G.R. No. L-17885 June 30, 1965
Gabriel P. Prieto, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Meden Arroyo, Jack Arroyo, Nonito Arroyo and Zeferino Arroyo, Jr., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

In 1948, Zeferino Arroyo, Sr. obtained Original Certificate of Title No. 39 for Lot No. 2. That same year, Gabriel Prieto obtained Original Certificate of Title No. 11 for the adjoining Lot No. 3. After Zeferino Arroyo, Sr.’s death, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 227 was issued to his heirs, the defendants. On March 6, 1956, the defendants filed a petition (Special Proceedings No. 900) under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act, claiming the technical description in their title did not conform to the registration court’s decision and was deficient by about 157 square meters. They prayed for correction. The court granted this petition on May 23, 1956, ordering the Register of Deeds to correct the description.
On November 29, 1956, Prieto filed a petition (in the original registration records) to annul the May 23, 1956 order. This petition was dismissed on July 12, 1957, for failure to prosecute when neither Prieto nor his counsel appeared at the hearing. A motion for reconsideration was denied on September 5, 1957, and no appeal was taken.
On September 2, 1958, Prieto filed the present civil action against the same defendants, seeking annulment of Special Proceedings No. 900 and the May 23, 1956 order, and reconveyance of the 157 square meters. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on January 15, 1959.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of Prieto’s first petition for annulment (for failure to prosecute) bars the filing of the present civil action under the principle of res judicata.

RULING

Yes. The order of dismissal in the first case constitutes res judicata and bars the second action. The dismissal for failure to prosecute, from which no appeal was taken, had the effect of an adjudication upon the merits under Rule 30, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. There is identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the two cases. Both actions are based on the alleged nullity of Special Proceedings No. 900 and seek to set aside the order correcting the defendants’ title. The additional prayer for reconveyance and damages in the second case is not materially different, as the relief sought in the first petition would have necessarily resulted in the reversion of the disputed area to Prieto. The Court also rejected Prieto’s arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction in the first case (finding the defendants had voluntarily submitted) and that the court should have taken judicial notice of the registration records. The appealed order of dismissal is affirmed.