This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-03-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioners next fault the CA for supposedly disregarding their evidence to the effect that Simplecio had been in possession of the property since 1912 as well as Simeon Sr.'s admission that respondents have not been in possession thereof since 1935. Aside from the fact that the TDs they presented pertain to a different property, however, petitioners conveniently overlook Antonia's filing of an ejectment complaint against Simplecio in 1934 with respect to the property herein litigated. In the 17 December 1934 Decision rendered in the case, the Court of the Justice of the Peace of Liloan Leyte significantly determined Antonia's prior possession of the property and upheld her right to take possession thereof.[48] While it is true that a judgment rendered in a forcible entry case will not bar an action between the same parties respecting title or ownership,[49] the rule is settled that such a judgment is conclusive with respect to the issue of material possession.[50] Although it does not have the same effect as res judicata in the form of bar by former judgment which prohibits the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand, or cause of action, the rule on conclusiveness of judgment bars the relitigation of particular facts or issues in another litigation between the same parties and their privies on a different claim or cause of action.[51] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Hence, the bare fact that the parties herein incorporated an arbitration clause in the EPCC is sufficient to vest the CIAC with jurisdiction over any construction controversy or claim between the parties.[23] The arbitration clause in the construction contract ipso facto vested the CIAC with jurisdiction.[24] This rule applies, regardless of whether the parties specifically choose another forum or make reference to another arbitral body.[25] Since the jurisdiction of CIAC is conferred by law, it cannot be subjected to any condition; nor can it be waived or diminished by the stipulation, act or omission of the parties, as long as the parties agreed to submit their construction contract dispute to arbitration, or if there is an arbitration clause in the construction contract.[26] The parties will not be precluded from electing to submit their dispute to CIAC, because this right has been vested in each party by law.[27] | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| liability of petitioners for swindling respondent spouses and for maliciously filing a baseless suit must be litigated in a separate proceeding. The trial court also erred in holding prosecution witness petitioner Potenciano, together with complainant petitioner Maccay, liable for damages to respondent spouses. A judgment cannot bind persons who are not parties to the action.[10] A decision of a | |||||