The plaintiffs, who claim to be the illegitimate children of the deceased Joaquin Mina, filed a complaint to annul the sale of Joaquin Mina's land to the defendants Crispino Medina and Cresencia Mina. The court previously ordered the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to include Joaquin Mina's widow as a defendant. The plaintiffs failed to comply, so the court dismissed the case. In this case, the court held that the dismissal was justified for failure to prosecute and comply with the order to implead an indispensable party. However, res judicata does not apply to bar claims against the widow that were not previously raised, or matters not presented in the earlier case.
The plaintiffs, who claim to be the illegitimate children of the deceased Joaquin Mina, filed a complaint to annul the sale of Joaquin Mina's land to the defendants Crispino Medina and Cresencia Mina. The court previously ordered the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to include Joaquin Mina's widow as a defendant. The plaintiffs failed to comply, so the court dismissed the case. In this case, the court held that the dismissal was justified for failure to prosecute and comply with the order to implead an indispensable party. However, res judicata does not apply to bar claims against the widow that were not previously raised, or matters not presented in the earlier case.
The plaintiffs, who claim to be the illegitimate children of the deceased Joaquin Mina, filed a complaint to annul the sale of Joaquin Mina's land to the defendants Crispino Medina and Cresencia Mina. The court previously ordered the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to include Joaquin Mina's widow as a defendant. The plaintiffs failed to comply, so the court dismissed the case. In this case, the court held that the dismissal was justified for failure to prosecute and comply with the order to implead an indispensable party. However, res judicata does not apply to bar claims against the widow that were not previously raised, or matters not presented in the earlier case.
MINA, PABLO MINA and MIGUEL MINA, the minors represented by PILAR LAZO as guardian-ad-litem, plaintiffsappellants, vs. ANTONIA PACSON, CRISPINO MEDINA and CRESENCIA MINA, defendants-appellees. LABRADOR, J.: FACTS: -Plaintiffs, all surnamed Mina, are alleged to be the illegitimate children of the deceased Joaquin Mina with plaintiff Pilar Lazo from 1933-1958, while married to Antonia Pacson. -Joaquin Mina died in August, 1958, leaving no descendants nor ascendants except his widow, the defendant herein Antonia Pacson. -On April 9, 1958, Joaquin Mina, then still living, executed a deed of absolute sale of three parcels of land situated in the municipality of Muoz, Nueva Ecija, in favor of the defendants Crispino Medina and Cresencia Mina for the sum of P12,000. -On April 15, 1958 again he executed another deed of sale of parcels of land covered by 12 transfer certificates of title to the same spouses Crispino Medina and Cresencia Mina. Both deeds of sale bear the conformity of his wife Antonia Pacson
-COURT ORDER: Plaintiffs are hereby directed to
amend their complaint within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof by including as party defendant the surviving widow of the deceased Joaquin Mina and other necessary parties. -Plaintiffs failed to do so Court dismissed ISSUE: WON the failure to comply with the order of the court warrants dismissal HELD: YES RATIO: FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER TO IMPLEAD INDISPENSABLE PARTY. Appellants' contention that the dismissal of the complaint in the previous action was "at the indirect instance of the plaintiffs through inaction or omission," is not supported by the facts of the case, because the order of the court dismissing the complaint in the first case contained the warning that should the plaintiffs fail to comply with its order to implead the surviving widow of the deceased and other necessary parties, the case would be dismissed, and it was because of plaintiffs' refusal to comply with this express mandate that the dismissal was ordered. The dismissal was, therefore, justified under Rule 30, Section 3 of the Rules of Court RES JUDICATA; COMPLETE IDENTITY NECESSARY; PARTIES NOT INCLUDED AND MATTERS NOT RAISED IN PREVIOUS CASE NOT BARRED. The previous order of dismissal bars the present complaint only as to matters already presented in the previous care, like the action for annulment of the deeds of sale as regards the defendants named therein, but matters not raised and parties not included in the previous
case are not barred, like the action for the recognition of the filiation of the plaintiffs against the defendant widow of the deceased alleged father