Case Digest: SPOUSES NARCISO RAYOAN and PARALUMAN TOLENTINO v. ALLAN FRONDA and SPOUSES CHARLITO VALDEZ and AVELINA VALDEZ

SPOUSES NARCISO RAYOAN and PARALUMAN TOLENTINO v. ALLAN FRONDA and SPOUSES CHARLITO VALDEZ and AVELINA VALDEZ

         Paraluman Tolentino (Paraluman), assisted by her husband Narciso Rayoan (Rayoan), filed a Complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Nueva Vizcaya against Allan Fronda (Fronda) and Spouses Charlito Valdez and Avelina Valdez (Spouses Valdez), for Cancellation/Annulment of Title and/or Reconveyance of Land and Damages on the ground that her title had been cancelled by virtue of a falsified Deed of Sale she and her husband purportedly executed in favor of Fronda. The latter subsequently executed a Deed of Sale in favor of Spouses Valdez. The allegations of Paraluman were denied by Spouses Valdez and Fronda.

          Fronda, et al. filed a Motion to Dismiss the case for failure of Tolentino to prosecute her case for an unreasonable length of time. This was granted by the RTC in which Tolentino. No Motion for Reconsideration nor appeal was filed.

              Tolentino and Rayoan filed another complaint which essentially echoed the first complaint. Fronda, et al. filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the cause of action of Tolentino and Rayoan was barred by prior judgment. Again, the RTC dismissed the complaint. This prompted Rayoan to file a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was dismissed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court‘s decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case

HELD:

This Court affirms the dismissal of the second complaint, not for failure to prosecute as held by the CA, but on the ground of res judicata.

The dismissal of the first complaint, which admittedly was “identical” to that in the second complaint, for failure to prosecute was not appealed, hence, it became final and executory several months before Tolentino and Rayoan filed their second complaint. The dismissal of the first complaint had the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, RTC not having declared otherwise.