ALBERT NABUS, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and MARIANO LIM.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 91670
- Promulgated: 1991-02-07
- Ponente: Regalado, J.
Doctrine
To determine identity of causes of action for res judicata, ask whether the same evidence necessary to sustain the second action would have supported recovery in the first.
A former judgment is conclusive only as to issues actually in issue and adjudicated; adjudication of one issue is not conclusive of a distinct issue in a later action between the same parties.
Under the rules the plaintiff may, but is not required to, unite several causes of action; failure to join does not bar a subsequent action within the prescriptive period.
Facts
Petitioner Albert Nabus originally filed an action for reconveyance on 22 June 1970 against respondent Mariano Lim in the Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet, La Trinidad, Benguet, docketed as Civil Case No. 2159(24).
This petition for review seeks reversal of the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 15846 which affirmed the trial court's dismissal of petitioner's complaint for rescission with damages on the ground of res judicata.
Petitioner claims respondent failed to pay the last three installments (amounting to P75,000.00) and later filed an amended complaint invoking rescission in Civil Case No. 4293 on 3 May 1985.
Issues
Whether the complaint for rescission and damages is barred by the earlier dismissal of petitioner's action for reconveyance under the doctrine of res judicata.
Whether petitioner's action for rescission has prescribed.
Whether equity requires denying petitioner his day in court given respondent's alleged failure to pay the last three installments.
Ruling
The Court found for petitioner on the question of res judicata: the doctrine did not apply because the unpaid installments were not put in issue or adjudicated in Civil Case No. 2159(24).
The Court held the action for rescission had prescribed: the breach (nonpayment) occurred by 1 July 1970 at the latest, the ten-year prescription began 2 July 1970, and the amended complaint filed 3 May 1985 was beyond the prescriptive period.
Accordingly, the petition for review on certiorari was DENIED.
Keywords
G.R. No. 91670, certiorari, res judicata, action for reconveyance, deed of absolute sale, Original Certificate of Title No. P-136, Free Patent No. V48737, Section 119 of the Public Land Law, CA No. 141, lack of cause of action, prescription, tender of the repurchase price, Public Land Act, Civil Code, dismissal with prejudice, annulment of the order of dismissal, due process, grave abuse of discretion, rescission with damages, motion