Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 141528 October 31, 2006
OSCAR P. MALLION, petitioner,
vs.
EIT!A ALCANTARA, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
A"CUNA, J.#
his is a petition for revie! on certiorari under Rule "# of the Rules of Court raisin$ a %uestion of la!& Does a
previous final 'ud$(ent den)in$ a petition for declaration of nullit) on the $round of ps)cholo$ical incapacit) bar a
subse%uent petition for declaration of nullit) on the $round of lac* of (arria$e license+
he facts are not disputed&
On October ,", -..#, petitioner Oscar P. Mallion filed a petition
-
!ith the Re$ional rial Court /RC0, 1ranch ,., of
San Pablo Cit) see*in$ a declaration of nullit) of his (arria$e to respondent Editha 2lcantara under 2rticle 34 of
E5ecutive Order No. ,6., as a(ended, other!ise *no!n as the 7a(il) Code, citin$ respondent8s alle$ed
ps)cholo$ical incapacit). he case !as doc*eted as Civil Case No. SP "3"-9.#. 2fter trial on the (erits, the RC
denied the petition in a decision
,
dated Nove(ber --, -..: upon the findin$ that petitioner ;failed to adduce
preponderant evidence to !arrant the $rant of the relief he is see*in$.;
3
he appeal filed !ith the Court of 2ppeals
!as li*e!ise dis(issed in a resolution
"
dated <une --, -..= for failure of petitioner to pa) the doc*et and other la!ful
fees !ithin the re$le(entar) period.
2fter the decision in Civil Case No. SP "3"-9.# attained finalit), petitioner filed on <ul) -,, -... another petition
#
for
declaration of nullit) of (arria$e !ith the RC of San Pablo Cit), this ti(e alle$in$ that his (arria$e !ith respondent
!as null and void due to the fact that it !as celebrated !ithout a valid (arria$e license. 7or her part, respondent filed
an ans!er !ith a (otion to dis(iss
4
dated 2u$ust -3, -..., pra)in$ for the dis(issal of the petition on the $round
of res judicata and foru( shoppin$.
In an order
:
dated October =, -..., the RC $ranted respondent8s (otion to dis(iss, the dispositive portion of !hich
reads&
>?ERE7ORE, for 7oru( Shoppin$ and Multiplicit) of Suits, the Motion to Dis(iss is @R2NED. his case
is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
=
Petitioner8s (otion for reconsideration !as also denied in an order
.
dated <anuar) ,-, ,666.
?ence, this petition !hich alle$es, as follo!s&
2. IN DISMISSIN@ PEIIONER8S PEIION 7OR ?E DECA2R2ION O7 ?IS M2RRI2@E 2S NBAA
2ND VOID AB INITIO 7OR A2CC O7 ?E REDBISIE M2RRI2@E AICENSE 1EC2BSE O7 /?E0
DISMISS2A O7 2N E2RAIER PEIION 7OR DECA2R2ION O7 NBAAIE O7 ?E S2ME M2RRI2@E
ON ?E @ROBND O7 ?IS >I7E8S PSEC?OAO@IC2A INC2P2CIE BNDER 2RICAE 34 O7 ?E
72MIAE CODE, ?E RI2A COBR ?2D DECIDED 2 DBESION O7 SB1S2NCE >?IC? ?2S
PRO121AE NO ?EREO7ORE 1EEN DEERMINED SDB2REAE 2ND DE7INIIVEAE 1E ?IS COBR,
OR ?2D DECIDED I IN 2 >2E NO IN 2CCORD >I? A2>.
1. IN DISMISSIN@ PEIIONER8S PEIION 7OR ?E DECA2R2ION O7 NBAAIE O7 ?IS M2RRI2@E
7OR A2CC O7 ?E REDBISIE M2RRI2@E AICENSE, ?E RI2A COBR ?2D CON7BSED,
DISORED 2ND MIS2PPAIED ?E 7BND2MEN2A RBAES 2ND CONCEPS ON RES <BDIC22,
SPAIIN@ O7 2 C2BSE O7 2CION 2ND 7ORBM S?OPPIN@.
-6
Petitioner ar$ues that !hile the relief pra)ed for in the t!o cases !as the sa(e, that is, the declaration of nullit) of his
(arria$e to respondent, the cause of action in the earlier case !as distinct and separate fro( the cause of action in
the present case because the operative facts upon !hich the) !ere based as !ell as the evidence re%uired to sustain
either !ere different. 1ecause there is no identit) as to the cause of action, petitioner clai(s that res judicata does
not lie to bar the second petition. In this connection, petitioner (aintains that there !as no violation of the rule on
foru( shoppin$ or of the rule !hich proscribes the splittin$ of a cause of action.
On the other hand, respondent, in her co((ent dated Ma) ,4, ,666, counters that !hile the present suit is anchored
on a different $round, it still involves the sa(e issue raised in Civil Case No. SP "3"-9.#, that is, the validit) of
petitioner and respondent8s (arria$e, and pra)s for the sa(e re(ed), that is, the declaration of nullit) of their
(arria$e. Respondent thus contends that petitioner violated the rule on foru( shoppin$. Moreover, respondent
asserts that petitioner violated the rule on (ultiplicit) of suits as the $round he cites in this petition could have been
raised durin$ the trial in Civil Case No. SP "3"-9.#.
he petition lac*s (erit.
he issue before this Court is one of first i(pression. Should the (atter of the invalidit) of a (arria$e due to the
absence of an essential re%uisite prescribed b) 2rticle " of the 7a(il) Code be raised in the sa(e proceedin$ !here
the (arria$e is bein$ i(pu$ned on the $round of a part)8s ps)cholo$ical incapacit) under 2rticle 34 of the 7a(il)
Code+
Petitioner insists that because the action for declaration of nullit) of (arria$e on the $round of ps)cholo$ical
incapacit) and the action for declaration of nullit) of (arria$e on the $round of absence of (arria$e license constitute
separate causes of action, the present case !ould not fall under the prohibition a$ainst splittin$ a sin$le cause of
action nor !ould it be barred b) the principle of res judicata.
he contention is untenable.
Res judicata is defined as ;a (atter ad'ud$edF a thin$ 'udiciall) acted upon or decidedF a thin$ or (atter settled b)
'ud$(ent. It also refers to the rule that a final 'ud$(ent or decree on the (erits b) a court of co(petent 'urisdiction is
conclusive of the ri$hts of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and (atters deter(ined in the for(er
suit.;
--
his doctrine is a rule !hich pervades ever) !ell9re$ulated s)ste( of 'urisprudence and is founded upon the follo!in$
precepts of co((on la!, na(el)& /-0 public polic) and necessit), !hich (a*es it to the interest of the State that there
should be an end to liti$ation, and /,0 the hardship on the individual that he should be ve5ed t!ice for the sa(e
cause. 2 contrar) doctrine !ould sub'ect the public peace and %uiet to the !ill and ne$lect of individuals and prefer
the $ratification of the liti$ious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public tran%uilit) and
happiness.
-,
In this 'urisdiction, the concept of res judicata is e(bodied in Section ": /b0 and /c0 of Rule 3. of the Rules of Court,
thus&
SEC. ":. Effect of 'ud$(ents or final orders. G he effect of a 'ud$(ent or final order rendered b) a court of
the Philippines, havin$ 'urisdiction to pronounce the 'ud$(ent or final order, (a) be as follo!s&
/a0 In case of a 'ud$(ent or final order a$ainst a specific thin$ or in respect to the probate of a !ill, or the
ad(inistration of the estate of a deceased person, or in respect to the personal, political, or le$al condition
or status of a particular person or his relationship to another, the 'ud$(ent or final order is conclusive upon
the title to the thin$, the !ill or ad(inistration, or the condition, status or relationship of the personF ho!ever,
the probate of a !ill or $rantin$ of letters of ad(inistration shall onl) be prima facie evidence of the death of
the testator or intestateF
$b% I& ot'er c()e), t'e *+,-.e&t or /0&(1 or,er 0), 20t' re)3ect to t'e .(tter ,0rect14 (,*+,-e, or () to
(&4 ot'er .(tter t'(t co+1, '(5e bee& r(0)e, 0& re1(t0o& t'ereto, co&c1+)05e bet2ee& t'e 3(rt0e) (&,
t'e0r )+cce))or) 0& 0&tere)t b4 t0t1e )+b)e6+e&t to t'e co..e&ce.e&t o/ t'e (ct0o& or )3ec0(1
3rocee,0&-, 10t0-(t0&- /or t'e )(.e t'0&- (&, +&,er t'e )(.e t0t1e (&, 0& t'e )(.e c(3(c0t47 (&,,
$c% I& (&4 ot'er 10t0-(t0o& bet2ee& t'e )(.e 3(rt0e) or t'e0r )+cce))or) 0& 0&tere)t, t'(t o&14 0)
,ee.e, to '(5e bee& (,*+,-e, 0& ( /or.er *+,-.e&t or /0&(1 or,er 2'0c' (33e(r) +3o& 0t) /(ce to
'(5e bee& )o (,*+,-e,, or 2'0c' 2() (ct+(114 (&, &ece))(r014 0&c1+,e, t'ere0& or &ece))(r4
t'ereto.
he above provision outlines the dual aspect of res judicata.
-3
Section ": /b0 pertains to it in its concept as ;bar b)
prior 'ud$(ent; or ;estoppel b) verdict,; !hich is the effect of a 'ud$(ent as a bar to the prosecution of a second
action +3o& t'e )(.e clai(, de(and or c(+)e o/ (ct0o&. On the other hand, Section ": /c0 pertains tores judicata in
its concept as ;conclusiveness of 'ud$(ent; or other!ise *no!n as the rule of auter action pendant!hich ordains that
issues actuall) and directl) resolved in a for(er suit cannot a$ain be raised in an) future case bet!een the sa(e
parties involvin$ a ,0//ere&t c(+)e o/ (ct0o&.
-"
Res judicata in its concept as a bar b) prior 'ud$(ent obtains in the
present case.
Res judicata in this sense re%uires the concurrence of the follo!in$ re%uisites& /-0 the for(er 'ud$(ent is finalF /,0 it is
rendered b) a court havin$ jurisdiction over the sub'ect (atter and the partiesF /30 it is a 'ud$(ent or an
orderon the meritsF and /"0 there is 99 bet!een the first and the second actions 99 identity of parties, of sub'ect (atter,
and of causes of action.
-#
Petitioner does not dispute the e5istence of the first three re%uisites. >hat is in issue is the presence of the fourth
re%uisite. In this re$ard, the test to deter(ine !hether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain !hether the
sa(e evidence !ill sustain both actions, or !hether there is an identit) in the facts essential to the (aintenance of
the t!o actions. If the sa(e facts or evidence !ould sustain both, the t!o actions are considered the sa(e, and a
'ud$(ent in the first case is a bar to the subse%uent action.
-4
1ased on this test, petitioner !ould contend that the t!o petitions brou$ht b) hi( see*in$ the declaration of nullit) of
his (arria$e are anchored on separate causes of action for the evidence necessar) to sustain the first petition !hich
!as anchored on the alle$ed ps)cholo$ical incapacit) of respondent is different fro( the evidence necessar) to
sustain the present petition !hich is anchored on the purported absence of a (arria$e license.
Petitioner, ho!ever, for$ets that he is si(pl) invo*in$ different $rounds for the sa(e cause of action. 1) definition, a
cause of action is the act or o(ission b) !hich a part) violates the ri$ht of another.
-:
In both petitions, petitioner has
the sa(e cause 9 the declaration of nullit) of his (arria$e to respondent. >hat differs is the $round upon !hich the
cause of action is predicated. hese $rounds cited b) petitioner essentiall) split the various aspects of the pivotal
issue that holds the *e) to the resolution of this controvers), that is, the actual status of petitioner and respondent8s
(arria$e.
7urther(ore, the instant case is pre(ised on the clai( that the (arria$e is null and void because no valid celebration
of the sa(e too* place due to the alle$ed lac* of a (arria$e license. In Civil Case No. SP "3"-9.#, ho!ever,
petitioner i(pliedl) conceded that the (arria$e had been sole(niHed and celebrated in accordance !ith la!.
Petitioner is no! bound b) this ad(ission. he alle$ed absence of a (arria$e license !hich petitioner raises no!
could have been presented and heard in the earlier case. Suffice it to state that parties are bound not onl) as re$ards
ever) (atter offered and received to sustain or defeat their clai(s or de(and but as to an) other ad(issible (atter
!hich (i$ht have been offered for that purpose and of all other (atters that could have been ad'ud$ed in that case.
-=
It (ust be e(phasiHed that a part) cannot evade or avoid the application of res judicata b) si(pl) var)in$ the for( of
his action or adoptin$ a different (ethod of presentin$ his case.
-.
2s this Court stated in Perez v. Court of Appeals
,6
5 5 5 the state(ent of a different for( of liabilit) is not a different cause of action, provided it $ro!s out of the
sa(e transaction or act and see*s redress for the !ron$. !o actions are not necessaril) for different
causes of action si(pl) because the theor) of the second !ould not have been open under the pleadin$s in
the first. 2 part) cannot preserve the ri$ht to brin$ a second action after the loss of the first (erel) b) havin$
circu(scribed and li(ited theories of recover) opened b) the pleadin$s in the first.
It bears stressin$ that a part) cannot divide the $rounds for recover). A 31(0&t0// 0) .(&,(te, to 31(ce 0&
0))+e 0& '0) 31e(,0&-, (11 t'e 0))+e) e80)t0&- 2'e& t'e )+0t be-(&. A 1(2)+0t c(&&ot be tr0e,
30ece.e(1. T'e 31(0&t0// 0) bo+&, to )et /ort' 0& '0) /0r)t (ct0o& e5er4 -ro+&, /or re10e/ 2'0c' 'e
c1(0.) to e80)t (&, +3o& 2'0c' 'e re10e,, (&, c(&&ot be 3er.0tte, to re14 +3o& t'e. b4 30ece.e(1 0&
)+cce))05e (ct0o& to reco5er /or t'e )(.e 2ro&- or 0&*+r4.
A 3(rt4 )ee90&- to e&/orce ( c1(0., 1e-(1 or e6+0t(b1e, .+)t 3re)e&t to t'e co+rt, e0t'er b4 t'e
31e(,0&-) or 3roo/), or bot', o& t'e -ro+&,) +3o& 2'0c' to e83ect ( *+,-.e&t 0& '0) /(5or. !e 0) &ot
(t 10bert4 to )310t +3 '0) ,e.(&,), (&, 3ro)ec+te 0t b4 30ece.e(1 or 3re)e&t o&14 ( 3ort0o& o/ t'e
-ro+&,) +3o& 2'0c' ( )3ec0(1 re10e/ 0) )o+-'t (&, 1e(5e t'e re)t to t'e 3re)e&t.e&t 0& ( )eco&, )+0t
0/ t'e /0r)t /(01). T'ere 2o+1, be &o e&, to 10t0-(t0o& 0/ )+c' 30ece.e(1 3re)e&t(t0o& 0)
(11o2e,. /Citations omitted.0
In su(, liti$ants are provided !ith the options on the course of action to ta*e in order to obtain 'udicial relief. Once an
option has been ta*en and a case is filed in court, the parties (ust ventilate all (atters and relevant issues therein.
he losin$ part) !ho files another action re$ardin$ the sa(e controvers) !ill be needlessl) s%uanderin$ ti(e, effort
and financial resources because he is barred b) la! fro( liti$atin$ the sa(e controvers) all over a$ain.
,-
herefore, havin$ e5pressl) and i(pliedl) conceded the validit) of their (arria$e celebration, petitioner is no!
dee(ed to have !aived an) defects therein. 7or this reason, the Court finds that the present action for declaration of
nullit) of (arria$e on the $round of lac* of (arria$e license is barred b) the decision dated Nove(ber --, -..: of the
RC, 1ranch ,., of San Pablo Cit), in Civil Case No. SP "3"-9.#.
:!ERE;ORE, the petition is ENIE for lac* of (erit. Costs a$ainst petitioner.
SO ORERE.