Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AUGUSTO A. CAMARA v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 173186 2015-09-16	ANICETO UY v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
In his Answer with Counterclaim[14] dated October 4, 1999, petitioner specifically denied that the two TCTs were delivered to him by Ng as a guaranty for payment of her loan. Petitioner claimed that he and Naval-Sai entered into a valid contract of sale in 1981 and that the lots were sold for value. The corresponding TCTs were issued in his name shortly thereafter and since then, he had been in complete control of the properties. When Francisco Omandac constructed a house in one of the properties, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 1007.
	GR No. 183641 2015-04-22	BENJAMIN GUERRERO v. DIRECTOR PERALTA, J.
Similarly, under the basic principle of res judicata - which means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment" - the rule is that a fmal judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the former suit.[26] Such points or matters should not be litigated upon or invoked again as such relitigation merely burdens the courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion, and wastes valuable time and energy that could be devoted to worthier cases.[27]
	GR No. 160265 2009-07-13	NELY T. CO v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
Res judicata has two concepts. The first is bar by prior judgment under Rule 39, Section 47 (b), and the second is conclusiveness of judgment under Rule 39, Section 47 (c). Both concepts are founded on the principle of estoppel, and are based on the salutary public policy against unnecessary multiplicity of suits. Like the splitting of causes of action, res judicata is in pursuance of such policy. Matters settled by a Court's final judgment should not be litigated upon or invoked again. Relitigation of issues already settled merely burdens the Courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion, and wastes valuable time and energy that could be devoted to worthier cases.[29] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 162868 2008-07-14	RODOLFO D. GARCIA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES REYES, R.T., J.
Although it does not have the same effect as bar by prior judgment which precludes subsequent actions, conclusiveness of judgment operates as estoppel with respect to matters in issue or points controverted, on the determination of which the finding or judgment was anchored.[37]
	GR NO. 150134 2007-10-31	ERNESTO C. DEL ROSARIO v. FAR EAST BANK CARPIO MORALES, J.
A final word. Petitioners are sternly reminded that both the rules on res judicata and splitting of causes of action are based on the salutary public policy against unnecessary multiplicity of suits interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium.[44] Re-litigation of matters already settled by a court's final judgment merely burdens the courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion, and wastes valuable time and energy that could be devoted to worthier cases.[45]