Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. CONRADO ANTONIO AND AVELYN ANTONIO v. JULITA SAYMAN VDA. DE MONJE

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 198223 2015-02-18	HEIRS OF TIMBANG DAROMIMBANG DIMAAMPAO v. ATTY. ABDULLAH ALUG PERALTA, J.
Under the rule of res judicata, a final judgment or order on the merits, rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties, is conclusive in a subsequent case between the same parties and their successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity.[18] To state simply, 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 all points and matters determined in the former suit.[19]
	GR No. 172302 2014-02-18	PRYCE CORPORATION v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
According to the doctrine of res judicata, "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 all points and matters determined in the former suit."[33]
	GR No. 172302 2014-02-18	PRYCE CORPORATION v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
Bar by prior judgment exists "when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action."[37]
	GR No. 172302 2014-02-18	PRYCE CORPORATION v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
On the other hand, the concept of conclusiveness of judgment finds application "when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction."[38] This principle only needs identity of parties and issues to apply.[39]
	GR No. 167484 2013-09-09	HERNANDO BORRA v. CA SECOND PERALTA, J.
Discussing the concept of res judicata, this Court held in Antonio v. Sayman Vda. de Monje[24] that:x x x [R]es judicata is defined as "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment." According to the doctrine of res judicata, an existing final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit. To state simply, 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 all points and matters determined in the former suit.
	GR No. 197003 2013-02-11	NERIE C. SERRANO v. AMBASSADOR HOTEL VELASCO JR., J.
By the doctrine of res judicata, "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 all points and matters determined in the former suit."[40] To apply this doctrine in the form of a "bar by prior judgment," there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action as between the first case where the first judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred.[41] All these requisites are present in the case at bar: First, the parties in both G.R. No. 189313 and CA-G.R. SP No. 100612, which is the subject of Our present review, are petitioner Serrano and respondents Chan and AHI.
	GR No. 182018 2012-10-10	NORKIS TRADING CORPORATION v. JOAQUIN BUENAVISTA REYES, J.
Applying the doctrine of res judicata, all matters that have been fully resolved with finality by this Court's dismissal of the appeal that stemmed from Regional Director Balanag's Order dated August 22, 2000 in LSED Case No. RO700-9906-CI-CS-168 are already conclusive between the parties. Res judicata is defined as a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment. Under this doctrine, an existing final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit. To state simply, 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 all points and matters determined in the former suit.[54]
	GR No. 169913 2011-06-08	HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES VELASCO JR., J.
Citing Agustin v. Delos Santos,[78] this Court, in Spouses Antonio v. Sayman,[79] expounded on the difference between the two aspects of res judicata: The principle of res judicata is applicable by way of (1) "bar by prior judgment" and (2) "conclusiveness of judgment." This Court had occasion to explain the difference between these two aspects of res judicata as follows:
	GR No. 167050 2011-06-01	SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION v. RIZAL POULTRY PEREZ, J.
There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action.[15]