Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ISIDORA SALUD v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 173148 2015-04-06	ELSA DEGAYO v. MAGBANUA BRION, J.
The first aspect is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action.[18] In traditional terminology, this aspect is known as merger or bar; in modern terminology, it is called claim preclusion.[19]
	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
In the interest of judicial economy[234] and avoidance of conflicting decisions involving the same issues,[235] we resolve the substantive issue of whether the PEZA is exempt from payment of real property taxes.
	GR No. 169914 2008-04-18	ASIA'S EMERGING DRAGON CORPORATION v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.[60]
	GR NO. 160994 2006-07-27	WILFREDO v. PAULO FLORESCA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Privity also has been universally recognized when it is determined that the newly named party in the second suit actually controlled or participated in litigating the first action. Although the non-party will not be bound by res judicata because different claims are involved, identical issues that were necessarily and actually litigated will be precluded. Having received one opportunity to defend or prosecute those issues, he may not be allowed another.[24] The petitioners fall under the first category, i.e., they are Paulo's privies-in-interest or successors-in-interest who acquired most of the portions of the subject property after the filing of the complaint in Civil Case No. 832-BG on August 13, 1991. In connection with their complaint for partition against Paulo in the said case, Victor, Juanito, and Lilia likewise filed a notice of lis pendens with the register of deeds on August 16, 1991 and the said notice was annotated on the face of Tax Declarations Nos. 26377 and 25257 covering the subject property. As shown earlier, four out of the seven deeds of sale[25] were executed by Paulo in favor of the petitioners in February 1992 or after the filing of the complaint for partition in Civil Case No. 832-BG. Consequently, the petitioners are Paulo's privies-in-interest or successors-in-interest and, as such, are bound by the judgment based on compromise agreement rendered therein.
	GR No. 135528 2004-07-14	SPS. ORLANDO A. RAYOS AND MERCEDES T. RAYOS v. CA AND SPS. ROGELIO AND VENUS MIRANDA CALLEJO, SR., J.
On December 24, 1985, petitioner Orlando A. Rayos, a practicing lawyer, and his wife, petitioner Mercedes T. Rayos, secured a short-term loan from the Philippine Savings Bank (PSB) payable within a period of one (1) year in quarterly installments of P29,190.28, the first quarterly payment to start on March 24, 1986. The loan was evidenced by a promissory note which the petitioners executed on December 24, 1985.[4] To secure the payment of the loan, the petitioners-spouses executed, on the same date, a Real Estate Mortgage over their property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 100156 located in Las Piñas, Metro Manila.[5]
	GR No. 135528 2004-07-14	SPS. ORLANDO A. RAYOS AND MERCEDES T. RAYOS v. CA AND SPS. ROGELIO AND VENUS MIRANDA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In the meantime, the PSB executed on January 8, 1987 a Release of Real Estate Mortgage in favor of the petitioners,[26] and released the owner's duplicate of title of TCT No. 100156.[27] On January 17, 1987, petitioner Orlando Rayos wrote respondent Rogelio Miranda, reiterating his stance in his Letters of January 3 and 5, 1987.