This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-06-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| (a) The former judgment must be final; (b) The court which rendered judgment must have jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter; (c) It must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) There must be between the first and second actions identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.[20] Well-settled is the rule that lis pendens requires only substantial, and not absolute, identity of parties.[21] There is substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case, even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case. We have also held that the fact that the position of the parties was reversed, the plaintiffs in the first case being the defendants in the second case or vice versa, does not negate the identity of parties for the purpose of litis pendentia.[22] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Likewise, the fact that the positions of the parties are reversed, i.e., the plaintiffs in the first case are the defendants in the second case or vice versa, does not negate the identity of parties for purposes of determining whether the case is dismissible on the ground of litis pendentia.[31] | |||||