Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > March 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 39433 March 9, 1934 - CLEMENTE A. LAZARO, ET AL. v. FELICIANA MARIANO, ET AL.

059 Phil 627:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 39433. March 9, 1934.]

CLEMENTE A. LAZARO ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FELICIANA MARIANO ET AL., Defendants. CARMEN JULIANA GARRICHO and FRANCISCO AGUADO, Appellees.

Juan M. Ladaw for Appellants.

Feria & La O for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; DISMISSAL; "RES JUDICATA." — The order dismissing a civil case, upon petition of the defendant by reason of the plaintiff’s failure to appear, is not final and does not constitute res judicata, and therefore, not appealable.

2. ID.; ID.; NOTATION OF "LIS PENDENS." — The dismissal of a civil case made upon petition of the defendant by reason of the plaintiff’s failure to appear, operates as a cancellation of the notation of lis pendens.


D E C I S I O N


VILLA-REAL, J.:


This is an appeal taken by the plaintiff’s Clemente A. Lazaro and Maria Simon from the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, with respect to the defendants Carmen Juliana Garricho and Francisco Aguado, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The court is of the opinion that is should decide and it hereby decides this case by declaring null and void, the deed Exhibit A, executed by the defendant Feliciana Mariano de Sarangaya and cancelling the original certificate of title No. 9303, in the name of the said defendant. The register of deeds of Nueva Ecija is hereby ordered to issue a certificate of title in the name of the plaintiffs, noting thereon, however, the mortgage liens evidenced by the deeds Exhibits B and C in favor of the defendants Carmen Juliana Garricho and Francisco Aguado, who are hereby absolved from the complaint. .

"The indemnity prayed for by the plaintiffs in their complaint is hereby denied, with costs against the defendant Feliciana Mariano de Sarangaya. So ordered."cralaw virtua1aw library

In support of their appeal, the appellants assign the following alleged errors as committed by the court a quo in its decision, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The lower court erred in not finding that the annotation of original certificate of title No. 9303 of the order dated July 2, 1929, dismissing civil case No. 5073 was illegal, null and void, and could not be considered a cancellation of the notice of lis pendens for the reason that it was made on July 30, 1929, before said order had become final.

"2. The lower court likewise erred in not finding that the appellees acted in bad faith in executing the deeds of mortgage Exhibits B and C.

"3. The lower court also erred in not declaring said Exhibits B and C null and void with respect to the appellants.

"4. The lower court again erred in denying the motion for new trial filed by plaintiffs-appellants."cralaw virtua1aw library

The following pertinent facts, which have been established at the trial by a preponderance of evidence, are necessary for the determination of the questions raised in this appeal, viz. :chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On November 26, 1928, the herein plaintiffs-appellants Clemente A. Lazaro and Maria Simon filed a complaint, docketed as civil case No. 5073 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, against the herein defendant Feliciana Mariano (alias Feliciana Mariano Vda. de Sarangaya, and Feliciana Mariano Sarangaya), praying upon the facts alleged therein, that the contract of sale Exhibit A be declared rescinded and that an order be issued directing the cancellation of certificate of title No. 9303 of the registry of deeds of Nueva Ecija and the issuance of another in lieu thereof in the name of the said plaintiffs-appellants.

On the said date of November 26, 1928, at 11:03 a.m., notice of lis pendens was filed in the office of the register of deeds of Nueva Ecija, which notice was noted on the back of said certificate of title No. 9303.

On July 2, 1929, the aforementioned civil case No. 5073 was called for hearing. Inasmuch as the plaintiffs failed to appear and their counsel was not ready for trial, the court, upon petition of the defendant’s counsel, dismissed the case (Exhibit I-C).

On July 27, 1929, the plaintiff filed a motion for reinstatement (Exhibit I-E), which was denied in an order dated September 11, 1929 (Exhibit I-F).

On July 30, 1929, the order of dismissal dated July 2, 1929, was noted of the back of said certificate of title No. 9303.

On September 23, 1929, Feliciana Mariano, the defendant in the aforesaid civil case No. 5073, constituted two mortgages on the parcel of land described in the aforementioned certificate of title No. 9303, in favor of the herein defendants-appellees Carmen Juliana Garricho and Francisco Aguado: the first mortgage for the sum of P10,000 (Exhibit B) and the second for P6,500 (Exhibit C).

The first question to be decided in this appeal, which is raised in the first assignment of error, is whether or not the notation of the order of dismissal of civil case No. 5073 on the back of the certificate of title No. 9303 is legal and valid and operated as a cancellation of the notation of the notice of lis pendens.

As will be seen from the statement of facts above given, the dismissal of the complaint in civil case No. 5073 was due to the failure of the therein plaintiffs, who are also the plaintiffs in this case, to appear before the court when the said case was called for trial on the date set therefor, and to their counsel’s statement made in open court that he was not ready to proceed with the case. Section 127, case 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides that the court may dismiss an action when the plaintiff fails to appear at the time of trial, and the defendant appears and asks for the dismissal; in which case the said dismissal shall not be a bar to another action for the same cause (section 581, California Code of Civil Procedure). By provision of law, such dismissal does not therefore give to the subject matter so dismissed, the character of res judicata and consequently the order of dismissal does not finally determine the controversy and is not appealable, in accordance with the provisions of section 123 of the same Code. The order dismissing a case upon petition of the defendant by reason of the plaintiff’s failure to appear, not being appealable, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relative to the period for, and the steps to be followed in, the filing and perfection of an appeal are not applicable, and the plaintiff has no other remedy but to ask for the reinstatement of the case or to file another complain upon the same cause. Upon failure to resort to either remedy, there will be no pending case before the court, which may be noted in the registry of deeds.

The notation of the order of dismissal issued in civil case No. 5073, which eliminated it from the court’s docket, operated as a cancellation of the notation of the pendency thereof (38 Corpus Juris, p. 40, sec. 65). At any rate, due to the delay in the filing of the new complaint, which was done on June 10, 1930, the dismissal having taken place of July 2, 1929, the herein plaintiffs-appellants lost the benefit of the lis pendens (38 Corpus Juris, p. 40, sec. 66).

The other assignments of error, being mere corollaries of the first assignment, need not be passed upon, inasmuch as the questions involved therein have already been implicitly determined by the resolution of the legal question raised in the aforesaid first assignment of error.

In view of the foregoing, this court is of the opinion and so holds: (1) That the order dismissing a civil case, upon petition of the defendant by reason of the plaintiff’s failure to appear, is not final and does not constitute res judicata, and therefore, not appealable; and (2) that the dismissal of a civil case upon petition of the defendant by reason of the plaintiff’s failure to appear, operates as a cancellation of the notation of lis pendens.

Wherefore, not finding any error in the appealed judgment, it is hereby affirmed in toto, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Malcolm, Hull, Imperial, and Goddard, JJ., concur.




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






March-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 37986 March 1, 1934 - EUFEMIA MERCADO v. MUN. PRES. OF MACABEBE

    059 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 36699 March 3, 1934 - HEIRS OF DATU PENDATUN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. 40468 March 3, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. DOMINGO M. SIOJO

    059 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 40512 March 3, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PERFECTO TAYAG, ET AL.

    059 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 40592 March 3, 1934 - APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 40895 March 5, 1934 - TEOFILO HAW v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 37602 March 7, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. RAFAEL FERNANDEZ

    059 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 39633 March 7, 1934 - HENRY HERMAN v. LA URBANA

    059 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 39433 March 9, 1934 - CLEMENTE A. LAZARO, ET AL. v. FELICIANA MARIANO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 39796 March 9, 1934 - ANTONIO GUTIERREZ DEL CAMPO v. MIGUEL VARELA CALDERON, ET AL.

    059 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 38736 March 10, 1934 - PROV’L. FISCAL OF NUEVA ECIJA v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, ET AL.

    059 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. 39209 March 10, 1934 - HIPOLITO ANDALIS v. LUCIA PULGUERAS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 39806 March 10, 1934 - LA URBANA v. SUSANA VILLASOR, ET AL.

    059 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 40309 March 10, 1934 - BERNARDINO QUITORIANO, ET AL. v. ROQUE M. CENTENO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 40327 March 10, 1934 - DIONISIO CONSTANTINO, ET AL. v. PNB

    059 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 39797 March 12, 1934 - FRANCISCO SEBASTIAN v. IRENE PAÑGANIBAN, ET AL.

    059 Phil 653

  • G.R. No. 39679 March 13, 1934 - GENATO COMM’L. CORP. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 39440 March 14, 1934 - RAFAEL VILLANUEVA v. AURELIA DADIVAS DE VILLANUEVA

    059 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 39801 March 14, 1934 - FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS v. JUAN POSADAS, JR.

    059 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. 37671 March 15, 1934 - RAYMUNDO TANSIOCO, ET AL. v. FELICIANO RAMOSO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 40177 March 15, 1934 - LI SENG GIAP & CO. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    059 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 39389 March 16, 1934 - LUIS MIRASOL v. MARIA LIM

    059 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 40147 March 16, 1934 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. DOMINGO ITALIA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 712

  • G.R. Nos. 339303-39305 March 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FELIPE KALALO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 40480 March 17, 1934 - GABINO ABALA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. 40561 March 17, 1934 - LEE CHIU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. 39670 March 20, 1934 - ROSARIO OÑAS v. CONSOLACION JAVILLO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 39799 March 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PEDRO NARVAES

    059 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 39681 March 21, 1934 - BONIFACIO LUMANLAN v. JACINTO R. CURA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 39883 March 21, 1934 - ODUS C. HORNEY v. SOUTHERN TRANS. & TRADING CO.

    059 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 39596 March 23, 1934 - GOTAUCO & CO. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TAYABAS

    059 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. 39587 March 24, 1934 - ALEKO E. LILIUS, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    059 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. 40935 March 26, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. APRONIANO DIAZ

    059 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. 40315 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. AUSTIN TAXICAB CO.

    059 Phil 771

  • G.R. No. 40316 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. PANFILO SABELLANO

    059 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. 40317 March 27, 1934 - MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL. v. E. VESNAN

    059 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. 40319 March 27, 1934 - ESMERALDA VESNAN v. MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL.

    059 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. 40425 March 27, 1934 - RAMON SILOS v. MLA. YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL.

    059 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 36657 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. CONT’L. INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. 36701 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. ORIENT INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. 37757 March 28, 1934 - TEAL MOTOR CO. v. CONT’L. INSURANCE CO.

    059 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. 39746 March 28, 1934 - LA URBANA v. AIMEE SARGENT VIUDA DE ALEGRE

    059 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. 39842 March 28, 1934 - IMUS ELECTRIC CO. v. MUN. OF IMUS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. 39996 March 28, 1934 - PRUDENCIO DE JESUS v. FERNANDO GREY, JR., ET AL.

    059 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. 41433 March 28, 1934 - NATALIO AREVALO v. LEOPOLDO ROVIRO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 839

  • G.R. Nos. 36811, 36827, 36840 & 36872 March 31, 1934 - ANTONIO MA. R. BARRETTO, ET AL. v. AUGUSTO H. TUASON Y DE LA PAZ, ET AL.

    059 Phil 845