This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-08-29 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| identity is that the petitioners represent the same interest as the other defendants in Civil Case R-8646. Again, we disagree. True, res judicata is not defeated by a minor difference of parties, as it does not require absolute but only substantial identity of parties.[14] But there is substantial identity only when the "additional" party acts in the same capacity or is in privity with the parties in the former action.[15] This is not so in the present case. Co-owners are not parties inter se in relation to the property owned in common.[16] A subsequent action by a co-heir, who did not join the earlier dismissed action for recovery of property, should not be barred by prior judgment.[17] Neither will conclusiveness of judgment apply because there was no identity of parties. In view of the foregoing discussion, petitioners should not be bound by the decision in Civil Case No. R-8646. This, however, does not justify the reversal of the assailed Decision. As will now be explained, the petitioners' action suffers from a fatal defect which prevents | |||||