Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence: Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence: Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > April 1960 Decisions > G.R. No.
L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO
EN BANC
Kasilag & Brocoy, Daniel Z. Romualdez, Ma. Salud Vivero-Pareño, and Geronimo
Habelito for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
JUDGMENTS; PRINCIPLE OF RES ADJUDICATA; CASE AT BAR. — The cause of action and
the relief prayed for in case at bar have already been adjudicated in a previous case
between the parties. Hence, the present action is barred, under the principle of res
adjudicata, by the proceedings held in the said previous case.
DECISION
CONCEPCION, J.:
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960aprildecisions.php?id=151 1/15
9/27/2020 G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO<br /><br />107 Phil 623 : April 1960 - …
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, dismissing the case
at bar. Although plaintiff Mrs. Simeona Ganaden Vda. de Ursua had announced her intention to
appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter subsequently forwarded the record to this Court, she
having raised in her brief purely questions of law.
In her complaint, plaintiff seeks to annul the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in
Civil Case No. 24465 thereof, and an order of the same Court for the execution of said
decision, as well as to recover damages, upon the theory that said decision and order are void
for want of due process. Defendant Florenio Pelayo filed a motion to dismiss upon the ground
that plaintiff’s action is barred by a prior judgment, and that the complaint states no cause of
action. Thereupon, the lower court issued the order appealed from, dismissing the case, with
costs against the plaintiff. The pertinent portions of said order read:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that no Judge can annul the order issued by a Judge
of another branch of the same court and of the same category, (Montesa, Et. Al. v. Manila
Cordage Co., G. R. No. L-459, September, 1951). If a Judge of the same category cannot
revoke or annul any order or decision of a Judge of another branch of the same court, much
less can the same Judge annul a final judgment rendered by another court of the same
category, for the reason that by doing so, the Judge will assume the power of reviewing the
judgment of another court of the same category, which power belongs exclusively to the
superior court.
"Wherefore, this Court hereby orders that this case be, as it is hereby, dismissed, with costs
against the plaintiff."
cralaw virtua1aw library
It would seem from this order that the lower court considered itself devoid of authority or
jurisdiction to annul an order issued or decision rendered by a judge of another branch of the
same court. This view is untenable, for the jurisdiction of all courts in the Philippines, insofar
as the authority thereof depends upon the nature of the litigation, is defined in the Revised
Judiciary Act, pursuant to which, courts of first instance shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over civil cases the subject matter of which are not capable of pecuniary
estimation, and an action for the annulment of a judgment and an order of a court of justice
belongs to this category. The case cited in the order appealed from (Montesa v. Manila
Cordage Co., supra) is not in point, for the issue involved therein was whether the Court of
First Instance of Manila, may indirectly — not in an action for the specific purpose of annulling
a judgment — and by interlocutory order, or a writ of preliminary injunction, set aside an
attachment levied in pursuance of an order issued in another case pending before another
branch of the same court. Such is not the nature of the proceeding before us.
Although the lower court erred in finding itself, in effect, without jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint herein, respondent’s motion to dismiss is well-taken, and the case at bar was
properly dismissed, plaintiff’s action being barred, under the principle of res adjudicata, by the
proceedings held in the aforementioned civil case No. 24465.
Indeed, it appears that, on October 29, 1954, defendant herein, Florenio Pelayo instituted said
case against Mrs. Ursua. In his complaint, Pelayo alleged that he owns Lot No. 6 of Nuestra
Señora de Guia Estate, District of Tondo, Manila, he having purchased the same from the
government; that, since 1950, Mrs. Ursua had been molesting him in his possession of said
lot, claiming that she is the owner thereof; that this claim of Mrs. Ursua is groundless in law
and in fact; and that, owing to her unlawful acts of interference in his possession and
ownership, plaintiff had suffered damages, for which reason he prayed for judgment declaring
him absolute owner of said lot and sentencing Mrs. Ursua to pay the aforementioned damages.
In her answer, Mrs. Ursua alleged that the sale to Pelayo was illegal and void, because she
had a better right to purchase the lot in question, she having been in possession thereof in
good faith long before the aforementioned sale, and because Pelayo had succeeded in buying
it through fraudulent misrepresentations.
Notice of the hearing of case No. 24465 was seasonably served upon her counsel. According to
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960aprildecisions.php?id=151 2/15
9/27/2020 G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO<br /><br />107 Phil 623 : April 1960 - …
her complaint in the present case, said notice was received by one Atty. Crispulo Ducusin,
who, however, did not deliver or transmit it to Atty. Federico Ganaden, the attorney in charge
of said case No. 24465. Hence, when the same was heard on May 17, 1955, neither Mrs.
Ursua nor her counsel appeared. The hearing took place, therefore, in her absence. The
deputy clerk of court was authorized to receive the evidence, and, thereafter, or on May 24,
1955, the court rendered a decision declaring that the lot in dispute belongs to Pelayo,
ordering Mrs. Ursua to vacate the property, and sentencing her to pay damages for the use
thereof, plus attorney’s fees. Copy of this decision was served upon her counsel on June 2,
1955. However, Atty. Ducusin, who received it, according to the complaint in the present case,
failed to turn said copy over to Atty. Ganaden, who was then in San Fernando, La Union. As
soon as she learned of this decision, or on July 9, 1955, Mrs. Ursua filed a petition for relief
from judgment upon the ground of excusable negligence, but this petition was denied on
August 2, 1955. Mrs. Ursua tried to appeal, but in vain, her counsel having failed to prosecute
the appeal in due time. Hence, said decision of May 24, 1955 became final.
On September 21, 1955, she moved to set it aside and for a new trial, upon the theory that
said decision was rendered without due process of law, because the evidence in support
thereof was introduced before the deputy clerk of court, not before the Judge himself
(although the latter had authorized the former to receive said evidence), and because, in all
probability, the decision was not prepared personally by said Judge it having been rendered
almost four (4) months before the transcription of the stenographic notes of the hearing
before the deputy clerk of court. This motion was denied on October 4, 1955, whereupon Mrs.
Ursua filed, with the Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari (G. R. No. L-9790) to
annul said decision, upon the same grounds relied upon in the aforementioned motion, dated
September 21, 1956, to set aside the judgment and for a new trial. However, this petition for
certiorari was not given due course by the Supreme Court.
Thus, the cause of action set forth in the complaint herein and the remedy therein prayed for
were actually pleaded and sought by Mrs. Ursua in civil case No. 24465. Her alleged right to
said remedy was passed upon by the court having jurisdiction over the case, and, if its ruling
thereon was not brought for review to an appellate court, it was all due to the failure of
counsel for Mrs. Ursua to appeal in due time. Inasmuch as the cause of action and the relief
prayed for herein have already been adjudicated in case No. 24465, and the parties therein
are identical to the parties in the case at bar, it follows that the same is barred by the
aforementioned rulings in case No. 24465.
Wherefore, the order of dismissal appealed from is hereby affirmed, although upon a ground
other than that stated in said order, with costs against plaintiff-appellant. It is so ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera and
Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960aprildecisions.php?id=151 3/15
9/27/2020 G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO<br /><br />107 Phil 623 : April 1960 - …
Custom Search
Search
ChanRobles Professional
Review, Inc.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960aprildecisions.php?id=151 4/15
9/27/2020 G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO<br /><br />107 Phil 623 : April 1960 - …
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960aprildecisions.php?id=151 5/15
9/27/2020 G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO<br /><br />107 Phil 623 : April 1960 - …
April-1960 Jurisprudence
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960aprildecisions.php?id=151 6/15
9/27/2020 G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO<br /><br />107 Phil 623 : April 1960 - …
LIMCACO, ET AL.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960aprildecisions.php?id=151 7/15
9/27/2020 G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO<br /><br />107 Phil 623 : April 1960 - …
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960aprildecisions.php?id=151 8/15
9/27/2020 G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO<br /><br />107 Phil 623 : April 1960 - …
INC. v. GLOBE ASSURANCE CO.,
INC.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960aprildecisions.php?id=151 9/15
9/27/2020 G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO<br /><br />107 Phil 623 : April 1960 - …
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960aprildecisions.php?id=151 10/15
9/27/2020 G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO<br /><br />107 Phil 623 : April 1960 - …
G.R. No. L-7133 April 29, 1960
- PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN
LAROSA, ET AL.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960aprildecisions.php?id=151 11/15
9/27/2020 G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO<br /><br />107 Phil 623 : April 1960 - …
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960aprildecisions.php?id=151 12/15
9/27/2020 G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO<br /><br />107 Phil 623 : April 1960 - …
MAMERTO RESPECIA, ET AL.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960aprildecisions.php?id=151 13/15
9/27/2020 G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO<br /><br />107 Phil 623 : April 1960 - …
G.R. No. L-14548 April 29, 1960
- PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIO
ANDRES
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960aprildecisions.php?id=151 14/15
9/27/2020 G.R. No. L-13285 April 18, 1960 - SIMEONA GANADEN VDA. DE URSUA v. FLORENIO PELAYO<br /><br />107 Phil 623 : April 1960 - …
AL. v. ISABEL S. DE SAMONTE
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960aprildecisions.php?id=151 15/15