This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-09-27 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Notwithstanding petitioners' failure to avail of the afore-mentioned remedies, the decision in the reconstitution case is not a bar to the adjudication of the issue of ownership raised in the present case. The nature of judicial reconstitution proceedings is the restoration of an instrument or the reissuance of a new duplicate certificate of title which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. Its purpose is to have the title reproduced after proper proceedings in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occurred and not to pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title.[29] | |||||
|
2009-01-12 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Second. The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final 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.[20] The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.[21] | |||||
|
2007-10-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Stated otherwise, "bar by former judgment" makes the judgment rendered in the first case an absolute bar to the subsequent action since that judgment is conclusive not only as to the matters offered and received to sustain it but also as to any other matter which might have been offered for that purpose and which could have been adjudged therein. [30] It is in this concept that the term res judicata is more commonly and generally used as a ground for a motion to dismiss in civil cases.[31] | |||||