July 1975 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > July 1975 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-26544 July 22, 1975 - NONATO BARROSO v. CASTRENSE C. VELOSO, ET AL.:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-26544. July 22, 1975.]
NONATO BARROSO, Petitioner, v. HON. CASTRENSE C. VELOSO, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Samar (Branch II), and ESTRELLA BARROZO, Respondents.
Teofilo V. Ogsimer for Petitioner.
Gerardo A. Pabello for Respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Nonato Barroso was allowed to intervene in an action for recovery of land upon his claim that he owns the land in dispute in common with the parties thereto. Said action was dismissed on motion of Nonato Barroso and defendants therein for failure of plaintiff to appear. A subsequent action for recovery of said parcel of land was filed against Nonato Barroso by the plaintiff in the first case. Nonato Barroso moved to dismiss on ground, among others, that the same is barred by prior action. his motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration having been denied, Nonato Barroso filed this special civil action for certiorari.
The Supreme Court denied the petition holding that the dismissal of the first case could not have been pronouncement of whatever cause of action complainant therein might have against petitioner and therefore the plea of res judicata may not be availed of. Moreover, the first case was dismissed on motion of petitioner himself without trial on the merits.
The Supreme Court denied the petition holding that the dismissal of the first case could not have been pronouncement of whatever cause of action complainant therein might have against petitioner and therefore the plea of res judicata may not be availed of. Moreover, the first case was dismissed on motion of petitioner himself without trial on the merits.
SYLLABUS
1. ACTION DISMISSAL; RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY IN CASE AT BAR. — Where, in a prior action for recovery of a piece of land, petitioner was allowed to intervene to ventilate an independent claim upon the property, and said action was dismissed without trial on the merits on motion of petitioner for failure of plaintiff therein to appear, the dismissal of said action does not constitute res judicata in a subsequent action filed against petitioner himself for recovery of the same piece of land.
D E C I S I O N
CASTRO, J.:
From the denial of his motion to dismiss the complaint lodged against him and a certain Clotilde Cultura by Estrella Barrozo, in civil case 1393 of the Court of First Instance of Samar (Branch II), the petitioner Nonato Barroso comes to this Court on a special civil action for certiorari.
On June 20, 1953 Estrella Barrozo brought an action against Clotilde Cultura, Marta Alconaba and Federico Beato in the Court of First Instance of Samar, docketed as civil case 688, for recovery of a parcel of land of 347 square meters situated in Borongan, Samar. Nonato Barroso was subsequently allowed by the trial court to intervene in the case upon his claim that the land in dispute is owned in common by Estrella Barrozo, Clotilde Cultura and himself but that the former two had separately acted to dispose of the property by themselves.
When the case was called for hearing on May 29, 1956, Estrella Barrozo failed to appear and, as a result, the trial court dismissed the action, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Upon petition of the defendants and the intervenor on the ground that the plaintiff notwithstanding the notification sent to her by registered mail for the trial of this case today, she failed to appear, the complaint is hereby dismissed with costs. The intervenor in view of the failure of the plaintiff to appear for the trial of this case asked for the dismissal of this case his intervention, which petition is hereby granted."cralaw virtua1aw library
Estrella Barrozo’s motion for reconsideration of this order of dismissal was denied by the trial court on the ground that it was neither verified nor accompanied by an affidavit of merit. No further proceeding took place in this case.
In July of 1960 Estrella Barrozo commenced an action for forcible entry against Nonato Barroso involving the same lot subject of civil case 688: This action was, however, dismissed by the municipal court of Borongan, Samar, and, on appeal, by the Court of First Instance of Samar, on the ground that ownership rather than mere possession was in issue.
On October 11, 1965 Estrella Barrozo filed the case subject of this petition (civil Case 1393) against Nonato Barroso and Clotilde Cultura for recovery of the same lot subject of her two previous actions. In her complaint Estrella Barrozo alleges in substance that she bought the land in question from one Ignacia Belizar on June 2, 1952; that the said Ignacia Belizar had earlier (on February 14, 1952) acquired the property from Clotilde Cultura by barter agreement; that notwithstanding her earlier disposition of the property, Clotilde Cultura on April 5, 1960 once again bartered the same lot to Nonato Barroso; and that the latter refused to surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff.
On March 8, 1966 Nonato Barroso moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, that the same IS barred by the final judgment of dismissal rendered in civil case 688. This motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration were denied.
Hence the present petition for certiorari.
Pending resolution of this case, Nonato Barroso moved to dismiss his petition without prejudice, with reservation of the right to raise the issues involved in this case in some future proceeding. Asked for comment, Estrella Barrozo stated that she interposes no objection to the dismissal, but submits that since she has already filed her answer to the petition as well as her memorandum in support thereof, "the dismissal sought by the Petitioner could be as dismissal on the merits." And before this Court could act on the petitioner’s motion, the petitioner withdrew the same in a rejoinder dated May 24, 1972, and asked that this case be decided on the merits. This we shall now proceed to do.
Were we to assume, without holding, that the dismissal of the complaint in civil case 688 is with prejudice, amounting to a dismissal on the merits, the effect would be that the causes of action of Estrella Barrozo have failed and she is now barred from pursuing them in any subsequent proceeding. We note, however, from the complaint filed in civil case 688 that Estrella Barrozo did not aver any cause of action against Nonato Barroso. The latter was allowed to intervene in that case, not for the purpose of joining in the interest of any of the defendants therein, but to enable him to ventilate his altogether independent claim upon the property in dispute. The result is that the dismissal of the complaint of Estrella Barrozo could not have been a pronouncement on whatever cause or causes of action she might have against Nonato Barroso. The plea of res adjudicata is, therefore, not available to the latter. Moreover, Nonato Barroso’s own causes of action against Estrella Barrozo which he pleaded in his intervention were themselves dismissed at the instance of Nonato Barroso himself without any pronouncement from the trial court on their merits. Nonato Barroso cannot thus interpose bar of prior judgment in his favor in relation to the present case.
Besides, we note from Norato Barroso’s motion for intervention that he claims that the property belongs in common to Estrella Barrozo, one Clotilde Cultura and himself. If this were true, it is in the interest of Nonato Barroso and the co-ownership — considering the mutual resentments occasioned by the various litigations among them and there appearing to be no legal impediment to such a course — that the property is finally partitioned. On the other hand, if the claim of Estrella Barrozo that the property belongs to her alone is correct, the decision in civil case 1393 could settle the issue of ownership once and for all.
ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is denied. No pronouncement as to costs.
Makasiar, Esguerra, Muñoz Palma and Martin, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., is on leave.
On June 20, 1953 Estrella Barrozo brought an action against Clotilde Cultura, Marta Alconaba and Federico Beato in the Court of First Instance of Samar, docketed as civil case 688, for recovery of a parcel of land of 347 square meters situated in Borongan, Samar. Nonato Barroso was subsequently allowed by the trial court to intervene in the case upon his claim that the land in dispute is owned in common by Estrella Barrozo, Clotilde Cultura and himself but that the former two had separately acted to dispose of the property by themselves.
When the case was called for hearing on May 29, 1956, Estrella Barrozo failed to appear and, as a result, the trial court dismissed the action, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Upon petition of the defendants and the intervenor on the ground that the plaintiff notwithstanding the notification sent to her by registered mail for the trial of this case today, she failed to appear, the complaint is hereby dismissed with costs. The intervenor in view of the failure of the plaintiff to appear for the trial of this case asked for the dismissal of this case his intervention, which petition is hereby granted."cralaw virtua1aw library
Estrella Barrozo’s motion for reconsideration of this order of dismissal was denied by the trial court on the ground that it was neither verified nor accompanied by an affidavit of merit. No further proceeding took place in this case.
In July of 1960 Estrella Barrozo commenced an action for forcible entry against Nonato Barroso involving the same lot subject of civil case 688: This action was, however, dismissed by the municipal court of Borongan, Samar, and, on appeal, by the Court of First Instance of Samar, on the ground that ownership rather than mere possession was in issue.
On October 11, 1965 Estrella Barrozo filed the case subject of this petition (civil Case 1393) against Nonato Barroso and Clotilde Cultura for recovery of the same lot subject of her two previous actions. In her complaint Estrella Barrozo alleges in substance that she bought the land in question from one Ignacia Belizar on June 2, 1952; that the said Ignacia Belizar had earlier (on February 14, 1952) acquired the property from Clotilde Cultura by barter agreement; that notwithstanding her earlier disposition of the property, Clotilde Cultura on April 5, 1960 once again bartered the same lot to Nonato Barroso; and that the latter refused to surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff.
On March 8, 1966 Nonato Barroso moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, that the same IS barred by the final judgment of dismissal rendered in civil case 688. This motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration were denied.
Hence the present petition for certiorari.
Pending resolution of this case, Nonato Barroso moved to dismiss his petition without prejudice, with reservation of the right to raise the issues involved in this case in some future proceeding. Asked for comment, Estrella Barrozo stated that she interposes no objection to the dismissal, but submits that since she has already filed her answer to the petition as well as her memorandum in support thereof, "the dismissal sought by the Petitioner could be as dismissal on the merits." And before this Court could act on the petitioner’s motion, the petitioner withdrew the same in a rejoinder dated May 24, 1972, and asked that this case be decided on the merits. This we shall now proceed to do.
Were we to assume, without holding, that the dismissal of the complaint in civil case 688 is with prejudice, amounting to a dismissal on the merits, the effect would be that the causes of action of Estrella Barrozo have failed and she is now barred from pursuing them in any subsequent proceeding. We note, however, from the complaint filed in civil case 688 that Estrella Barrozo did not aver any cause of action against Nonato Barroso. The latter was allowed to intervene in that case, not for the purpose of joining in the interest of any of the defendants therein, but to enable him to ventilate his altogether independent claim upon the property in dispute. The result is that the dismissal of the complaint of Estrella Barrozo could not have been a pronouncement on whatever cause or causes of action she might have against Nonato Barroso. The plea of res adjudicata is, therefore, not available to the latter. Moreover, Nonato Barroso’s own causes of action against Estrella Barrozo which he pleaded in his intervention were themselves dismissed at the instance of Nonato Barroso himself without any pronouncement from the trial court on their merits. Nonato Barroso cannot thus interpose bar of prior judgment in his favor in relation to the present case.
Besides, we note from Norato Barroso’s motion for intervention that he claims that the property belongs in common to Estrella Barrozo, one Clotilde Cultura and himself. If this were true, it is in the interest of Nonato Barroso and the co-ownership — considering the mutual resentments occasioned by the various litigations among them and there appearing to be no legal impediment to such a course — that the property is finally partitioned. On the other hand, if the claim of Estrella Barrozo that the property belongs to her alone is correct, the decision in civil case 1393 could settle the issue of ownership once and for all.
ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is denied. No pronouncement as to costs.
Makasiar, Esguerra, Muñoz Palma and Martin, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., is on leave.
