FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 164797. February 13, 2006.]

JOSEFINA M. CRUZ and ERNESTINA M. CONCEPCION , petitioners, vs .

THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND DIVISION, MARIANO "BOY"
BUNAG and ROLANDO BUNAG , respondents.

Mark C. Arcilla for petitioners.

Nemecio O. Alonzo for respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENTS; RES JUDICATA ;

ESSENTIAL REQUISITES. — Under the rule of res judicata, also known as "bar by prior
judgment," a nal 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 successor-in-interest by title subsequent to the
commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and
under the same title and in the same capacity. The requisites essential for the
application of the principle are: (1) there must be a nal judgment or order; (2) said
judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) the Court rendering the same must have
jurisdiction on the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be between the
two cases identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of causes of
action.
2. ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS; DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE HAS THE EFFECT OF AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS; EXCEPTION;
CASE AT BAR. — Citing Section 3 Rule 17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Supreme
Court held that the rule enumerates the instances where the complaint may be
dismissed due to plaintiff's fault: (1) if he fails to appear on the date for the
presentation of his evidence in chief; (2) if he fails to prosecute his action for an
unreasonable length of time; or (3) if he fails to comply with the rules or any order of
the court. Once a case is dismissed for failure to prosecute, this has the effect of an
adjudication on the merits and is understood to be with prejudice to the ling of
another action unless otherwise provided in the order of dismissal. . . . The order
dismissing Civil Case No. 1600 reads: For failure of the plaintiffs as well as counsel to
appear on several settings despite due notices, precisely for the reception of plaintiffs'
evidence, upon motion of the defendant through Atty. Mark Arcilla, this case is
dismissed for failure to prosecute. It is clear from the afore-mentioned order that said
case was dismissed, upon petitioners' motion, for failure of private respondents and
their counsel to attend several scheduled hearings for the presentation of their
evidence. Since the order did not contain a quali cation whether same is with or
without prejudice, following Section 3, it is deemed to be with prejudice and shall have
the effect of an adjudication on the merits. A ruling based on a motion to dismiss,
without any trial on the merits or formal presentation of evidence, can still be a
judgment on the merits.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 3. ID.; ID.; JUDGMENTS; RES JUDICATA ; SUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY OF
PARTIES PRESENT ALBEIT A PARTY IN THE SECOND CASE WAS NOT IMPLEADED IN
THE FIRST CASE; CASE AT BAR. — The Supreme Court held that the principle of res
judicata may not be evaded by the mere expedient of including an additional party to
the rst and second action. Only substantial identity is necessary to warrant the
application of res judicata. The addition or elimination of some parties does not alter
the situation. There is substantial identity of parties when there is a community of
interest between a party in the rst case and a party in the second case albeit the latter
was not impleaded in the rst case. In the case at bar, it is apparent that from the face
of the complaint for Quieting of Title, private respondent Rolando Bunag was not a
party therein as his name does not appear in the title. This, notwithstanding, his claim
and that of the plaintiffs therein, which included private respondent Mariano Bunag, are
the same — to be declared the true owners of the parcel of land covered by Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 22262 and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 67161 of
the Registry of Deeds of Nueva Ecija. Private respondent Rolando Bunag and the
plaintiffs are all heirs of the alleged owners of the parcel of land covered by OCT No.
22262. Private respondent Rolando Bunag, though not a party therein, shared an
identity of interest from which owed an identity of relief sought, namely, to declare
them the true owners of the parcel of land covered by OCT No. 22262 and TCT No.
67161. Such identity of interest is su cient to make them privy-in-law, thereby
satisfying the requisite of substantial identity of parties.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; IDENTITY OF CAUSES OF ACTION; HOW DETERMINED;
ABSOLUTE IDENTITY OF CAUSES OF ACTION, NOT REQUIRED; CASE AT BAR. —
Hornbook is the rule that identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity.
Otherwise, a party could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the
form of the action or the relief sought. The test to determine whether the causes of
action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions,
or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two
actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are
considered the same, and a judgment in the rst case is a bar to the subsequent action.
. . . Civil Case No. 1600 was for Quieting of Title, while Civil Case No. 2583 is for
Annulment of Title with Damages. The two cases are different only in the form of action
but an examination of the allegations in the second case would reveal that the issue
raised — ownership of the land — and the relief sought — be declared as owner and
TCTs be issued in their names — are substantially the same. The evidence required to
substantiate their claims are likewise the same. The proceedings in the instant case, if
permitted to continue, would entail the presentation of evidence which should have
been adduced in the case for Quieting of Title. The case for Annulment of Title is simply
a second cycle of review involving a subject matter that has already been decided with
finality in the Quieting of Title case.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; BASIS THEREOF. — The doctrine of res judicata is a rule
which pervades every well-regulated system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two
grounds embodied in various maxims of the common law, namely: (1) public policy and
necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to
litigation — republicae ut sit litium, and (2) the hardship on the individual that he should
be vexed twice for the same cause — nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa. A contrary
doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and neglect of individuals
and prefer the grati cation of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the
preservation of the public tranquility and happiness.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO , J : p

Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which
seeks to reverse and set aside the decision 1 of public respondent Court of Appeals
dated 19 March 2004 which dismissed the petition for certiorari asking for the nullity of
the 13 May 2003 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, Branch 35, in
Civil Case No. 2583-02, and its Resolution 2 dated 29 June 2004 denying petitioners'
motion for reconsideration.
The antecedents are substantially stated by the Court of Appeals as follows:
There are four (4) cases involved in this controversy. The rst case that
was led between the parties is Civil Case No. 4365 for Unlawful Detainer
litigated before the Municipal Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija entitled " Josefina
M. Cruz and Ernestina M. Concepcion, plaintiffs, vs. Mariano 'Boy' Bunag,
Rolando Bunag, Remedios Bunag, et al., Defendants." This case was decided on 6
November 1998 by the Municipal Trial Court in favor of herein petitioner Jose na
M. Cruz and Ernestina M. Concepcion.

The second case is Civil Case No. 1600 for Quieting of Title, led before
the Regional Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, Branch 36 with " Carlos L. Bunag,
Elias Bunag Natividad, Mariano Bunag, Salud Bunag Clanaoc and Juliana Bunag
Arevalo, as Plaintiffs and Jose na M. Cruz and Ernestina M. Concepcion as Heirs
of Sps. Carlos Maniquis and Marina Bunag, as Defendants." This case was
dismissed for failure to prosecute as evidenced by the Regional Trial Court Order
dated 10 March 2000.

The third case is Civil Case No. 2573-02 for Injunction, with "Mariano 'Boy'
Bunag and Rolando Bunag as Petitioners against Carlos Bunag, Elias Bunag
Natividad, Mariano Bunag, Salud Bunag Clanaoc and Juliana Bunag Arevalo as
Defendants." This case, which was led before the Regional Trial Court of Gapan
City, Branch 35, was dismissed on ground of res judicata. The 6 November 2002
Order, in effect, ruled that there is a substantial identity of parties in this case and
in Civil Case No. 1600, a Petition for Quieting of Title. CScTED

The fourth case is the instant controversy for Annulment of Title With
Damages. Docketed as Civil Case No. 2583-02, it was lodged by herein private
respondents Mariano "Bo[y]" Bunag and Rolando Bunag against herein petitioners
Jose na M. Cruz and Ernestina M. Concepcion before the sala of Branch 35,
Regional Trial Court of Gapan City.
It appears that herein petitioners interposed a Motion for Outright
Dismissal of Civil Case No. 2583 which was granted by the Court a quo as
evidenced by an Order dated 18 February 2003, ratiocinating:

xxx xxx xxx

After a careful study of the arguments of both parties, the Court has
found that herein case (2583) involve the same parties, subject matter and
issue as that in Civil Case No. 1600 which has become nal and executory
and Civil Case No. 2573-02 which was already dismissed by this Court on
the ground of res judicata. In all three cases, Mariano Bunag was included
as party-plaintiff and Ernestina Concepcion as party-defendant. The
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 subject matter involves a parcel of land located in San Nicolas, Gapan City
with an area of 1,160 square meters, more or less, and the issue is who
between the two parties has the lawful title over the same. Clearly, not only
res judicata but also accion pendente lite is present in herein case which
the plaintiffs and their counsel should have revealed in the
Certi cate/Veri cation of their complaint. The allegation that it is only now
that they have learned of the existence of Civil Case No. 1600 is without
merit considering that in the Motion for the Outright Dismissal of Civil Case
No. 2573, dated September 19, 2002, its existence was already disclosed
and even became the ground for the dismissal of Civil Case No. 2573 on
the ground of res judicata.

Moreover, the Certi cation against forum shopping does not only
refer to nal and executory actions but also to pending controversies.
Considering that plaintiffs have been represented by the same counsel in
Civil Case No. 2573 and herein case (Civil Case No. 2583-02), it is very
clear that plaintiffs counsel is appraised (sic) of the existence of Civil Case
No. 1600 and Civil Case No. 2573.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Outright
Dismissal is granted by reason of res judicata and accion pendente lite
and the plaintiffs and their counsel are declared guilty of indirect Contempt
of Court by reason of non-disclosure of Civil Case No. 1600 and Civil Case
No. 2573 as required by Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court and
ordered them to pay a fine of P1,000.00 each. SCaTAc

SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 36)

xxx xxx xxx

However, when herein private respondents interposed their Motion for
Reconsideration, the court a quo reversed itself and reinstated the present case,
the fallo of the herein assailed Order reads:
xxx xxx xxx

In the light of the foregoing, the Order dated February 18, 2003 of
this Court, granting defendants' Motion for the Outright Dismissal of this
case and citing plaintiffs and counsel for contempt of court is hereby
reconsidered and set aside. Accordingly, the instant case is reinstated and
the defendants are directed to le their answer/responsive pleading within
fifteen (15) days from receipt of this order.
SO ORDERED. (Rollo, pp. 11-13) 3

Via petition for review, petitioners went to the Court of Appeals. The latter
dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It ruled that one of the elements of res judicata,
i.e., that there must be, between the rst and the second actions, identity of parties, of
subject matter and of cause of action, is lacking. It explained:
First. The issue in the Injunction case is the propriety of the demolition
order; while in the present action (Petition for Annulment of Title With Damages),
the pivot of inquiry is the ownership of the controversial estate.
Second. Private respondent Mariano Bunag denied that he authorized
Carlos Bunag to sign the Veri ed Complaint in his behalf. Because of this,
Mariano Bunag cannot be considered as a party litigant in the Injunction case.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Concomitantly, there is no identity of parties between the present case and in Civil
Case No. 2573-02 (Injunction). As correctly ruled by the trial court, thus:
"xxx xxx xxx

While it is true that this Court has earlier made a declaration in Civil
Case No. 2573 that Carlos Bunag was authorized by his co-plaintiffs to le
Civil Case No. 1600 including herein plaintiff Mariano Bunag, against
herein defendants, such declaration was based on the veri ed complain[t]
signed by Carlos Bunag. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the
Court has to assume that indeed Carlos Bunag was authorized by his co-
plaintiff Mariano Bunag to le Civil Case No. 1600. However, with the
submission of the a davit of Mariano Bunag on April 14, 2003, wherein
he claimed that Civil Case No. 1600 for quieting of title was led without
his knowledge by Carlos Bunag for and in behalf of the other plaintiffs
including himself, the veri ed complaint of Carlos Bunag is now disputed.
AacCIT

The categorical denial of Mariano Bunag that he was not aware that
Carlos included him as one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1600 for
quieting of title has disputed the veri ed complaint of Carlos Bunag. What
is more, Rolando Bunag, one of the herein plaintiffs was never made a
party in the said Civil Case No. 1600 for quieting of title. Since Mariano
Bunag did not authorize nor give his consent to Carlos Bunag to include
him as one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1600 and that herein plaintiffs
Rolando Bunag is not a party to the said case, the dismissal of Civil Case
No. 1600 will not bind them. Hence, the dismissal of Civil Case No. 1600
will not bar the ling of the instant complaint as one of the requisites of
res judicata is absent. There is no identity of parties between Civil Case No.
1600 and the instant case for the simple reason that herein plaintiffs were
not parties in Civil Case No. 1600 as discussed above. Consequently,
plaintiffs and their counsel can not be said to have violated the rule
against forum shopping. Plaintiffs and their counsel did not le Civil Case
No. 1600 and therefore they are not obligated to inform this Court that they
have filed a similar action involving the same issue with other court.

xxx xxx xxx"

Third. As the court of justice abhors the disposition of the case based on
technicalities, this Court further concurs with the trial court's disquisition, to quote:
xxx xxx xxx
Moreover, substantial justice demands that technicalities should not
be allowed to prevail over the substantive rights of a party-litigant. If the
subject property is really owned by the plaintiffs, then it would be the
height of injustice if they are not allowed to prove their cause of action
because of mere technicality. It would amount to deprivation of their
property without due process. 4

Petitioners led a motion for reconsideration 5 which was denied in a resolution

dated 29 June 2004. 6
Dissatis ed, petitioners are now before us charging that the Court of Appeals
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
rendering the assailed decision and resolution. 7

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 Petitioners contend that all the elements of res judicata are present in the instant
case. They argue that the shu ing of parties should not prevent the application of res
judicata considering that three prior cases (Civil Case No. 4365 for Unlawful Detainer,
Civil Case No. 1600 for Quieting of Title and Civil Case No. 2573 for Injunction) against
substantially the same parties over the same subject matter and cause of action have
all been decided in their favor. They point out that private respondent Mariano "Boy"
Bunag was one of the parties in the Ejectment and Quieting of Title cases (and
Injunction), and that his allegation in his a davit that he neither authorized Carlos
Bunag to include him in the Quieting of Title case nor was he (Mariano) informed
thereof, leaves too much to be desired and that same was merely intended for delay. As
regards the non-inclusion of private respondent Rolando Bunag in the case for Quieting
of Title but who was a party in the Ejectment case (as well as in the Injunction case),
they claim that same was in preparation for this stage of the proceedings. They added
that insofar as identity of causes of action is concerned, it cannot be denied that the
ownership and its concomitant right of possession are the issues in the cases for
Quieting of Title, Injunction and Annulment of Title.

In their comment, 8 private respondents Rolando Bunag and Monina Luzong Vda.
de Bunag 9 maintain that the public respondent did not err when it held that there was
no res judicata in the instant case and that the disposition of the case should not be
based on technicalities.
The question to be resolved is: Does res judicata apply in the case at bar?
Under the rule of res judicata, also known as "bar by prior judgment," a nal
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 successor-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action
or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the
same capacity. The requisites essential for the application of the principle are: (1) there
must be a nal judgment or order; (2) said judgment or order must be on the merits; (3)
the Court rendering the same must have jurisdiction on the subject matter and the
parties; and (4) there must be between the two cases identity of parties, identity of
subject matter, and identity of causes of action. 1 0
Petitioners claim res judicata applies in this case because all the elements
thereof are present. On the other hand, private respondents argue the contrary alleging
that the second and fourth elements are lacking. EaSCAH

There being no dispute as to the presence of the rst and third elements, we now
determine if the second and fourth elements are attendant in the case.
On the second element, private respondents argue that the dismissal of Civil
Case No. 1600 (for Quieting of Title) was not a dismissal on the merits. The dismissal
of this case, they claim, will not bar the ling of the instant case (Civil Case No. 2583-02
for Annulment of Title) because there was neither litigious consideration of the
evidence nor any stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial. In fact, there was no
pre-trial conference and that after four years of court inactivity, the case was dismissed
for failure to prosecute. 1 1
Their argument does not hold water. Section 3 of Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure provides:
Section 3.Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no justi able cause,
the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or
to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be
dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without
prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same
or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication
upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. 1 2

The rule enumerates the instances where the complaint may be dismissed due to
plaintiff's fault: (1) if he fails to appear on the date for the presentation of his evidence
in chief; (2) if he fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time; or (3)
if he fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court. Once a case is dismissed
for failure to prosecute, this has the effect of an adjudication on the merits and is
understood to be with prejudice to the ling of another action unless otherwise
provided in the order of dismissal. In other words, unless there be a quali cation in the
order of dismissal that it is without prejudice, the dismissal should be regarded as an
adjudication on the merits and is with prejudice. 1 3 The order dismissing Civil Case No.
1600 reads:
For failure of the plaintiffs as well as counsel to appear on several settings
despite due notices, precisely for the reception of plaintiffs' evidence, upon
motion of the defendant through Atty. Mark Arcilla, this case is dismissed for
failure to prosecute. 1 4

It is clear from the afore-mentioned order that said case was dismissed, upon
petitioners' motion, for failure of private respondents and their counsel to attend
several scheduled hearings for the presentation of their evidence. Since the order did
not contain a quali cation whether same is with or without prejudice, following Section
3, it is deemed to be with prejudice and shall have the effect of an adjudication on the
merits. A ruling based on a motion to dismiss, without any trial on the merits or formal
presentation of evidence, can still be a judgment on the merits. 1 5
We now go to the fourth element — identity of parties, subject matter and cause
of action.
Petitioners, citing jurisprudence, argue that res judicata is not defeated by a
minor difference of parties, as it does not require absolute but only substantial identity
of parties 1 6 in light of the fact that three prior cases before the instant case have been
decided in their favor against substantially the same parties over the same subject
matter and cause of action.
Public respondent ruled there was no identity of parties for two reasons: (1)
Private respondent Mariano Bunag was not a party litigant in the Quieting of Title 1 7
case because he denied in an a davit that he authorized Carlos Bunag to sign the
Veri ed Complaint and to make him a party thereof; (2) Private respondent Rolando
Bunag was not made a party in the Quieting of Title case.
Private respondent Mariano "Boy" Bunag's claim that the Quieting of Title case
was led without his knowledge does not inspire belief. In the decision of the trial court
in Civil Case No. 4365 (for Unlawful Detainer), it is very clear that the defendants in said
case that included both private respondents, have knowledge of the pendency of the
Quieting of Title case. A portion of the decision 1 8 reads:
Defendants claim of ownership of the property involved in this case which
is now pending with the Regional Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija (paragraph 3,
Pre-Trial brief of defendants) where the issue of ownership is the subject of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 proceedings . . . .

It was the defendants, through their trial brief, that informed the court hearing the
ejectment case that a case (Civil Case No. 1600 for Quieting of Title) is pending where
the issue of ownership is the subject of the proceedings. Thus, as early as the pendency
of the Ejectment case, private respondents had known of the case for Quieting of Title.
If he really did not authorize Carlos Bunag to include him as one of the plaintiffs in the
Quieting of Title case, he could have easily questioned his inclusion therein at an earlier
time. This, he did not do. He executed his a davit only on 14 April 2003 or more than
three years after the case for Quieting of Title has been dismissed, and after the
Injunction case which he and private respondent Rolando Bunag led, was dismissed. It
is evident that his a davit is a mere afterthought executed after his Motion for
Reconsideration in the injunction case was denied because the court gave no weight on
his counsel's allegation that he (Mariano Bunag) was unaware of the complaint signed
and led by Carlos Bunag. It is too late in the day for him to claim lack of knowledge. It
is very clear that the execution of the a davit is to make it appear that there is no
identity of parties in the instant case and in the case for Quieting of Title.
EDCcaS

Private respondents add that since Rolando Bunag was not a party in the
Quieting of Title case, the dismissal of said case will not bind him and thus not bar the
filing of the instant case.
We do not agree. The principle of res judicata may not be evaded by the mere
expedient of including an additional party to the rst and second action. Only
substantial identity is necessary to warrant the application of res judicata. The addition
or elimination of some parties does not alter the situation. There is substantial identity
of parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the rst case and a
party in the second case albeit the latter was not impleaded in the first case. 1 9
In the case at bar, it is apparent that from the face of the complaint for Quieting
of Title, private respondent Rolando Bunag was not a party therein as his name does
not appear in the title. This, notwithstanding, his claim and that of the plaintiffs therein,
which included private respondent Mariano Bunag, are the same — to be declared the
true owners of the parcel of land covered by Original Certi cate of Title (OCT) No.
22262 and Transfer Certi cate of Title (TCT) No. 67161 of the Registry of Deeds of
Nueva Ecija. Private respondent Rolando Bunag and the plaintiffs are all heirs of the
alleged owners of the parcel of land covered by OCT No. 22262. Private respondent
Rolando Bunag, though not a party therein, shared an identity of interest from which
owed an identity of relief sought, namely, to declare them the true owners of the
parcel of land covered by OCT No. 22262 and TCT No. 67161. Such identity of interest
is su cient to make them privy-in-law, thereby satisfying the requisite of substantial
identity of parties.
As regards the identity of subject matter, we nd that there is. In both Civil Case
No. 1600 (for Quieting of Title) and Civil Case No. 2583 (for Annulment of Title), what is
involved is one and the same parcel of land covered by TCT No. 67161.
We likewise rule that there is identity of causes of action. Hornbook is the rule
that identity of causes of action does not mean absolute identity. Otherwise, a party
could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the form of the action or
the relief sought. The test to determine whether the causes of action are identical is to
ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is an
identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts
or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 judgment in the rst case is a bar to the subsequent action. 2 0 In Stilianopulos v. The
City of Legaspi, 2 1 this Court had this to say:
The underlying objectives or reliefs sought in both the quieting-of-title
and the annulment-of-title cases are essentially the same — adjudication of
the ownership of the disputed lot and nulli cation of one of the two certi cates of
title. Thus, it becomes readily apparent that the same evidence or set of facts as
those considered in the quieting-of-title case would also be used in this Petition.
DISaEA

The difference in form and nature of the two actions is immaterial and is
not a reason to exempt petitioner from the effects of res judicata. The philosophy
behind this rule prohibits the parties from litigating the same issue more than
once. When a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction or an opportunity for such trial has been given, the
judgment of the court, as long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive
upon the parties and those in privity with them. Verily, there should be an end to
litigation by the same parties and their privies over a subject, once it is fully and
fairly adjudicated.

Civil Case No. 1600 was for Quieting of Title, while Civil Case No. 2583 is for
Annulment of Title with Damages. The two cases are different only in the form of action
but an examination of the allegations in the second case would reveal that the issue
raised — ownership of the land — and the relief sought — be declared as owner and
TCTs be issued in their names — are substantially the same. The evidence required to
substantiate their claims are likewise the same. The proceedings in the instant case, if
permitted to continue, would entail the presentation of evidence which should have
been adduced in the case for Quieting of Title. The case for Annulment of Title is simply
a second cycle of review involving a subject matter that has already been decided with
finality in the Quieting of Title case.
Finally, private respondents ask that the instant case be not decided based on
technicalities, for substantial justice demands that technicalities should not be allowed
to prevail over the substantive right of a party litigant.
We nd no reason not to adhere to the doctrine of res judicata. A case for
Quieting of Title had been led for the purpose of determining the ownership of the
subject land, but same was dismissed because the plaintiffs therein failed to attend the
scheduled hearings for the presentation of their evidence. As above discussed, the
dismissal was an adjudication on the merits. They had all the opportunity to present all
the evidence for their cause but they failed to do so. It is undeniable that there was no
denial of due process in this case.
The doctrine of res judicata is a rule which pervades every well-regulated system
of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of the
common law, namely: (1) public policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of
the State that there should be an end to litigation — republicae ut sit litium, and (2) the
hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same cause — nemo
debet bis vexari et eadem causa. A contrary doctrine would subject the public peace
and quiet to the will and neglect of individuals and prefer the grati cation of the
litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public tranquility
and happiness. 2 2
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the
Court of Appeals dated 19 March 2004 and its resolution dated 29 June 2004 are
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 2583-02 for Annulment of Title with
Damages, pending before Branch 35 of the Regional Trial Court of Gapan City, Nueva
Ecija, is herby ordered DISMISSED. With costs. SIAEHC

SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1.CA rollo, pp. 71-78; Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. with Associate Justices
Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Regalado E. Maambong, concurring.
2.Rollo, p. 22.
3.Id., pp. 14-17.
4.Id., pp. 18-20.
5.CA rollo, pp. 79-82.

6.Rollo, p. 22.
7.Id., p. 5.
8.Id., pp. 50-52.
9.Substituting her husband private respondent Mariano "Boy" Bunag per Resolution dated 22
June 2005.
10.Firestone Ceramics v. Court of Appeals, 372 Phil. 401, 404 (1999).
11.Rollo, p. 93.

12.Prior to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Sec. 3 of Rule 17 of the Revised Rules of Court
reads:

Section 3. Failure to Prosecute. — If plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the trial, or to
prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these rules or
any order of the court, the action may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or
upon the court's own motion. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication
upon the merits, unless otherwise provided by court.

13.De Knecht v. Court of Appeals, 352 Phil. 833, 850 (1998).

14.Rollo, p. 38.
15.Luzon Development Bank v. Conquilla, G.R. No. 163338, 21 September 2005.
16.Manila Electric Company v. Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc., 425 Phil. 65, 80 (2002).

17.Not in the Injunction Case as erroneously stated by the public respondent in page 6 of its
decision. Rollo, p. 18.
18.MTC decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 27.

19.Heirs of the Late Faustina Adalid v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122202, 26 May 2005, 459
SCRA 27, 39.

20.Luzon Development Bank v. Conquilla, supra note 15.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 21.374 Phil. 879, 897 (1999).
22.Heirs of the Late Faustina Adalid v. Court of Appeals, supra note 19.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com