Santos vs. Court of Appeals

An action for the revival of a dormant judgment is not the kind of suit between members of the same family contemplated by Article 222 of the Civil Code (now Article 151 of the Family Code); the requirement of earnest efforts toward a compromise must be invoked in the original action, where the actual controversy is still at issue, and not in the subsequent proceeding to enforce a judgment already final. Correlatively, res judicata is a rule of preclusion, not a nullifying factor, and as a ground for dismissal or a defense it must be pleaded at the earliest opportunity, either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, or it is deemed waived.

Petitioner Nicanor T. Santos and private respondent Consuelo T. Santos-Guerrero are brother and sister, born to the deceased spouses Urbano Santos and Candelaria Santos. Their dispute traces to the partition of the properties they inherited from their parents, an arrangement that eventually generated multiple suits among them and their other siblings. Article 222 of the Civil Code (now Article 151 of the Family Code) makes earnest efforts toward a compromise a condition precedent to the maintenance of a suit between members of the same family, and Section 1(j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court authorizes the dismissal of a claim where such condition precedent has not been complied with.

Petitioner Nicanor T. Santos and private respondent Consuelo T. Santos-Guerrero are brother and sister, both children of the deceased spouses Urbano Santos and Candelaria Santos. In 1956, Nicanor, Consuelo, and eight of their siblings executed a "Basic Agreement of Partition" covering the properties they had inherited from their parents. Two years later, Consuelo, joined by her husband, respondent Andres Guerrero, filed suit with the then Court of First Instance of Rizal against Nicanor and two other brothers for recovery of inheritance. Docketed as Civil Case No. 4871 and raffled to Branch VI of the court, the complaint sought, among other things, to have the 1956 Agreement of Partition judicially declared valid.

While Civil Case No. 4871 remained pending, the Santos heirs executed on May 5, 1959 a second document denominated "Deed of Partition (With More Corrections)." Under it, the properties allotted to the heirs belonging to "Group 4," to which Consuelo and Nicanor belonged, were divided into four shares, with Share No. 3 adjudicated to Nicanor, who was in turn obligated to pay Consuelo ₱31,825.00. The Guerreros then filed another complaint against Nicanor, docketed as Civil Case No. 5858 of the CFI of Rizal, for the recovery of Consuelo's share under the May 5, 1959 deed of partition. Civil Case No. 4871 and Civil Case No. 5858 were subsequently consolidated before Branch 11 of the CFI of Rizal, presided over by Judge Andres Reyes. On November 27, 1960, Judge Reyes rendered a decision, marked as Exhibit "5," ordering Nicanor to comply with his part of the deed of partition and to deliver to Consuelo the amount of ₱26,650.00, without prejudice to his right of reimbursement under the same deed, and without pronouncement as to costs.

Thereafter, the Guerreros instituted yet another complaint against Nicanor, this time with the CFI of Pasig, for the recovery of sums of money under the May 5, 1959 deed of partition. For a reason unclear from the records and unexplained by the parties, the case was likewise assigned docket number Civil Case No. 5858 and was raffled to Branch VI, presided over by Judge Eutropio Migriño. Nicanor, as defendant a quo, filed a third-party complaint against his brothers Ernesto et al. Although not touched upon in the basic pleadings, the question of whether Nicanor was obligated to pay Consuelo ₱31,825.00 under the 1959 deed of partition or ₱26,650.00 under Exhibit "5" was raised in the parties' respective memoranda. During the hearing of that case, the Guerreros filed a "Manifestation and Motion" agreeing to submit the case on the basis of the total amount of ₱34,825.00 due to Consuelo minus ₱8,175.00 due to Group 8, or a net balance of ₱26,650.00 in her favor, and agreeing that this net balance, plus interest and attorney's fees to be determined by the court, would be paid by Nicanor and the third-party defendants. On December 28, 1979, Judge Migriño rendered judgment, marked as Exhibit "A," ordering Nicanor, as defendant a quo, to pay Consuelo ₱31,825.00, representing the amount due her under the May 5, 1959 deed of partition, plus damages and attorney's fees.

Nicanor elevated the matter to the Intermediate Appellate Court, now the Court of Appeals, where his recourse was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 69008-CV. In a decision dated October 21, 1985, the appellate court affirmed the December 28, 1979 decision of Judge Migriño but reduced the award of moral damages. Nicanor's petition for review of that decision was denied by the Supreme Court in its Resolution dated February 19, 1986 in G.R. No. L-73121, and an Entry of Judgment was issued on April 1, 1986. The records were thereafter remanded to the trial court, but the Guerreros did not pursue execution of the judgment.

A little over six years later, on June 3, 1992, the Guerreros filed a complaint for revival of the December 28, 1979 decision of Judge Migriño, docketed as Civil Case No. 1784-MN of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon-Navotas. Nicanor moved to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint was barred by res judicata and that, the suit being between members of the same family, no earnest efforts toward an amicable settlement had been made. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint, but on motion for reconsideration and following a new trial it reversed itself and, on July 27, 1995, rendered an amended decision reviving the December 28, 1979 decision and ordering Nicanor to pay Consuelo ₱31,825.00 as the amount due under the May 5, 1959 deed of partition, ₱25,000.00 as unrealized profits, ₱5,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱5,000.00 as attorney's fees, all with interest at six percent (6%) from October 30, 1959 up to July 28, 1974 and at twelve percent (12%) from July 29, 1974 until fully paid. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that Exhibit "5" and Exhibit "A" had resolved two separate complaints, each based on different causes of action or claims. The Court of Appeals also noted that during the pre-trial of Civil Case No. 1784-MN, Nicanor had extended a conciliatory proposal to his elder sister in a failed bid to arrive at an amicable settlement.

• Application of Article 222, Civil Code: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Article 222 of the New Civil Code, in relation to Section 1(j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, has no application, and that if it does apply, his subsequent act already achieved the purpose of the provision.
• Res Judicata and Nullity of the Migriño Decision: Petitioner maintained that the December 28, 1979 decision rendered by Judge Migriño, which is the basis of the revival case, is null and void for being barred by res judicata, having already been the subject of the prior November 27, 1960 decision of Judge Andres Reyes; after Judge Reyes decided Civil Case No. 5858, all the issues therein were already put to rest, and the subsequent reopening of the same by Judge Migriño was without legal basis and rendered the latter's decision null and void.
• Prescription: Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals failed to rule that the action based on the decision issued by Judge Andres Reyes is already barred by prescription.

• Application of Article 222, Civil Code: Whether Article 222 of the Civil Code, in relation to Section 1(j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, applies to an action for revival of judgment, and if so, whether petitioner's subsequent act already achieved its purpose.
• Res Judicata and Validity of the Migriño Decision: Whether the December 28, 1979 decision of Judge Migriño is null and void for being barred by res judicata and therefore cannot be revived.
• Prescription: Whether the action based on the November 27, 1960 decision of Judge Andres Reyes is already barred by prescription.

• Application of Article 222, Civil Code: No. An action for revival of a dormant judgment is not the kind of suit between family members contemplated by Article 222, the requirement being invocable only in the original action where the controversy is still at issue; in any event, petitioner's own conciliatory proposal during pre-trial satisfied the purpose of the provision.
• Res Judicata and Validity of the Migriño Decision: No. Res judicata is a rule of preclusion, not a nullifying factor, and the Migriño decision had been affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court and by this Court; petitioner failed to establish the requisites of the doctrine, merely assuming their existence.
• Prescription: No. The argument rests on the erroneous proposition that the decision sought to be revived is Exhibit "5" of November 27, 1960 rather than Exhibit "A" of December 28, 1979; the two exhibits resolved two separate complaints based on different causes of action, a factual finding that deserves great respect.

• Application of Article 222, Civil Code: Article 222 of the Civil Code, now Article 151 of the Family Code, makes earnest efforts toward a compromise a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action between members of the same family, and a complaint in an ordinary civil action involving such members must allege compliance; otherwise, the complaint may be dismissed under Section 1(j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. The complaint in Civil Case No. 1784-MN contained no such allegation, but a complaint otherwise defective on that score may be cured by the introduction of evidence effectively supplying the necessary averments. More fundamentally, the provision did not apply. Its rationale is to obviate the hatred and passion likely to be spawned by litigation between and among family members, and an action for revival of a dormant judgment rendered in an original action can hardly be the kind of suit contemplated therein. The rule should have been invoked in the original action — Civil Case No. 5858, subject of the appeal in CA-G.R. No. 69008-CV — where the actual controversy was still at issue, not in the proceeding where the controversy had already been decided and what remained was the enforcement of the decision. In any event, Nicanor's own written proposal during the pre-trial of Civil Case No. 1784-MN, in which he offered ₱5,000.00 in lieu of his original obligation of ₱3,536.11 and apologized for bringing the family problem to court, addressed the ideal sought to be achieved by Article 222.

• Res Judicata and Validity of the Migriño Decision: Res judicata, as defined in Black's Law Dictionary, is the rule that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action. It embraces two concepts: bar by former judgment, which bars the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand, or cause of action; and conclusiveness of judgment, which precludes the relitigation of a particular fact or issue in another action between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action. Contrary to petitioner's understanding, res judicata is not a nullifying factor such that the final judgment in the former action works to nullify the proceedings in the subsequent action where the doctrine is invoked; it is a rule of preclusion to the end that facts or issues settled by final judgment should not be tried anew. Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court lists res judicata as a ground for a motion to dismiss or as a defense to defeat a claim, but it must be pleaded at the earliest opportunity, either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer; otherwise, the defense or objection on that ground is deemed waived. The Court distinctly noted that Exhibit "A," which petitioner described as a nullity owing to the operation of res judicata, had been affirmed first by the Intermediate Appellate Court and then by this Court in G.R. No. L-73121, and the implications of those affirmatory actions on the issue of its validity needed no further belaboring. Petitioner also failed to demonstrate, and merely assumed, the existence of the requisites of res judicata; simplistic conclusions and gratuitous assumptions drawn from unestablished facts are unacceptable norms for an intelligent judgment.

• Prescription: The third assigned error was undeserving of consideration, predicated as it was on the erroneous proposition that the decision sought to be revived is Exhibit "5," issued on November 27, 1960, and not Exhibit "A," which petitioner tagged as a void decision despite its having been affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court and this Court. Both the RTC of Malabon-Navotas and the Court of Appeals found that Exhibit "5" and Exhibit "A" resolved two separate complaints, each based on different causes of action or claims, and this factual determination deserves great respect. Petitioner's declaration, without more, that the two exhibits resolved one and the same cause of action involving the same parties cannot be the kind of evidence sufficient to overturn such a factual finding.

• Earnest efforts toward a compromise as a condition precedent — Under Article 222 of the Civil Code, now Article 151 of the Family Code, no suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it appears that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made and have failed, and non-compliance is a ground for dismissal under Section 1(j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. The requirement exists to obviate the hatred and passion likely to be spawned by litigation within a family. The Court applied the doctrine by holding that it does not govern an action for the revival of a dormant judgment, because the actual controversy has already been decided and only enforcement remains; the rule must be invoked in the original action where the controversy is still at issue.
• Cure of a defective complaint by evidence — A complaint that fails to allege compliance with a condition precedent may be cured by the introduction of evidence effectively supplying the necessary averments. The Court recognized that although the complaint in Civil Case No. 1784-MN contained no allegation of earnest efforts, the defect was curable, and petitioner's own conciliatory proposal during pre-trial effectively satisfied the purpose of Article 222.
• Res judicata as a rule of preclusion — Res judicata is the rule that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action. It embraces two concepts: (a) bar by former judgment, which bars the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand, or cause of action; and (b) conclusiveness of judgment, which precludes the relitigation of a particular fact or issue in another action between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action. It is not a nullifying factor; it does not void the proceedings in the subsequent action where it is invoked but merely precludes the relitigation of settled facts or issues.
• Waiver of the defense of res judicata — Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court lists res judicata as a ground for a motion to dismiss or as a defense to defeat a claim, but it must be pleaded at the earliest opportunity, either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer; otherwise, the defense or objection on that ground is deemed waived.
• Respect for the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals — A factual determination by the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that two decisions resolved separate complaints based on different causes of action deserves great respect and cannot be overturned by a party's bare declaration to the contrary.

• "The rule should have been invoked by [petitioner] in the original action [Civil Case 5858 subject of appeal in CA-G.R No. 69008-CV) where the actual controversy is still at issue and not in the present case where the actual controversy between the parties had already been decided by the Court and what remains to be done is the enforcement of the decision." — Quoted by the Court from the Court of Appeals' decision, this passage supplies the ratio for rejecting the Article 222 argument: the requirement of earnest efforts belongs to the original action, not to a suit for revival of an already final judgment.
• "Contrary to petitioner's understanding of the doctrine, res judicata, assuming its applicability on a given situation, is not a nullifying factor, such that the final judgment in the former action works to nullify the proceedings in the subsequent action where the doctrine is invoked. In context, res judicata is a rule of preclusion to the end that facts or issues settled by final judgment should not be tried anew." — This passage states the ratio for rejecting petitioner's claim that the Migriño decision was void, defining res judicata as a preclusive rather than a nullifying rule.
• "Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Courts lists res judicata as among the grounds for a motion to dismiss or as a defense to defeat a claim, but the same must be pleaded at the earliest opportunity, either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer. Else, the defense or objection on that ground is deemed waived." — This passage fixes the procedural rule governing the timely invocation of res judicata as a defense.
• "But a complaint otherwise defective on that score may be cured by the introduction of evidence effectively supplying the necessary averments of a defective complaint." — This passage states the rule that a complaint lacking an allegation of compliance with a condition precedent may be cured by evidence, a point the Court applied to the omission of any allegation of earnest efforts in the revival complaint.

• Magbaleta vs. Gonong, 76 SCRA 511 [1977] — Cited for the proposition that a lawsuit between close relatives generates deeper bitterness than between strangers, supporting the rationale behind the requirement of earnest efforts toward a compromise.
• Vda de Manalo vs. CA, 349 SCRA 135 [2001] — Cited to the same effect, citing the Report of the Code Commission on the rationale of the family-compromise requirement.
• O'Lao vs. Co Cho Chit, 220 SCRA 656 [1993] — Cited as authority for the rule that a complaint otherwise defective for failure to allege compliance with a condition precedent may be cured by the introduction of evidence supplying the necessary averments.
• Gutierrez vs. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 437 [1991] — Cited as the source of the Black's Law Dictionary definition of res judicata adopted by the Court.
• Calalang vs. Register of Deeds, 231 SCRA 88 (1994) — Cited for the two concepts embraced by res judicata: bar by former judgment and conclusiveness of judgment.
• Allied Bank vs. CA, 229 SCRA 252 (1994) — Cited for the rule that res judicata is a rule of preclusion, so that facts or issues settled by final judgment should not be tried anew.

• Article 222, Civil Code — Provides that no suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made but failed, subject to the limitations in Article 2035. The Court held it inapplicable to an action for the revival of a dormant judgment, and noted that petitioner's conciliatory proposal during pre-trial already fulfilled its purpose.
• Article 151, Family Code — The successor provision requiring that no suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it appears from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made but have failed, and mandating dismissal if no such efforts were in fact made. Cited as the current formulation of the condition precedent.
• Section 1(j), Rule 16, Rules of Court — Authorizes a motion to dismiss a claim on the ground that a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with. Cited as the procedural consequence of non-compliance with Article 222.
• Section 1, Rule 9, Rules of Court — Cited for the rule that defenses and objections not pleaded are deemed waived, supporting the holding that res judicata must be pleaded at the earliest opportunity.
• Article VIII, Section 13, Constitution — Invoked in the certification accompanying the decision, that the conclusions were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

Justice Artemio V. Panganiban (Chairman), Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Justice Renato C. Corona, and Justice Conchita Carpio Morales concurred in the decision penned by Justice Cancio C. Garcia. Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. signed the certification pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution.