Baguio vs. Vda. de Jalagat

A court may take judicial notice of a prior judgment it had itself rendered in a previous case when ruling on a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata, even if the ground does not appear on the face of the complaint. The prior dismissal, having the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, constitutes a bar to a subsequent action involving the same parties, the same subject matter, and the same issues.

The case involves a complaint for quieting of title to real property filed by Gabriel Baguio against Teofila L. Vda. de Jalagat, for herself and in representation of her minor children, and against Anabella Jalagat and Emmanuel Jalagat. The defendants were the widow and children, respectively, of the deceased Melecio Jalagat, who was the defendant in a prior case filed by the same plaintiff. The prior case, Civil Case No. 1574, was for "Recovery of Possession and Ownership of Real Estate" and involved practically the same property and practically the same parties.

Gabriel Baguio filed a complaint for quieting of title to real property on February 14, 1966, docketed as Civil Case No. 2639, against Teofila L. Vda. de Jalagat, for herself and in representation of her minor children Dominador, Lea, and Teonife, all surnamed Jalagat, and against Anabella Jalagat and Emmanuel Jalagat. The defendants were the widow and children, respectively, of the deceased Melecio Jalagat.

On March 7, 1966, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment. They argued that the instant complaint was identical to or the same as Civil Case No. 1574, which was filed by the same plaintiff against Melecio alias Mening Jalagat on October 7, 1958, for "Recovery of Possession and Ownership of Real Estate," involving practically the same property and practically the same parties, as the defendants were the widow and children, respectively, thus the legal or forced heirs of the deceased Melecio Jalagat. The defendants further alleged that Civil Case No. 1574 had already been duly and finally terminated, as could be clear from an order of the court dated December 6, 1965.

On March 26, 1966, the plaintiff filed an opposition on the ground that for prior judgment or res judicata to suffice as a basis for dismissal, it must be apparent on the face of the complaint. The plaintiff alleged that there was nothing in the complaint from which such a conclusion may be inferred.

On September 26, 1966, the lower court issued the order complained of, dismissing Civil Case No. 2639. The court found the motion to dismiss to be well-founded, as it had already dismissed the plaintiff's complaint in Civil Case No. 1574 against Melecio Jalagat, the defendants' predecessor-in-interest, in an order dated December 6, 1965, pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 17 of the new Rules of Court. The court noted that the prior case involved the same parcel of land as the one in the instant case, and that the previous dismissal had the effect of an adjudication upon the merits and consequently was a bar to and may be pleaded in abatement of any subsequent action against the same parties over the same issues and the same subject-matter by the same plaintiff.

The plaintiff appealed. In his brief, the appellant did not deny the truth of the statement made by Judge Gorospe that there was a previous dismissal of the same plaintiff's complaint against the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, who was the deceased husband of one of them and father of the rest. There was no denial either of the property involved being the same and of the finality of the decision in the previous case.

• Bar by Prior Judgment Not Apparent on Face of Complaint: The appellant argued that a bar by prior judgment cannot be raised in a motion to dismiss when such ground does not appear on the face of the complaint. He maintained that for res judicata to suffice as a basis for dismissal, it must be apparent on the face of the complaint, and there was nothing in the complaint from which such a conclusion may be inferred.

• Res Judicata: The defendants-appellees moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment. They argued that the instant complaint was identical to or the same as Civil Case No. 1574, which was filed by the same plaintiff against Melecio Jalagat, now deceased, whose legal heirs and successors in interest are the very defendants in the instant complaint. They further argued that Civil Case No. 1574 involved practically the same property and practically the same parties, and that the said case had already been duly and finally terminated by an order dated December 6, 1965.

• Judicial Notice of Prior Judgment: Whether a lower court may take judicial notice of a previous case decided by it, resulting in the prior judgment relied upon, when ruling on a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata, even when the ground does not appear on the face of the complaint.

• Judicial Notice of Prior Judgment: Yes. A lower court may take judicial notice of the finality of a judgment in a case that was previously pending and thereafter decided by it. The order of dismissal was affirmed, as it was in accordance with law.

• Judicial Notice of Prior Judgment: The Court held that the order of dismissal must be sustained. The sole error assigned was that a bar by prior judgment cannot be raised in a motion to dismiss when such ground does not appear on the face of the complaint. The Court noted that the appellant did not deny the truth of the statement made by Judge Gorospe that there was a previous dismissal of the same plaintiff's complaint against the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. There was no denial either of the property involved being the same and of the finality of the decision in the previous case. The Court reasoned that it would be futile for the court to continue with the case, as there had been such a prior judgment certainly binding on the appellant. The Court cited the comments of former Chief Justice Moran: "Courts have also taken judicial notice of previous cases to determine whether or not the case pending is a moot one, or whether or not a previous ruling is applicable in the case under consideration." The Court further noted that the appellant had recourse to a remedy which under the law then in force could be availed of, and that it would have served the cause of justice better if he had reflected a little more on the matter. The Court cited the guiding principle from Alonso vs. Villamor, a 1910 decision, that a litigant should not be allowed to worship at the altar of technicality.

• Judicial Notice of Prior Judgment — A court may take judicial notice of a previous case decided by it, resulting in the prior judgment relied upon, when ruling on a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. The Court applied this doctrine by affirming the lower court's dismissal of the complaint, as the lower court had previously decided the prior case and could properly take judicial notice of its finality.

• Res Judicata — A prior judgment that has become final operates as a bar to a subsequent action involving the same parties, the same subject matter, and the same issues. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that the previous dismissal of Civil Case No. 1574 had the effect of an adjudication upon the merits and consequently was a bar to the subsequent action.

• Futility of Proceedings — The law would lend itself to a well-deserved reproach if the Rules of Court would sanction a proceeding distinguished by nothing but its futility. The Court applied this principle by noting that it would be futile for the lower court to continue with the case, as there had been such a prior judgment certainly binding on the appellant.

• "Courts have also taken judicial notice of previous cases to determine whether or not the case pending is a moot one, or whether or not a previous ruling is applicable in the case under consideration." — This quotation from the comments of former Chief Justice Moran was cited by the Court to support the proposition that a court may take judicial notice of its prior judgments when ruling on a motion to dismiss.

• "It has ever been the guiding principle from Alonso v. Villamor, a 1910 decision, that a litigant should not be allowed to worship at the altar of technicality." — This passage articulates the principle that technicality should not be used to defeat the ends of justice, which the Court applied in affirming the dismissal.

• Alonso vs. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315 — Cited as a guiding principle that a litigant should not be allowed to worship at the altar of technicality. The Court relied on this principle in affirming the dismissal and noting that the appeal was futile and hopeless.

• Section 3, Rule 17, Rules of Court — The provision pursuant to which the prior case, Civil Case No. 1574, was dismissed. The Court noted that the previous dismissal had the effect of an adjudication upon the merits.

Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concurred. Reyes, J.B.L., J., concurred in the result.