Civil Procedure

SERRANO v MAKABULOS G.R. No. L-5189

the ground was that the latter had paid and satis:ed all the claims of the former, as prayed for in her complaint.

Facts: Gaudencio Serrano was the lessee of a parcel of land containing an area of  24 hectares, more or less, situated in the municipality of La Paz, Province of   Tarlac.  Tarlac. onata !a"rera was the lessor, having inherited the parcel of land from her deceased father #use"io !a"rera, the original lessor. Teodato $a%a"ulos is her hus"and. The term of the lease was si& agricultural years "eginning ' $ay '(4' '(4' and the yearly yearly rental rental agreed agreed upon was 2() cavans cavans of palay palay. *n '+ ecem"er '(4, the lessor "rought an action -civil case o. '4' of the !ourt of  /irst 0nstance of Tarlac1 to recover rentals due and unpaid for the agricultural years '(4+44, '(4443, '(434 and '(44 amounting to P'+,2). 5 writ of  attachment was issued in that case. 5lleging and claiming that what he had paid to her was in e&cess of what was due her for unpaid rentals the lessee "rought an action -civil case o. 2'+ of the same !ourt1 against the lessor and her hus"and to annul the proceedin proceedings gs in civil civil case o. '4', and to recover recover such e&cess e&cess payment of rentals. The defendants moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of res 6udicata 6udicata and failure failure to state a cause cause of action. The !ourt dismissed the complaint on the ground of res 6udicata. The plainti7 has appealed. Issue: 8hether or not 9ule +) Section ' of the 9ules of !ourt is applica"le. Rul!": o. 0t is contended that the dismissal of the complaint in the :rst action upon the ground that as the defendant had paid and satis:ed fully all her claims she no longer longer had any action against against him, "efore "efore the :ling of the answer, answer, was without pre6udice, as provided for in section ', 9ule +). 0t is also claimed that a thing received "y one who has no right to it and which has "een delivered due to error error must must "e retur returned ned,, as provi provided ded for in articl article e ';(3 ';(3 of the !ivil !ivil !ode. !ode. Section ', 9ule +), cannot "e invo%ed in this case, "ecause a dismissal of the action without order of the !ourt, which is without pre6udice, is one "y the plainti7  "efore the :ling of an answer "y the defendant. 0t means that such dismissal would not preclude the plainti7 from "ringing another action against the same defendant on the same su"6ect matter. Such dismissal under the rule does not "ar the institution of an action "y the defendant which he could have "rought in the action against him "y means of a counterclaim or crossclaim. The dismissal in the :rst case was upon motion of the plainti7 consented to "y the defendant and

LOMIBAO v GOR#ON G.R. No. 1$%1&1 Facts:  This is a petition to declare respondents 9ichard