This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-01-20 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| We have previously employed various tests in determining whether or not there is identity of causes of action as to warrant the application of the principle of res judicata. One test of identity is the "absence of inconsistency test" where it is determined whether the judgment sought will be inconsistent with the prior judgment. If no inconsistency is shown, the prior judgment shall not constitute a bar to subsequent actions.[29] In one case,[30] we held that the failure of the petitioner to secure an injunction to prevent the respondents from entering the land and gathering nuts is not inconsistent with the petitioner's being adjudged the owner of the land. In another case,[31] we found that affirmative relief in a subsequent action for specific performance and recovery of ownership and possession with damages against the petitioner would be inconsistent with a prior judgment holding the same petitioner the owner of the lot under litigation. | |||||