VOL. 14, JUNE 30, 1965 549Prieto vs. Arroyo

No. L17885. June 30, 1965.

GABRIEL P. PRIETO, plaintiffappellant, vs. MEDENARROYO, JACK ARROYO, NONITO ARROYO andZEFERINO ARROYO, JR., defendantsappellees.

Courts Evidence Judicial notice Courts are not authorized totake judicial notice of records of other cases pending before samejudge.As a general rule, courts are not authorized to takejudicial notice, in the adjudication of cases pending before them,of the contents of other cases, even when such cases have beentried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding thefact that both cases may have been tried or are actually pendingbefore the same judge.

Judgments Res judicata Identity of causes of action Claimfor damages included in prayer for general relief.There is nodifference in causes of action in two cases where both are based onthe alleged nullity of special proceedings and in both the plaintiffseeks the setting aside of the order of correction of the title of theadverse party. A claim for damages and for other relief in one caseis not materially different from a prayer for general relief inanother.

APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance ofCamarines Sur.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.Prila, Pardalis & Pejo for plaintiffappellant. Quijano & Azores and J. P. Arroyo for defendants

appellees.

MAKALINTAL, J.:

Gabriel P. Prieto appealed to the Court of Appeals from theorder of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur

dismissing his complaint in Civil Case No. 4280. Since

550

550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPrieto vs. Arroyo

only questions of law are involved the appeal has beencertified to this Court.

In 1948 Zeferino Arroyo, Sr. filed in the Court of FirstInstance of Camarines Sur a petition for registration ofseveral parcels of land, including Lot No. 2, Plan Psu106730 (L.R.C. No. 144 G.L.R.O. No. 1025). After theproper proceedings Original Certificate of Title No. 39covering said lot was issued in his name. The same yearand in the same Court Gabriel P. Prieto filed a petition forregistration of an adjoining parcel of land, described as LotNo. 3, Plan Psu117522 (L.R.C. No. 173 G.L.R.O. No.1474). As a result Original Certificate of Title No. 11 wasissued in his name.

After the death of Zeferino Arroyo, Sr., OriginalCertificate of Title No. 39 was cancelled and in lieu thereofTransfer Certificate of Title No. 227 was issued in thenames of his heirs, the defendants in this case, namelyMeden, Jack, Joker, Nonito and Zeferino, Jr., all surnamedArroyo.

On March 6, 1956 said heirs filed in the Court of FirstInstance of Camarines Sur a petition (L.R.C. No. 144G.L.R.O. No. 1025 Special Proceedings No. 900) in whichthey claimed that the technical description set forth intheir transfer certificate of title and in the originalcertificate of their predecessor did not conform with thatembodied in the decision of the land registration court, andwas less in area by some 157 square meters. They thereforeprayed that said description be corrected pursuant toSection 112 of the Land Registration Act that theircertificate of title be cancelled and another one issued tothem containing the correct technical description. Thepetition was filed in the registration record but wasdocketed as Special Proceedings No. 900.

On May 23, 1956 the court issued an order directing theRegister of Deeds of Camarines Sur to change, uponpayment of his fees, the description in Transfer Certificateof Title No. 227 of Lot 2 in Plan Psu106730 so as to makeit conform to that embodied in the decision of the Court on

March 8, 1950, and to correct therein the spelling of

551

VOL. 14, JUNE 30, 1965 551Prieto vs. Arroyo

the name of one of the petitioners from Miden Arroyo toMeden Arroyo.

On November 29, 1956 Prieto filed against thedefendants in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur(in the original registration records of the two lots) apetition to annul the order of May 23 in SpecialProceedings No. 900. At the hearing of the petition on July12, 1957 neither he nor his counsel appeared.Consequently, the trial court on the same day issued anorder dismissing the petition for failure to prosecute. Amotion for reconsideration of that order was denied onSeptember 5, 1957.

On September 2, 1958 Prieto filed against the samedefendants the present action for annulment of SpecialProceedings No. 900 and the order therein entered on May23, 1956. He also prayed that the 157 square metersallegedly taken from his lot by virtue of said order bereconveyed to him.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on theground of res judicata. Plaintiff opposed, and on January15, 1959 the court granted the motion. It is from the orderof dismissal, plaintiff having failed to secure itsreconsideration, that the appeal has been taken.

Appellant maintains that the institution of SpecialProceedings No. 900 was irregular and illegal mainlybecause he was not notified thereof and the same wasinstituted almost six years after the issuance of the decreeand title sought to be corrected, and hence the order of thecourt dated May 23, 1956 for the correction of the technicaldescription in appellees title is void ab initio.

The issue here, however, is not the validity of saidSpecial Proceedings No. 900 but the propriety of thedismissal of appellants complaint on the ground of resadjudicata. The validity of the said proceedings was theissue in the first case he filed. But because of his failureand that of his counsel to attend the hearing the courtdismissed the case for failure to prosecute. Since no appealwas taken from the order of dismissal it had the effect of an

adjudication upon the merits, the court not having providedotherwise (Rule 30, Section 3).

552

552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPrieto vs. Arroyo

Appellant contends that said order could not have the effectof a judgment because the court did not acquire jurisdictionover the persons of the respondents therein, defendantsappellees here, as they did not file any opposition orresponsive pleading in that case. Appellees, on the otherhand, allege that they had voluntarily submitted to thecourts jurisdiction after they were served copies of thepetition. This allegation finds support in the record,particularly in the following statement of appellant in hisbrief:

This petition was originally set for hearing on December 8, 1956,but was postponed to January 14, 1957, due to lack of notice tothe respondents. Upon motion for postponements of respondents,now defendantsappellees, the hearing of January 14, 1957 waspostponed to May 16, 1957. The hearing set for May 16, 1957 wasagain postponed upon motion of the respondents to July 12, 1957.

Appellant next points out that the lower court should nothave dismissed his first petition for annulment because noparole evidence need be taken to support it, the matterstherein alleged being parts of the records of L.R.C. No. 144,G.L.R.O. No. 1025, and L.R.C. 173, G.L.R.O. No. 1474,which were well within the judicial notice and cognizanceof the said court.

In the first place, as a general rule, courts are notauthorized to take judicial notice, in the adjudication ofcases pending before them, of the contents of other cases,even when such cases have been tried or are pending in thesame court, and notwithstanding the fact that both casesmay have been tried or are actually pending before thesame judge (Municipal Council of San Pedro, Laguna, et al.v. Colegio de San Jose, et al., 65 Phil. 318). Secondly, ifappellant had really wanted the court to take judicialnotice of such records, he should have presented the properrequest or manifestation to that effect instead of sending,by counsel, a telegraphic motion for postponement of

hearing, which the court correctly denied. Finally, the pointraised by counsel is now academic, as no appeal was takenfrom the order dismissing his first petition, and said orderhad long become final when the complaint in the presentaction was filed.

553

VOL. 14, JUNE 30, 1965 553De los Santos vs. Court of Appeals

The contention that the causes of action in the two suitsare different is untenable.

Both are based on the alleged nullity of SpecialProceedings No. 900 in both appellant seeks that the orderof correction of the title of appellees be set aside. Of nomaterial significance is the fact that in the complaint in theinstant case there is an express prayer for reconveyance ofsome 157 square meters of land, taken from appellant as aresult of such correction of title. For that area wouldnecessarily have reverted to appellant had his first petitionprospered, the relief asked for by him being that theRegister of Deeds of Camarines Sur be ordered to amendCertificate of Title No. 332 by incorporating therein onlyand solely the description of Lot No. 2, plan Psu106730 asappearing in the Decree No. 5165 and maintainingconsequently the description limits and area of theadjoining land of the herein petitioner, Lot No. 3, plan Psu117522, in accordance with Decree No. 2301 of LandRegistration No. 173. The claim for damages as well as forother additional and alternative reliefs in the present caseare not materially different from his prayer for such otherremedies, just and equitable in the premises contained inthe former one.

There being identity of parties, subject matter and causeof action between the two cases, the order of dismissalissued in the first constitutes a bar to the institution of thesecond.

The appealed order is affirmed, with costs againstappellant.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes,J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., andZaldivar, JJ., concur.

Barrera, J., is on leave.

Order affirmed.

o0o

Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.