This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-10-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The principle of res judicata, which literally means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment,"[25] is of common law in origin.[26] It has developed through time from court decisions as a method to protect a person from being vexed twice for the same cause.[27] Its importance cannot be overemphasized for it also forwards the interest of the State in putting an end to litigation republicae ut sit litium.[28] It conserves scarce judicial resources and promotes efficiency in the interest of the public at large.[29] That once a final judgment has been rendered, the same becomes conclusive and binding. | |||||
|
2015-07-08 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| To begin with, there exists an identity of parties in both the Reconveyance and Annulment cases; this, despite the fact that Chloe and the Dy children were not impleaded in the former case as contrarily claimed. It is well-settled that only substantial, and not absolute, identity of parties is required for litis pendentia to lie.[95] Thus, in Chu v. Cunanan,[96] it was ruled that:There is identity of parties when the parties in both actions are the same, or there is privity between them, or they are successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity.[97] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2015-06-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Res judicata is defined as a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; or a thing or matter settled by judgment. Under this rule, a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits, and on all points and matters determined in the former suit.[5] | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Res judicata exists when as between the action sought to be dismissed and the other action these elements are present, namely; (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) the former judgment must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (3) the former judgment must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and subsequent actions (i) identity of parties or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions; (ii) identity of subject matter, or of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and, (iii) identity of causes of action in both actions such that any judgment that may be rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.[14] | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment or decree on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive about the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits and on all points and matters determined in the previous suit. The foundation principle upon which the doctrine rests is that the parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once; that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, it should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate.[18] | |||||
|
2012-07-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The foundation principle upon which the doctrine rests is that the parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once; that x x x a right or fact [that] has been judicially tried and determined by a [tribunal or] court of competent jurisdiction x x x should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate[, so long as it remains unreversed].[17] | |||||