Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > November 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 83828 November 16, 1989 - LEONOR MAGDANGAL, ET AL. v. CITY OF OLONGAPO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 83828. November 16, 1989.]

LEONOR MAGDANGAL, MARIA PENAFLORIDA, PERLA MAGBAG, GUILLERMO CIRICO, ESTELITA SABINIANO, VIVIAN CARLOS, GERTRUDIS TRAPSI, LOLITA BONGALA, ERLINDA PENAFLORIDA, EUFROSINA TONGCO, ASUNCION BONIFACIO, NATIVIDAD VALDEZ, CECILIA MAGBAG, AGRIPINA SAROMO, MIKE MAGDANGAL, JUSTINA LALUAN, ANTONIO BUNGALBAL, PAZ IDANAN, NOEL IDANAN, MARIA TIANIA, CARLITO BABIA, NORMITA NOVALTA, RAFAEL HERRERA, CYNTHIA CAPENIA, CRISPIN EVANGELISTA, and ANDRES REYES, Petitioners, v. CITY OF OLONGAPO, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND/OR DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LANDS, THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF OLONGAPO CITY and HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; JUDGMENT; RES JUDICATA; REQUISITES. — Res judicata applies when the following requisites are present: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) it must be rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of action.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; A DIFFERENT FORM OF ACTION DOES NOT PREVENT APPLICATION OF RULE. — A party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting the case, escape the application of the rule of res judicata.

3. ID.; ID.; MINUTE RESOLUTION, A JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS. — A minute resolution dismissing the petition for lack of merit is a judgment on the merits of the case.


R E S O L U T I O N


CORTES, J.:


Assailed in this petition for prohibition is the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 875, which excluded from the National Park Reservation in Olongapo City, a certain portion of the land embraced therein known as Lot 21 and ceded the ownership and possession thereof to the government of Olongapo City to be used exclusively for a cultural, trade and tourism center site.

This is not the first time the controversy was brought to this Court by petitioners, who had built on Lot 21 and who had incorporated themselves into the "Pag-asa Lot Owners Association, Inc." In G.R. No. 62784, entitled "Pag-asa Lot Owners Association, Inc., Et. Al. v. Office of the Mayor of Olongapo City, Et Al.," the Court, in a Resolution dated September 7, 1983 dismissed the petition for declaratory relief "without prejudice to filing the appropriate remedy in the proper forum." In G.R. No. 71362, entitled "Pag-asa Lot Owners Association, Inc., Et. Al. v. The City Mayor of Olongapo and/or Olongapo City, Et Al., "where the constitutionality of B.P. Blg. 875 * was challenged, the Court in a Resolution dated October 9, 1985 dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The text of the Resolution read:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The motion of the Solicitor General for a second extension of fifteen (15) days from September 13, 1985 within which to file comment on the petition for declaratory relief, is GRANTED. Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the aforesaid petition as well as private respondents’ comment thereon, and dispensing with the Solicitor General’s comment, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petition for lack of merit.

As respondents correctly argue, considering the dismissal of G.R. No. 71362, the threshold issue posed is whether or not this petition is already barred by res judicata.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The settled rule is that a final order or judgment on the merits, rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, is conclusive in a subsequent case between the same parties and their successors-in-interest litigating the same thing and issue, though such judgment may be erroneous. This is known as the rule of res judicata, and for it to operate, the following requisites must be present: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) it must be rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of action [San Diego v. Cardona, 70 Phil. 281 (1940); Deang v. IAC, G.R. No. 71313, September 24, 1987, 154 SCRA 250].

We find present all the requisites for the application of the rule of res judicata to bar this petition.

It is not disputed that the judgment of the Court in G.R. No. 71362, which dismissed the petition therein for lack of merit, had long become final.

The jurisdiction of this Court over the issue of the constitutionality of B.P. Blg. 875 and over the parties is not open to doubt.

The resolution in G.R. No. 71362 dismissing the petition for lack of merit is definitely a judgment on the merits of the case even though it was only a minute resolution [Sy v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 76639, July 16, 1987, 152 SCRA 103].

Finally, there is between G.R. No. 71362 and the present case an identity of the parties, the subject matter and the cause of action. Petitioners in the present case were also the petitioners in G.R. No. 71362 together with the Pag-asa Lot Owners Association, Inc., of which they are members. In both cases, the subject matter is the constitutionality of B.P. Blg. 875. While the petition in G.R. No. 71362 is for declaratory relief and the present petition is for prohibition, the fundamental cause of action in both is the same, i.e., that B.P. Blg. 875 impairs the obligation of contracts and constitutes deprivation of property without due process of law. We have held that a party cannot, by varying the form of action or adopting a different method of presenting the case, escape the application of the rule of res judicata [Ibabao v. IAC, G.R. No. 74848, May 20, 1987, 150 SCRA 76].chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Clearly, the present action is already barred by res judicata. The issue of the constitutionality of B.P. Blg. 875 was squarely raised in G.R. No. 71362 and the Court, after considering the petition and private respondent’s comment, dismissed the petition for lack of merit. This bars the present action.

WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the present petition.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



* B.P. Blg. 875 provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SECTION 1. — A certain portion of land otherwise known as Lot 21, Ts-308 of the City of Olongapo which, under Proclamation Numbered Four hundred seventy-eight, Series of Nineteen hundred and sixty-eight, forms part of the area declared as National Park Reservation in the City of Olongapo, is detached and excluded from said National Park Reservation.

Lot 21, Ts-308 is more particularly described and bounded as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


SECTION 2. — The ownership and possession of Lot 21, Ts-308 is hereby ceded to the Government of the City of Olongapo to be used exclusively for cultural, trade and tourism center site purposes under the provisions of Republic Act Numbered Forty-six hundred and forty-five, as amended, otherwise known as the Charter of the City of Olongapo, and the provisions of Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred forty-one, as amended otherwise known as the Public Land Act.

SECTION 3. — In the event that private rights or an equity to any portion of the said lots have been acquired by any private party, such rights or equity should be recognized by the City of Olongapo and the corresponding compensation or reimbursement therefor should be provided for in accordance with existing laws.

SECTION 4. — This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved, June 12, 1985. [81 O.G. 2753-2755.]




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 50654 November 6, 1989 - RUDY GLEO ARMIGOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53401 November 6, 1989 - ILOCOS NORTE ELECTRIC COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57876 November 6, 1989 - FRANCISCA PUZON GAERLAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60159 November 6, 1989 - FAUSTO ANDAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63462 November 6, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PIRRERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71871 November 6, 1989 - TEODORO M. HERNANDEZ v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 74431 November 6, 1989 - PURITA MIRANDA VESTIL, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 74989-90 November 6, 1989 - JOEL B. CAES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76019-20 November 6, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN BRUCA

  • G.R. No. 79743 November 6, 1989 - MARIA PILAR MARQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83938-40 November 6, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY B. BASILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84458 November 6, 1989 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84497 November 6, 1989 - ALFONSO ESCOVILLA, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84979 November 6, 1989 - STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO. INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85085 November 6, 1989 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86540-41 November 6, 1989 - MANTRUSTE SYSTEMS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89095 & 89555 November 6, 1989 - SIXTO P. CRISOSTOMO v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 68580-81 November 7, 1989 - AGUSTIN T. DIOQUINO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82895 November 7, 1989 - LLORA MOTORS, INC., ET AL. v. FRANKLIN DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48518 November 8, 1989 - GREGORIO SANTIAGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55750 November 8, 1989 - RUBEN MELGAR, ET AL. v. CARLOS R. BUENVIAJE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74817 November 8, 1989 - SIMEON ESTOESTA, SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78051 November 8, 1989 - ISAGANI M. JUNGCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78413 November 8, 1989 - CAGAYAN VALLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80796 November 8, 1989 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON

  • G.R. No. 82180 November 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HAIDE DE LUNA

  • G.R. No. 72323 November 9, 1989 - MANUEL VILLAR, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76193 November 9, 1989 - UNITED FEATURE SYNDICATE, INC. v. MUNSINGWEAR CREATION MANUFACTURING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 82805 November 9, 1989 - BRIAD AGRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. DIONISIO DELA CERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86819 November 9, 1989 - ADAMSON UNIVERSITY v. ADAMSON UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89651 November 10, 1989 - FIRDAUSI I.Y. ABBAS, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 53926-29 November 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL MATEO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65017 November 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. STALIN P. GUEVARRA

  • G.R. No. 66944 November 13, 1989 - ALLIANCE TOBACCO CORPORATION, INC. v. PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75041 November 13, 1989 - ROSA N. EDRA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79403 November 13, 1989 - EMETERIO M. MOZAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82238-42 November 13, 1989 - ANTONIO T. GUERRERO, ET AL. v. ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR

  • G.R. No. 83664 November 13, 1989 - RENATO S. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49668 November 14, 1989 - POLICARPIO GALICIA, ET AL. v. WENCESLAO M. POLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60490 November 14, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO SERENIO

  • G.R. Nos. 79050-51 November 14, 1989 - PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC. v. MARICAR BASCOS BAESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83870 November 14, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNATO ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84951 November 14, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSANA M. NAPAT-A

  • G.R. No. 39632 November 15, 1989 - APOLONIO G. MALENIZA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 63396 November 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO LISTON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64414 November 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SABINO VERONAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71159 November 15, 1989 - CITY OF MANILA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76531 November 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO B. SALITA

  • G.R. No. 80486 November 15, 1989 - SALVADOR ESMILLA, ET AL. v. FEDERICO ALVAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83380-81 November 15, 1989 - MAKATI HABERDASHERY, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84484 November 15, 1989 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88379 November 15, 1989 - PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 90273-75 November 15, 1989 - FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORP. v. WILLIAM INOCENCIO, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2974 November 15, 1989 - ROGELIO A. MIRANDA v. ORLANDO A. RAYOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69122 November 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO T. OLAPANI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83286 November 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO T. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83828 November 16, 1989 - LEONOR MAGDANGAL, ET AL. v. CITY OF OLONGAPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84628 November 16, 1989 - HEIRS OF ILDEFONSO COSCOLLUELA, SR., INC. v. RICO GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45061 November 20, 1989 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 30475-76 November 22, 1989 - GENERAL INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION v. UNION INSURANCE SOCIETY OF CANTON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 48468-69 November 22, 1989 - ORLANDO PRIMERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61466 November 22, 1989 - ENRIQUE T. JOCSON, ET AL. v. ALFONSO BAGUIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69450 November 22, 1988

    EASTERN ASSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79886 November 22, 1989 - QUALITRANS LIMOUSINE SERVICE, INC. v. ROYAL CLASS LIMOUSINE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88725 November 22, 1989 - ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 38984 November 24, 1989 - MACARIO D. EMBUSCADO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60690 November 24, 1989 - VIRGINIA JORGE, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79564 November 24, 1989 - AURORA B. CAMACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80405 November 24, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. ARNEL MITRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 46898-99 November 28, 1989 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. RUSTICO DE LOS REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79351 November 28, 1989 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85141 November 28, 1989 - FILIPINO MERCHANTS INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86025 November 28, 1989 - RODOLFO R. AQUINO, ET AL. v. DEODORO J. SISON, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1334 November 28, 1989 - ROSARIO DELOS REYES v. JOSE B. AZNAR

  • G.R. No. 51655 November 29, 1989 - VICENTE DEL ROSARIO v. JULIO BANSIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72199 November 29, 1989 - ADELINO R. MONTANEZ, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 82304 November 29, 1989 - HONORATO M. FRUTO v. RAINERO O. REYES, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3249 November 29, 1989 - SALVACION DELIZO CORDOVA v. LAURENCE D. CORDOVA