This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2008-07-31 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| There is res judicata when (1) there is a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the judgment or order is on the merits; and (4) there is between the two cases identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.[56] | |||||
|
2008-06-18 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Admittedly, there is no express repeal of R.A. No. 3844 as a whole. Its provisions that are not inconsistent with R.A. No. 6657 may still be given suppletory effect. Nonetheless, there is now irreconcilable inconsistency or repugnancy between the two laws as regards the treatment of fishponds and prawn farms. Such repugnancy leads to the conclusion that the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 supersede the provisions of R.A. No. 3844 insofar as fishponds and prawn farms are concerned. In any event, Section 76 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, provides that all other laws, decrees, issuances, or parts thereof inconsistent thereto are repealed or amended accordingly.[27] | |||||
|
2007-10-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| A perusal of the facts of the Firestone case and those of the case at bar reveals that the facts in the two (2) cases are parallel. First, in Firestone and in this case, the claimants filed land registration applications with the CFI; both claimants obtained decrees for registration of lots applied for and were issued OCTs. Second, in Firestone, the Republic filed a reversion case alleging that the land covered by the OCT was still inalienable forest land at the time of the application and hence the Land Registration Court did not acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate the property to the claimant. In the instant case, respondent Republic contend that the land applied for by Yujuico was within Manila Bay at the time of application and therefore the CFI had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint. Third, in Firestone, the validity of the title of the claimant was favorably ruled upon by this Court in G.R. No. 109490 entitled Patrocinio E. Margolles v. CA. In the case at bar, the validity of the compromise agreement involving the disputed lot was in effect upheld when this Court in Public Estates Authority v. Yujuico dismissed the petition of PEA seeking to reinstate the petition for relief from the May 18, 1998 Resolution approving said compromise agreement. With the dismissal of the petition, the May 18, 1998 Resolution became final and executory and herein respondent Republic through PEA was deemed to have recognized Castro's title over the disputed land as legal and valid. In Romero v. Tan,[33] we ruled that "a judicial compromise has the effect of res judicata." We also made clear that a judgment based on a compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits, wherein the parties have validly entered into stipulations and the evidence was duly considered by the trial court that approved the agreement. In the instant case, the May 18, 1998 Resolution approving the compromise agreement confirmed the favorable decision directing the registration of the lot to Castro's name in LRC Case No. N-8239. Similarly, in Firestone, the Margolles case confirmed the decision rendered in favor of Gana in Land Registration Case No. 672 ordering the issuance of the decree to said applicant. Fourth, in Firestone, the Supreme Court relied on the letter of then Solicitor General Francisco Chavez that the evidence of the Bureau of Lands and the LRC was not sufficient to support an action for cancellation of OCT No. 4216. In the instant case, both the Solicitor General and the Government Corporate Counsel opined that the Yujuico land was not under water and that "there appears to be no sufficient basis for the Government to institute the action for annulment." Fifth, in Firestone, we ruled that "the Margolles case had long become final, thus the validity of OCT No. 4216 should no longer be disturbed and should be applied in the instant case (reversion suit) based on the principle of res judicata or, otherwise, the rule on conclusiveness of judgment."[34] | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A judgment based on a compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits wherein the parties have validly entered into stipulations and the evidence was duly considered by the trial court that approved the agreement.[41] It is immediately executory and not appealable unless set aside on grounds of nullity under Article 2038[42] of the Civil Code,[43] and has the effect of a judgment of the court.[44] Further, well-entrenched is the rule that a party may attack the validity of a final and executory judgment through three ways:The first is by petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court, when judgment has been taken against the party through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, in which case the petition must be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, but not more than six (6) months after such judgment was entered. The second is by direct action to annul and enjoin the enforcement of the judgment. This remedy presupposes that the challenged judgment is not void upon its face, but is entirely regular in form, and the alleged defect is one which is not apparent upon its face or from the recitals contained in the judgment. x x x "under accepted principles of law and practice, long recognized in American courts, the proper remedy in such case, after the time for appeal or review has passed, is for the aggrieved party to bring an action enjoining the judgment, if not already carried into effect; or if the property has already been disposed of, he may institute suit to recover it." The third is either a direct action, as certiorari, or by a collateral attack against the challenged judgment (which is) void upon its face, or that the nullity of the judgment is apparent by virtue of its own recitals. As aptly explained by Justice Malcolm in his dissent in Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, supra, "A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its want of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off, if the power so to do exists." In the case at bar, the want of jurisdiction of the Pasay RTC in Civil Case No. 1102-P due to the alleged non-service of summons has not been established by petitioner. The judgment based on compromise agreement made therein was likewise not established as being void upon its face. Except for the self-serving allegation that she was in Hong Kong when the collection suit was filed, petitioner did not present competent proof to prove that she was not properly served with summons. Even if it were true that she was abroad when the collection suit was filed against her, summons could still be served through extraterritorial service under Section 16[45] in relation to Section 15,[46] of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Undeniably, the Pasay City RTC in Civil Case No. 1102-P enjoys the presumption of regularity in the conduct of its official duties which was not fully rebutted by petitioner. | |||||
|
2007-03-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Respondents' position is incorrect. Res judicata calls for the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) there is final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the judgment or order is on the merits and (4) there is, between the two cases, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.[12] Here, the first requisite is absent. The Court's resolution denying the spouses Gregorio's petition is not the final judgment contemplated by the first requisite. Rather, "final judgment" entails a decision which perpetually settles the controversy and lays to rest all questions raised. At that point, there was no final judgment because the spouses Azana's appeal of the CA decision was still pending before us. Stated differently, there was yet no final judgment which could be entered and executed. | |||||
|
2007-03-02 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Upon the foregoing perspective, private respondent Alsons is correct in saying that the petition for annulment of judgment is barred by res judicata as all the elements of this preclusive doctrine are present, to wit: 1) there is a final judgment or order on the merits; 2) the court rendering it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and 3) there is between the two cases identity or parties, subject matter and causes of action.[26] | |||||
|
2007-02-26 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| A special civil action of certiorari is an independent action, raising the question of jurisdiction where the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[10] The ultimate purpose of such action is to keep an inferior tribunal within the bounds of its jurisdiction or relieve parties from arbitrary acts of courts.[11] | |||||
|
2006-12-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The elements of res judicata are: (1) there is a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the judgment or order is on the merits; and (4) there is between the two cases identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.[18] | |||||
|
2006-07-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Contrary to their claim, the petitioners, even if they were not parties to Civil Case No. 832-BG, are bound by the judgment based on compromise agreement rendered therein under the principle of res judicata. It is well settled that a judicial compromise has the effect of res judicata and is immediately executory and not appealable unless set aside on grounds of nullity under Article 2038[20] of the Civil Code.[21] Further, a judgment based on a compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits, wherein the parties have validly entered into stipulations and the evidence was duly considered by the trial court that approved the agreement.[22] | |||||