10196 January 22, 1958 - SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY v. CITY OF CEBU

    102 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-10776 January 23, 1958 - MELITON HERRERA v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-10922 January 23, 1958 - GREGORIO P. DE GUZMAN v. JOSE B. RAMOSO

    102 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-12294 January 23, 1958 - UNITED PEPSI-COLA SALES ORGANIZATION (PAFLU) v. HON. ANTONIO CA‘IZARES

    102 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-10234 January 24, 1958 - IN RE: Victoriano Yap Subieng to be admitted a citizen of the Phil.; VICTORIANO YAP SUBIENG v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-9689 January 27, 1958 - JESUS T. QUIAMBAO v. PEDRO R. PERALTA

    102 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-10806 January 27, 1958 - DAVID AZNAR v. ASUNCION SUCILLA

    102 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-11093 January 27, 1958 - LEONARDO ENAGE LABAJO v. CIRIACO ENRIQUEZ

    102 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-10446 January 28, 1958 - COLLEGE OF ORAL & DENTAL SURGERY v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-10874 January 28, 1958 - RUFINO D. ANDRES v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    102 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-10702 January 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO CABARLES

    102 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-10091 January 29, 1958 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHIL. v. JULIANA V. ARAOS

    102 Phil 1080

  • G.R. No. L-11343 January 29, 1958 - CARLOS LEDESMA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-11248 January 30, 1958 - ANACLETA VILLAROMAN v. QUIRINO STA. MARIA

    102 Phil 937

  • Adm. Case No. 195 January 31, 1958 - IN RE: Attorney JESUS T. QUIAMBAO

    102 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-8252 January 31, 1958 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. NICANOR NICOLAS

    102 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-9871 January 31, 1958 - ATKINS v. B. CUA HIAN TEK

    102 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-9928 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

    102 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. L-10022 January 31, 1958 - NORTHERN MOTORS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    102 Phil 958

  • G.R. No. L-10141 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    102 Phil 960

  • G.R. Nos. L-10236-48 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTACIO DE LUNA

    102 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. L-10370 January 31, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MATIAS H. AZNAR

    102 Phil 979

  • G.R. No. L-10547 January 31, 1958 - THE PHIL. GUARANTY CO. v. LAURA DINIO

    102 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. L-10691 January 31, 1958 - ERLINDA STERNBERG v. GONZALO SOLOMON

    102 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-10747 January 31, 1958 - MARIANO DIAZ v. PASCUAL MACALINAO

    102 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-10902 January 31, 1958 - FLORIDA LAGMAY v. EMERENCIANA QUINIT

    102 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-11024 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO ANGELES v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GREOGORIO STA. INES

    102 Phil 1006

  • G.R. No. L-11186 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO CABABA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    102 Phil 1013

  • G.R. No. L-11395 January 31, 1958 - SOTERA GARCIA DIMAGIBA v. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

    102 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-11647 January 31, 1958 - FLORENTINO NAVARRO v. HON. ELOY BELLO

    102 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-12724 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    102 Phil 1025

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-10423 January 21, 1958 - AMADO P. JALANDONI v. ANGELA MARTIR-GUANZON<br /><br />102 Phil 859

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-10423. January 21, 1958.]

    AMADO P. JALANDONI and PAZ RAMOS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ANGELA MARTIR-GUANZON, in her own behalf and as Judicial Administratrix of the Testate Estate of the late spouses Hilarion and Ligoria Martir, and ANTONIO GUANZON, Defendants-Appellees.

    Marcos S. Gomez, Ildefonso S. Villanueva & Jose Ur. Carbonell for Appellants.

    Villanueva & Villanueva for Appellees.


    SYLLABUS


    1. DAMAGES; RECOVERY OF MORAL AND CORRECTIVE DAMAGES UNDER THE OLD CIVIL CODE. — Except as concomitant to physical injuries, moral and corrective damages were not recoverable under the Civil Code of 1889. Recovery of such damages was established for the first time in 1950 by the new Civil Code, and can not be made to apply retroactively to acts that occurred under the prior law in view of the punitive or deterrent character of these damages.

    2. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS, EFFECT OF. — Between the same parties, with the same subject matter and cause of action, a final judgment on the merits is conclusive not only questions actually contested and determined, but upon all matters that might have been litigated and decided in the former suit, i.e., all matters properly belonging to the subject of the cotroversy and within the scope of the issue. Hence, the rejection of the claim for damages in a former judgment which had become final and executory, bars a subsequent claim for damages springing from the same cause of action that was pleaded in the former case.


    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, J. B. L., J.:


    Appeal by the spouses Amado P. Jalandoni and Paz Ramos from an order of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros dismissing their complaint in Civil Case No. 3586 of said court.

    It appears that on January 9, 1947, the appellant spouses began a suit (Case No. 573) against the appellees Antonio Guanzon, Et Al., for partition of lots Nos. 130-A, 130-B and 130-F of the Murcia Cadastre, as well as lots Nos. 1288 and 1376 of the Bogo Cadastre, and for recovery of damages caused by the defendants’ unwarranted refusal to recognize plaintiffs’ right and partition said lots, as well as to account for and deliver plaintiffs’ share in the crops obtained during the agricultural years from 1941-1942 to 1946-1947. By decision of February 22, 1955, the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental held for plaintiffs and ordered the partition of the lands involved, but denied their claim for damages because of failure to "prove the exact and actual damages suffered by them."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The decision having become final because none of the parties appealed therefrom, the plaintiffs instituted the present action (No. 3586 of the same Court of First Instance) on August 26, 1955, seeking recovery from the defendants of the following amounts: (1) P20,000 as moral and exemplary damages due to suffering, anguish and anxiety occasioned by the defendants’ refusal to partition the properties involved in the preceding case; (2) P55,258.20 as share of the products of the property from 1947 (when the preceding case No. 573 was filed) until 1955 when judgment was rendered therein (3) P4,689.54 as land taxes due and unpaid on the properties involved; and (4) P2,500 for attorneys’ fees.

    Upon motion of defendants, the court a quo dismissed the second complaint for failure to state a cause of action; and after their motion to reconsider was denied, plaintiffs appealed to this Court on points of law. We find the dismissal to have been correctly entered. Except as concomitant to physical injuries, moral and corrective damages (allegedly due to suffering, anguish and anxiety caused by the refusal of defendants in 1941 to partition the common property) were not recoverable under the Civil Code of 1899 which was the governing law at the time. Recovery of such damages was established for the first time in 1950 by the new Civil Code, and can not be made to apply retroactively to acts that occurred under the prior law in view of the punitive or deterrent character of these damages. The rule is expressly laid down by paragraph 1 of Article 2257 of the new Code:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ART. 2257. Provisions of this Code which attach a civil sanction or penalty or a deprivation of rights to acts or omissions which were not penalized by the former laws, are not applicable to those who, when said laws were in force may have executed the act or incurred in the omission forbidden or condemned by this Code.

    x       x       x


    As to the value of the plaintiffs’ share in the products of the land during the time that the former action was pending (which are the damages claimed under the second cause of action), their recovery is now barred by the previous judgment. These damages are but the result of the original cause of action, viz., the continuing refusal by defendants in 1941 to recognize the plaintiffs’ right to an interest in the property. In the same way that plaintiffs claimed for their share of the produce from 1941 to 1947, these later damages could have been claimed in the first action, either in the original complaint (for their existence could be anticipated when the first complaint was filed) or else by supplemental pleading. To allow them to be recovered by subsequent suit would be a violation of the rule against multiplicity of suits, and specifically of sections 3 and 4 of Rules 2 of the Rules of Court, against the splitting of causes of action, since these damages spring from the same cause of action that was pleading in the former case No. 573 between the same parties (Blossom & Co. v. Manila Gas Corporation, 55 Phil. 226; Santos v. Moir, 36 Phil 350; Pascua v. Sideco, 24 Phil 26; Bachrach Motor Co. v. Icarangal, 68 Phil. 287).

    That the former judgment did not touch upon these damages is not material to its conclusive effect: between the same parties, with the same subject matter and cause of action, a final judgment on the merits is conclusive not only on the questions actually contested and determined, but upon all matters that might have been litigated and decided in the former suit, i.e., all matters properly belonging to the subject of the controversy and within the scope of the issue (Peñalosa v. Tuason, 22 Phil 312; National Bank v. Barretto, 52 Phil. 824; Namarco v. Macadaeg, 98 Phil. 185; 52 Off. Gaz., 182; Miranda v. Tiangco, 96 Phil., 526, 51 Off. Gaz., [3] 1366). Hence, the rejection of plaintiffs’ claim for damages in Case No. 573 imports denial of those now claimed, since these are a mere continuation of the former.

    Anent the land taxes allegedly overdue and unpaid, it is readily apparent that, taxes being due to the government, plaintiffs have no right to compel payment thereof to themselves. The case could be otherwise if plaintiffs had paid the taxes to stave off forfeiture of the common property for tax delinquency; in that event, they could compel contribution. But the complaint does not aver any such tax payment.

    Little need be said concerning the claim for attorneys’ fees under the fourth cause of action. If they be fees for the lawyer’s services in the former case, they are barred from recovery for the reasons already given; if for services in the present case, there is no justification therefor, since no case is made out for the plaintiffs.

    The order of dismissal appealed from is affirmed. Costs against plaintiffs-appellants. So ordered.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-10423 January 21, 1958 - AMADO P. JALANDONI v. ANGELA MARTIR-GUANZON<br /><br />102 Phil 859


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED