Scribd
Upload
105 views1 page

Segura vs. Segura, G.R. No. L-29320, 19 September 1988

The land in question was originally registered under Gertrudes Zamora, who died intestate in 1936. Three of her grandchildren executed a deed partitioning the land solely among themselves in 1946. Six other grandchildren alleged this partition deprived them of their shares as co-owners. The trial court dismissed the case, finding the claims had prescribed. However, the earlier case was dismissed without prejudice when the plaintiffs' counsel said his clients had left for Mindanao. As the earlier dismissal did not state it was with prejudice, and a dismissal is without prejudice unless specified, the present case is not barred by prior judgment or res judicata.

Uploaded by

Raiza Sarte
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
105 views1 page

Segura vs. Segura, G.R. No. L-29320, 19 September 1988

The land in question was originally registered under Gertrudes Zamora, who died intestate in 1936. Three of her grandchildren executed a deed partitioning the land solely among themselves in 1946. Six other grandchildren alleged this partition deprived them of their shares as co-owners. The trial court dismissed the case, finding the claims had prescribed. However, the earlier case was dismissed without prejudice when the plaintiffs' counsel said his clients had left for Mindanao. As the earlier dismissal did not state it was with prejudice, and a dismissal is without prejudice unless specified, the present case is not barred by prior judgment or res judicata.

Uploaded by

Raiza Sarte
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

SEGURA VS. SEGURA, G.R. NO.

L-29320, 19 SEPTEMBER 1988

Facts:
The land in question was originally registered under the name of Gertrudes Zamora. She died intestate
and without debts in 1936 and was survived by four children, who never got around to dividing the
property among themselves. Gertrudes's grandchildren by three of her sons filed a complaint for
recovery of ownership and possession of the disputed inheritance, plus damages.

The conflict began when three of the nine grandchildren, namely, Nicolas, Santiago and Gaudencio
Segura, executed a deed of extrajudicial partition arrogating the entire property to themselves alone as
equal pro indiviso owners. This partition was not registered immediately, but only in 1946, or five years
later.

The six excluded grandchildren alleged that the partition and all subsequent transfers of the subject land
were null and void insofar as these transactions deprived them of their shares as co-owners of the said
property. The defendants moved to dismiss, contending that the action was barred by prior judgment
and that in any event whatever rights might have pertained to the plaintiffs had already prescribed
under the Rules of Court and the Civil Code. The plaintiffs opposed the motion. Thereafter, issues having
been joined, the trial courts dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription. The motion for
reconsideration was denied, on the further ground, as if it were an afterthought, of res judicata.

Issue:
Whether or not the present action is barred by prior judgment as the dismissal of the earlier complaint
was without prejudice to its refiling at a future date.

Ruling:
No. It appears that when the case was called for hearing, the plaintiffs' counsel himself moved for its
dismissal on the ground that his clients had gone to Mindanao and he did not know when they would be
returning. There is here no showing of failure to prosecute, such as an unreasonable delay on the part of
the complainants, and the appellees have not so contended. It was clear that the plaintiffs' counsel had
the intention of reviving the case, and that must have been the impression too of the trial judge because
his order of dismissal did not state that it was with prejudice to the refiling of the case. According to
Rule 17, Section 2, of the Rules of Court, “An action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiffs instance save
upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a
counterclaim has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiffs motion to
dismiss, the action shall not be dismissed against the defendant's objection unless the counterclaim can
remain pending for independent adjudication by the court. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a
dismissal under this paragraph shall be without prejudice.”

It follows that even if the same case is with the same subject matter, with the same plaintiffs, almost
with the same defendants, and the same theory, was dismissed by the court, the present action is not
barred by res judicata.

You might also like