Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3885)
Facts:
Felisa Basa Vda. de Concepcion v. Jose R. Santos, G.R. No. L-3885, July 09, 1951, the Supreme Court, Tuason, J., writing for the Court. The appeal challenges an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground that a prior action between the same parties and subject matter had been compromised and dismissed.The plaintiffs — widow Felisa Basa Vda. de Concepcion and her children (hereafter “the plaintiffs”) — sued originally on October 30, 1941 in CFI Rizal (civil case No. 8273). They alleged that one Juan Fuentes sold 5,000 sq. m. of lot No. 955 to their decedent Hermenegildo Concepcion for P1,600.20 payable in installments; P969.12 had been paid, leaving P631.08 unpaid. On June 15, 1941 Fuentes conveyed all his rights in lot No. 955 to Jose R. Santos (the defendant/appellee), expressly subject to Santos’ obligation to respect the installment sale. After the assignment, plaintiffs alleged, Santos refused to recognize their rights or accept the remaining installments.
By written compromise dated January 24, 1943 the parties agreed that the plaintiffs would receive 1,762 sq. m. in consideration of amounts already paid, Santos would condone the P631.08 balance, the parties would cause or effect a segregation survey at plaintiffs’ expense, and Santos would execute an absolute deed and procure a certificate of title upon completion; plaintiffs would reimburse certain taxes and would move for dismissal of civil case No. 8273. The compromise contained a broad release: the plaintiffs “remised, released and forever discharged” Santos “of and from any and all claims and demands whatsoever … growing out of or arising from the facts, circumstances, and things set out in the complaint.” There is no copy of the motion to dismiss or the dismissal order in the record, but the 1941 case was dismissed on the plaintiffs’ motion.
On July 6, 1949 the plaintiffs filed the present action in CFI Rizal, substantially repeating the allegations of case No. 8273 and adding a claim for a proportionate share of rents allegedly collected from the United States Army for occupation of lot No. 955. They further alleged Santos had failed to perform the 1943 compromise and that they had expended about P400 in labor and expenses in reliance on it. Santos moved to dismiss, asse...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the dismissal of civil case No. 8273 operate as res judicata and bar the later suit?
- Did the January 24, 1943 compromise agreement operate as a release of the plaintiffs’ claims such that the second suit must be dismissed?
- Could the plaintiffs have amended their complaint to cure its defects or to seek rescission or enf...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)