Prieto vs. Arroyo

A dismissal for failure to prosecute, from which no appeal is taken, has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits and bars a subsequent action involving the same parties, subject matter, and cause of action, notwithstanding the addition of a prayer for reconveyance in the second action where such relief would have been available under the general prayer of the first.

The case involves two adjoining parcels of land in Camarines Sur, each covered by separate original certificates of title issued pursuant to land registration proceedings under the Land Registration Act. Zeferino Arroyo, Sr. obtained Original Certificate of Title No. 39 over Lot No. 2, while Gabriel P. Prieto obtained Original Certificate of Title No. 11 over the adjoining Lot No. 3. After the death of Zeferino Arroyo, Sr., his title was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 227 was issued in the names of his heirs, the defendants herein. The dispute centers on a correction proceeding initiated by the heirs under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act, claiming that the technical description in their title did not conform to the decision of the land registration court and was less in area by approximately 157 square meters.

In 1948, Zeferino Arroyo, Sr. filed a petition for registration of several parcels of land, including Lot No. 2, Plan Psu-106730, in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. After proper proceedings, Original Certificate of Title No. 39 was issued in his name. The same year, Gabriel P. Prieto filed a petition for registration of an adjoining parcel, Lot No. 3, Plan Psu-117522, and Original Certificate of Title No. 11 was issued in his name. After the death of Zeferino Arroyo, Sr., Original Certificate of Title No. 39 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 227 was issued in the names of his heirs — Meden, Jack, Joker, Nonito, and Zeferino, Jr., all surnamed Arroyo.

On March 6, 1956, the Arroyo heirs filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur (L.R.C. No. 144; G.L.R.O. No. 1025; Special Proceedings No. 900), claiming that the technical description in their transfer certificate of title and in the original certificate of their predecessor did not conform with that embodied in the decision of the land registration court, and was less in area by some 157 square meters. They prayed that the description be corrected pursuant to Section 112 of the Land Registration Act and that a new certificate be issued with the correct technical description. On May 23, 1956, the court issued an order directing the Register of Deeds to change the description in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 227 to conform to the decision of March 8, 1950, and to correct the spelling of one petitioner's name from "Miden Arroyo" to "Meden Arroyo."

On November 29, 1956, Prieto filed a petition to annul the order of May 23, 1956 in the original registration records of the two lots. At the hearing on July 12, 1957, neither he nor his counsel appeared, and the trial court dismissed the petition for failure to prosecute. A motion for reconsideration was denied on September 5, 1957. On September 2, 1958, Prieto filed the present action for annulment of Special Proceedings No. 900 and the order of May 23, 1956, also praying that the 157 square meters allegedly taken from his lot by virtue of said order be reconveyed to him. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground of res judicata, and on January 15, 1959, the court granted the motion.

• Irregularity of Special Proceedings No. 900: Appellant maintained that the institution of Special Proceedings No. 900 was irregular and illegal mainly because he was not notified thereof and the same was instituted almost six years after the issuance of the decree and title sought to be corrected, and hence the order of the court dated May 23, 1956 for the correction of the technical description in appellees' title is void ab initio.

• Lack of Jurisdiction Over Persons: Appellant contended that the order of dismissal in the first case could not have the effect of a judgment because the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents therein, as they did not file any opposition or responsive pleading in that case.

• Judicial Notice of Records: Appellant pointed out that the lower court should not have dismissed his first petition for annulment because no "parole" evidence need be taken to support it, the matters therein alleged being parts of the records of L.R.C. No. 144, G.L.R.O. No. 1025, and L.R.C. 173, G.L.R.O. No. 1474, which were well within the judicial notice and cognizance of the said court.

• Different Causes of Action: Appellant contended that the causes of action in the two suits are different, pointing to the express prayer for reconveyance of some 157 square meters of land in the second complaint.

• Voluntary Submission to Jurisdiction: Appellees alleged that they had voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction after they were served copies of the petition in the first case, as shown by their motions for postponement of the hearings.

• Effect of Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute: Whether the dismissal of the first petition for annulment for failure to prosecute, from which no appeal was taken, constituted an adjudication upon the merits with the effect of res judicata.

• Identity of Causes of Action: Whether the addition of a prayer for reconveyance in the second action created a different cause of action such that res judicata would not apply.

• Effect of Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute: Yes. The dismissal had the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, the court not having provided otherwise, pursuant to Rule 30, Section 3. Since no appeal was taken from the order of dismissal, it became final and constituted a bar to the subsequent action.

• Identity of Causes of Action: No. Both actions were based on the alleged nullity of Special Proceedings No. 900, and in both, the appellant sought to have the order of correction of the title set aside. The prayer for reconveyance was not materially different from the general prayer for "such other remedies, just and equitable in the premises" in the first petition.

• Effect of Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute: The Court framed the issue not as the validity of Special Proceedings No. 900 but as the propriety of dismissing the complaint on the ground of res judicata. The validity of the proceedings was the issue in the first case filed by appellant, but because of his failure and that of his counsel to attend the hearing, the court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute. Since no appeal was taken from the order of dismissal, it had the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, the court not having provided otherwise, under Rule 30, Section 3. The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the order could not have the effect of a judgment because the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the respondents, noting that appellees had voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction, as evidenced by their motions for postponement of hearings.

• Judicial Notice of Records: The Court held that, as a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice in the adjudication of cases pending before them of the contents of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, citing Municipal Council of San Pedro, Laguna, et al. vs. Colegio de San Jose, et al., 65 Phil. 318. Moreover, if appellant had wanted the court to take judicial notice of such records, he should have presented the proper request or manifestation to that effect instead of sending, by counsel, a telegraphic motion for postponement of hearing, which the court correctly denied. Finally, the point was academic, as no appeal was taken from the order dismissing the first petition, and said order had long become final when the complaint in the present action was filed.

• Identity of Causes of Action: The Court found the contention that the causes of action in the two suits are different untenable. Both were based on the alleged nullity of Special Proceedings No. 900, and in both, appellant sought to have the order of correction of the title set aside. The express prayer for reconveyance of some 157 square meters was of no material significance, as that area would necessarily have reverted to appellant had his first petition prospered, given that the relief asked for was that the Register of Deeds be ordered to amend Certificate of Title No. 332 by incorporating therein only and solely the description of Lot No. 2 as appearing in Decree No. 5165, maintaining consequently the description, limits, and area of the adjoining Lot No. 3 in accordance with Decree No. 2301. The claim for damages and other additional and alternative reliefs in the present case were not materially different from the prayer for "such other remedies, just and equitable in the premises" in the former one. There being identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the two cases, the order of dismissal issued in the first constituted a bar to the institution of the second.

• Res Judicata (Bar by Prior Judgment) — For the doctrine of res judicata to apply, there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the first and second cases. The Court applied this doctrine, finding all three elements present: the same parties (Prieto against the Arroyo heirs), the same subject matter (the validity of Special Proceedings No. 900 and the order of correction), and the same cause of action (the alleged nullity of the correction proceeding).

• Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute as Adjudication on the Merits — Under Rule 30, Section 3, a dismissal for failure to prosecute has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless the court provides otherwise. Because no appeal was taken from the order of dismissal, it became final and operated as a bar to a subsequent action involving the same parties, subject matter, and cause of action.

• Judicial Notice of Contents of Other Cases — As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice in the adjudication of cases pending before them of the contents of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the same judge.

• "Since no appeal was taken from the order of dismissal it had the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, the court not having provided otherwise (Rule 30, Section 3)." — This passage establishes the controlling rule that a dismissal for failure to prosecute, when unappealed, becomes an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata.

• "In the first place, as a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice in the adjudication of cases pending before them, of the contents of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the same judge." — This passage articulates the general rule against judicial notice of the contents of other cases, which the Court applied to reject the appellant's argument.

• "There being identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action between the two cases, the order of dismissal issued in the first constitutes a bar to the institution of the second." — This passage states the ratio decidendi, applying the elements of res judicata to the facts and concluding that the prior dismissal barred the second action.

• Municipal Council of San Pedro, Laguna, et al. vs. Colegio de San Jose, et al., 65 Phil. 318 — Cited as controlling authority for the general rule that courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of other cases pending before them, even in the same court and before the same judge.

• Section 112, Land Registration Act — The provision under which the Arroyo heirs filed their petition for correction of the technical description in their certificate of title. The Court's analysis of the validity of the correction proceeding was subsumed in the res judicata determination.

• Section 3, Rule 30, Rules of Court — The provision governing dismissal for failure to prosecute, which provides that such dismissal has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits unless the court provides otherwise. The Court applied this provision to hold that the unappealed dismissal of the first petition barred the second action.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concurred. Barrera, J., was on leave.