Mandac v. Gumarad
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Simeon Mandac filed a complaint against defendants Eustaquio Gumarad and Regino Lagundino. This was the fourth case instituted by the plaintiff against the same defendants concerning the same piece of land. Procedural History: The first case (Civil Case No. 4102) was for declaration of ownership and injunction, decided adversely to the plaintiff and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The second case (Civil Case No. 6) was for the same purpose with an added allegation of fraud in the first decision; it was dismissed on the ground of res judicata. The third case (Civil Case No. 231) was for damages for fruits taken, also dismissed on res judicata. The present case (the fourth) is for damages allegedly suffered as a result of the decision in the first case, claiming it was procured through false allegations and proof. The Petition: Plaintiff-appellant claims the lower court erred in not declaring defendants in default and in sustaining defendants' plea of res judicata.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendants should have been declared in default. Whether the lower court erred in sustaining the plea of res judicata.
Ruling
The decision of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed with treble costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of default: The Court held that there was no legal reason for declaring the defendants in default. The defendants were served summons on June 10, 1947. They immediately sought legal counsel. Their present attorneys filed a motion for a 15-day extension to file an answer on June 21, 1947, citing the need to familiarize themselves with the facts, particularly references to three previous voluminous cases. This motion was set for hearing on the same day with notice to the plaintiff and was granted. The extension gave the defendants until July 10, 1947, to file their answer. A motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata was filed on July 2, 1947, before the extended period for filing an answer expired. The Court found no rule requiring a formal appearance before a motion for extension can be filed. Regarding the notice, the Rules do not mandate registered mail for such notices, and while a three-day notice is generally required, the court may hear a motion on shorter notice for good cause, especially when it can dispose of the matter on its own motion. The Court found no abuse of discretion in granting the motion on shorter notice, and the plaintiff was not prejudiced. On the issue of res judicata: The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that this was the fourth case instituted by the plaintiff against the same defendants concerning the same land. The core issue of ownership and the fruits thereof had been definitively adjudicated in the first case (Civil Case No. 4102), which became final after affirmation by the Court of Appeals. The subsequent cases, including the present one, attempted to relitigate this issue by alleging that the first decision was procured through false allegations and perjured evidence. The Court emphasized that whether the defendants' allegations and proof in the first case were false was a matter necessarily in issue and adjudicated therein. The Court cited Paz vs. Inandan and Freeman on Judgments to the effect that the law forbids relitigating matters once adjudicated, even if the claim is framed differently or alleges fraud, as long as the former adjudication remains in force. The Court also invoked Rule 39, Section 44(b) of the Rules of Court, stating that a final judgment on the merits by a court with jurisdiction is conclusive between the same parties on the same issue, regardless of any perceived error. Therefore, the plaintiff could not reopen the question of ownership or the validity of the first judgment through a new action for damages based on allegations of fraud or perjury in the original proceedings.
Main Doctrine
A motion for extension of time to file an answer may be heard on shorter notice than that ordinarily required, especially on matters which the court may dispose of on its own motion, and if the granting of such motion does not prejudice the opposing party. Furthermore, a final judgment or order on the merits, rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, is conclusive in a subsequent case between the same parties and their successors in interest litigating upon the same thing and issue, regardless of how erroneous it may be.