G.R. No.

141528 October 31, 2006

OSCAR P. MALLION, petitioner,
vs.
EDITA ALCANTARA, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
A!C"NA, J.#
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court raising a uestion of law! Does a previous "nal
#udg$ent den%ing a petition for de&laration of nullit% on the
ground of ps%&hologi&al in&apa&it% 'ar a su'seuent petition for
de&laration of nullit% on the ground of la&( of $arriage li&ense)
The fa&ts are not disputed!
On O&to'er *4, +,,5, petitioner Os&ar -. .allion "led a
petition
+
with the Regional Trial Court /RTC0, 1ran&h *,, of San
-a'lo Cit% see(ing a de&laration of nullit% of his $arriage to
respondent Editha 2l&antara under 2rti&le 34 of E5e&utive Order
No. *6,, as a$ended, otherwise (nown as the 7a$il% Code, &iting
respondent8s alleged ps%&hologi&al in&apa&it%. The &ase was
do&(eted as Civil Case No. S- 434+9,5. 2fter trial on the $erits,
the RTC denied the petition in a de&ision
*
dated Nove$'er ++,
+,,: upon the "nding that petitioner ;failed to addu&e
preponderant eviden&e to warrant the grant of the relief he is
see(ing.;
3
The appeal "led with the Court of 2ppeals was li(ewise
dis$issed in a resolution
4
dated <une ++, +,,= for failure of
petitioner to pa% the do&(et and other lawful fees within the
regle$entar% period.
2fter the de&ision in Civil Case No. S- 434+9,5 attained "nalit%,
petitioner "led on <ul% +*, +,,, another petition
5
for de&laration
of nullit% of $arriage with the RTC of San -a'lo Cit%, this ti$e
alleging that his $arriage with respondent was null and void due
to the fa&t that it was &ele'rated without a valid $arriage li&ense.
7or her part, respondent "led an answer with a $otion to
dis$iss
4
dated 2ugust +3, +,,,, pra%ing for the dis$issal of the
petition on the ground of res judicata and foru$ shopping.
In an order
:
dated O&to'er =, +,,,, the RTC granted respondent8s
$otion to dis$iss, the dispositive portion of whi&h reads!
>?ERE7ORE, for 7oru$ Shopping and .ultipli&it% of Suits,
the .otion to Dis$iss is @R2NTED. This &ase is DIS.ISSED.
SO ORDERED.
=
-etitioner8s $otion for re&onsideration was also denied in an
order
,
dated <anuar% *+, *666.
?en&e, this petition whi&h alleges, as follows!
2. IN DIS.ISSIN@ -ETITIONER8S -ETITION 7OR T?E
DECA2R2TION O7 ?IS .2RRI2@E 2S NBAA 2ND COID AB
INITIO 7OR A2CD O7 T?E REEBISITE .2RRI2@E AICENSE
1EC2BSE O7 /T?E0 DIS.ISS2A O7 2N E2RAIER -ETITION 7OR
DECA2R2TION O7 NBAAITF O7 T?E S2.E .2RRI2@E ON T?E
@ROBND O7 ?IS >I7E8S -SFC?OAO@IC2A INC2-2CITF BNDER
2RTICAE 34 O7 T?E 72.IAF CODE, T?E TRI2A COBRT ?2D
DECIDED 2 EBESTION O7 SB1ST2NCE >?IC? ?2S -RO121AF
NOT ?ERETO7ORE 1EEN DETER.INED SEB2REAF 2ND
DE7INITICEAF 1F T?IS COBRT, OR ?2D DECIDED IT IN 2 >2F
NOT IN 2CCORD >IT? A2>.
1. IN DIS.ISSIN@ -ETITIONER8S -ETITION 7OR T?E
DECA2R2TION O7 NBAAITF O7 ?IS .2RRI2@E 7OR A2CD O7
T?E REEBISITE .2RRI2@E AICENSE, T?E TRI2A COBRT ?2D
CON7BSED, DISTORTED 2ND .IS2--AIED T?E
7BND2.ENT2A RBAES 2ND CONCE-TS ON RES <BDIC2T2,
S-AITTIN@ O7 2 C2BSE O7 2CTION 2ND 7ORB. S?O--IN@.
+6
-etitioner argues that while the relief pra%ed for in the two &ases
was the sa$e, that is, the de&laration of nullit% of his $arriage to
respondent, the &ause of a&tion in the earlier &ase was distin&t
and separate fro$ the &ause of a&tion in the present &ase
'e&ause the operative fa&ts upon whi&h the% were 'ased as well
as the eviden&e reuired to sustain either were diGerent. 1e&ause
there is no identit% as to the &ause of a&tion, petitioner &lai$s
that res judicata does not lie to 'ar the se&ond petition. In this
&onne&tion, petitioner $aintains that there was no violation of the
rule on foru$ shopping or of the rule whi&h pros&ri'es the
splitting of a &ause of a&tion.
On the other hand, respondent, in her &o$$ent dated .a% *4,
*666, &ounters that while the present suit is an&hored on a
diGerent ground, it still involves the sa$e issue raised in Civil
Case No. S- 434+9,5, that is, the validit% of petitioner and
respondent8s $arriage, and pra%s for the sa$e re$ed%, that is,
the de&laration of nullit% of their $arriage. Respondent thus
&ontends that petitioner violated the rule on foru$ shopping.
.oreover, respondent asserts that petitioner violated the rule on
$ultipli&it% of suits as the ground he &ites in this petition &ould
have 'een raised during the trial in Civil Case No. S- 434+9,5.
The petition la&(s $erit.
The issue 'efore this Court is one of "rst i$pression. Should the
$atter of the invalidit% of a $arriage due to the a'sen&e of an
essential reuisite pres&ri'ed '% 2rti&le 4 of the 7a$il% Code 'e
raised in the sa$e pro&eeding where the $arriage is 'eing
i$pugned on the ground of a part%8s ps%&hologi&al in&apa&it%
under 2rti&le 34 of the 7a$il% Code)
-etitioner insists that 'e&ause the a&tion for de&laration of nullit%
of $arriage on the ground of ps%&hologi&al in&apa&it% and the
a&tion for de&laration of nullit% of $arriage on the ground of
a'sen&e of $arriage li&ense &onstitute separate &auses of a&tion,
the present &ase would not fall under the prohi'ition against
splitting a single &ause of a&tion nor would it 'e 'arred '% the
prin&iple of res judicata.
The &ontention is untena'le.
Res judicata is de"ned as ;a $atter ad#udgedH a thing #udi&iall%
a&ted upon or de&idedH a thing or $atter settled '% #udg$ent. It
also refers to the rule that a "nal #udg$ent or de&ree on the
$erits '% a &ourt of &o$petent #urisdi&tion is &on&lusive of the
rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and
$atters deter$ined in the for$er suit.;
++
This do&trine is a rule whi&h pervades ever% well9regulated
s%ste$ of #urispruden&e and is founded upon the following
pre&epts of &o$$on law, na$el%! /+0 pu'li& poli&% and ne&essit%,
whi&h $a(es it to the interest of the State that there should 'e an
end to litigation, and /*0 the hardship on the individual that he
should 'e ve5ed twi&e for the sa$e &ause. 2 &ontrar% do&trine
would su'#e&t the pu'li& pea&e and uiet to the will and negle&t of
individuals and prefer the grati"&ation of the litigious disposition
on the part of suitors to the preservation of the pu'li& tranuilit%
and happiness.
+*
In this #urisdi&tion, the &on&ept of res judicata is e$'odied in
Se&tion 4: /'0 and /&0 of Rule 3, of the Rules of Court, thus!
SEC. 4:. EGe&t of #udg$ents or "nal orders. I The eGe&t of a
#udg$ent or "nal order rendered '% a &ourt of the
-hilippines, having #urisdi&tion to pronoun&e the #udg$ent or
"nal order, $a% 'e as follows!
/a0 In &ase of a #udg$ent or "nal order against a spe&i"&
thing or in respe&t to the pro'ate of a will, or the
ad$inistration of the estate of a de&eased person, or in
respe&t to the personal, politi&al, or legal &ondition or status
of a parti&ular person or his relationship to another, the
#udg$ent or "nal order is &on&lusive upon the title to the
thing, the will or ad$inistration, or the &ondition, status or
relationship of the personH however, the pro'ate of a will or
granting of letters of ad$inistration shall onl% 'e prima
facie eviden&e of the death of the testator or intestateH
$b% I& ot'er c()e), t'e *+,-.e&t or /&(0 or,er 1), 21t'
re)3ect to t'e .(tter ,1rect04 (,*+,-e, or () to (&4
ot'er .(tter t'(t co+0, '(5e bee& r(1)e, 1& re0(t1o&
t'ereto, co&c0+)15e bet2ee& t'e 3(rt1e) (&, t'e1r
)+cce))or) 1& 1&tere)t b4 t1t0e )+b)e6+e&t to t'e
co..e&ce.e&t o7 t'e (ct1o& or )3ec1(0 3rocee,1&-,
01t1-(t1&- 7or t'e )(.e t'1&- (&, +&,er t'e )(.e t1t0e
(&, 1& t'e )(.e c(3(c1t48 (&,,
$c% I& (&4 ot'er 01t1-(t1o& bet2ee& t'e )(.e 3(rt1e) or
t'e1r )+cce))or) 1& 1&tere)t, t'(t o&04 1) ,ee.e, to
'(5e bee& (,*+,-e, 1& ( 7or.er *+,-.e&t or /&(0
or,er 2'1c' (33e(r) +3o& 1t) 7(ce to '(5e bee& )o
(,*+,-e,, or 2'1c' 2() (ct+(004 (&, &ece))(r104
1&c0+,e, t'ere1& or &ece))(r4 t'ereto.
The a'ove provision outlines the dual aspe&t of res
judicata.
+3
Se&tion 4: /'0 pertains to it in its &on&ept as ;'ar '%
prior #udg$ent; or ;estoppel '% verdi&t,; whi&h is the eGe&t of a
#udg$ent as a 'ar to the prose&ution of a se&ond a&tion +3o&
t'e )(.e &lai$, de$and or c(+)e o7 (ct1o&. On the other hand,
Se&tion 4: /&0 pertains to res judicatain its &on&ept as
;&on&lusiveness of #udg$ent; or otherwise (nown as the rule
of auter action pendant whi&h ordains that issues a&tuall% and
dire&tl% resolved in a for$er suit &annot again 'e raised in an%
future &ase 'etween the sa$e parties involving a ,19ere&t
c(+)e o7 (ct1o&.
+4
Res judicata in its &on&ept as a 'ar '% prior
#udg$ent o'tains in the present &ase.
Res judicata in this sense reuires the &on&urren&e of the
following reuisites! /+0 the for$er #udg$ent is fnalH /*0 it is
rendered '% a &ourt having jurisdiction over the su'#e&t $atter
and the partiesH /30 it is a #udg$ent or an order onthe meritsH and
/40 there is 99 'etween the "rst and the se&ond a&tions
99 identity of parties, of su'#e&t $atter, and of &auses of a&tion.
+5
-etitioner does not dispute the e5isten&e of the "rst three
reuisites. >hat is in issue is the presen&e of the fourth reuisite.
In this regard, the test to deter$ine whether the &auses of a&tion
are identi&al is to as&ertain whether the sa$e eviden&e will
sustain 'oth a&tions, or whether there is an identit% in the fa&ts
essential to the $aintenan&e of the two a&tions. If the sa$e fa&ts
or eviden&e would sustain 'oth, the two a&tions are &onsidered
the sa$e, and a #udg$ent in the "rst &ase is a 'ar to the
su'seuent a&tion.
+4
1ased on this test, petitioner would &ontend that the two petitions
'rought '% hi$ see(ing the de&laration of nullit% of his $arriage
are an&hored on separate &auses of a&tion for the eviden&e
ne&essar% to sustain the "rst petition whi&h was an&hored on the
alleged ps%&hologi&al in&apa&it% of respondent is diGerent fro$
the eviden&e ne&essar% to sustain the present petition whi&h is
an&hored on the purported a'sen&e of a $arriage li&ense.
-etitioner, however, forgets that he is si$pl% invo(ing diGerent
grounds for the sa$e &ause of a&tion. 1% de"nition, a &ause of
a&tion is the a&t or o$ission '% whi&h a part% violates the right of
another.
+:
In 'oth petitions, petitioner has the sa$e &ause 9 the
de&laration of nullit% of his $arriage to respondent. >hat diGers is
the ground upon whi&h the &ause of a&tion is predi&ated. These
grounds &ited '% petitioner essentiall% split the various aspe&ts of
the pivotal issue that holds the (e% to the resolution of this
&ontrovers%, that is, the a&tual status of petitioner and
respondent8s $arriage.
7urther$ore, the instant &ase is pre$ised on the &lai$ that the
$arriage is null and void 'e&ause no valid &ele'ration of the
sa$e too( pla&e due to the alleged la&( of a $arriage li&ense. In
Civil Case No. S- 434+9,5, however, petitioner i$pliedl% &on&eded
that the $arriage had 'een sole$niJed and &ele'rated in
a&&ordan&e with law. -etitioner is now 'ound '% this ad$ission.
The alleged a'sen&e of a $arriage li&ense whi&h petitioner raises
now &ould have 'een presented and heard in the earlier &ase.
SuK&e it to state that parties are 'ound not onl% as regards ever%
$atter oGered and re&eived to sustain or defeat their &lai$s or
de$and 'ut as to an% other ad$issi'le $atter whi&h $ight have
'een oGered for that purpose and of all other $atters that &ould
have 'een ad#udged in that &ase.
+=
It $ust 'e e$phasiJed that a part% &annot evade or avoid the
appli&ation of res judicata '% si$pl% var%ing the for$ of his a&tion
or adopting a diGerent $ethod of presenting his &ase.
+,
2s this
Court stated in Perez v. ourt of Appeals!
*6
5 5 5 the state$ent of a diGerent for$ of lia'ilit% is not a
diGerent &ause of a&tion, provided it grows out of the sa$e
transa&tion or a&t and see(s redress for the wrong. Two
a&tions are not ne&essaril% for diGerent &auses of a&tion
si$pl% 'e&ause the theor% of the se&ond would not have
'een open under the pleadings in the "rst. 2 part% &annot
preserve the right to 'ring a se&ond a&tion after the loss of
the "rst $erel% '% having &ir&u$s&ri'ed and li$ited theories
of re&over% opened '% the pleadings in the "rst.
It 'ears stressing that a part% &annot divide the grounds for
re&over%. A 30(1&t19 1) .(&,(te, to 30(ce 1& 1))+e 1& '1)
30e(,1&-, (00 t'e 1))+e) e:1)t1&- 2'e& t'e )+1t be-(&.
A 0(2)+1t c(&&ot be tr1e, 31ece.e(0. T'e 30(1&t19 1)
bo+&, to )et 7ort' 1& '1) /r)t (ct1o& e5er4 -ro+&, 7or
re01e7 2'1c' 'e c0(1.) to e:1)t (&, +3o& 2'1c' 'e
re01e,, (&, c(&&ot be 3er.1tte, to re04 +3o& t'e. b4
31ece.e(0 1& )+cce))15e (ct1o& to reco5er 7or t'e
)(.e 2ro&- or 1&*+r4.
A 3(rt4 )ee;1&- to e&7orce ( c0(1., 0e-(0 or e6+1t(b0e,
.+)t 3re)e&t to t'e co+rt, e1t'er b4 t'e 30e(,1&-) or
3roo7), or bot', o& t'e -ro+&,) +3o& 2'1c' to e:3ect
( *+,-.e&t 1& '1) 7(5or. e 1) &ot (t 01bert4 to )301t +3
'1) ,e.(&,), (&, 3ro)ec+te 1t b4 31ece.e(0 or
3re)e&t o&04 ( 3ort1o& o7 t'e -ro+&,) +3o& 2'1c' (
)3ec1(0 re01e7 1) )o+-'t (&, 0e(5e t'e re)t to t'e
3re)e&t.e&t 1& ( )eco&, )+1t 17 t'e /r)t 7(10). T'ere
2o+0, be &o e&, to 01t1-(t1o& 17 )+c' 31ece.e(0
3re)e&t(t1o& 1) (00o2e,. /itations omitted.0
In su$, litigants are provided with the options on the &ourse of
a&tion to ta(e in order to o'tain #udi&ial relief. On&e an option has
'een ta(en and a &ase is "led in &ourt, the parties $ust ventilate
all $atters and relevant issues therein. The losing part% who "les
another a&tion regarding the sa$e &ontrovers% will 'e needlessl%
suandering ti$e, eGort and "nan&ial resour&es 'e&ause he is
'arred '% law fro$ litigating the sa$e &ontrovers% all over
again.
*+
Therefore, having e5pressl% and i$pliedl% &on&eded the validit% of
their $arriage &ele'ration, petitioner is now dee$ed to have
waived an% defe&ts therein. 7or this reason, the Court "nds that
the present a&tion for de&laration of nullit% of $arriage on the
ground of la&( of $arriage li&ense is 'arred '% the de&ision dated
Nove$'er ++, +,,: of the RTC, 1ran&h *,, of San -a'lo Cit%, in
Civil Case No. S- 434+9,5.
<ERE=ORE, the petition is DENIED for la&( of $erit. Costs
against petitioner.