EN BANC

G.R. No. L-17828

August 31, 1963

LIGAYA MINA, JAIME MINA, SILVINA MINA, FAUSTA

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