This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-04-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We likewise find that there is an identity of parties in Civil Case No. 16047 and the present case. There is identity of parties where the parties in both actions are the same, or there is privity between them, or they are "successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity.[26] Absolute identity of parties is not required, shared identity of interest is sufficient to invoke the coverage of this principle.[27] Thus, it is enough that there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case.[28] | |||||
|
2010-06-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The rule is that when material facts or questions, which were in issue in a former action and were admitted or judicially determined, are conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein, such facts or questions become res judicata and may not again be litigated in a subsequent action between the same parties or their privies regardless of the form of the latter.[23] | |||||
|
2006-10-31 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the instant case is premised on the claim that the marriage is null and void because no valid celebration of the same took place due to the alleged lack of a marriage license. In Civil Case No. SP 4341-95, however, petitioner impliedly conceded that the marriage had been solemnized and celebrated in accordance with law. Petitioner is now bound by this admission. The alleged absence of a marriage license which petitioner raises now could have been presented and heard in the earlier case. Suffice it to state that parties are bound not only as regards every matter offered and received to sustain or defeat their claims or demand but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose and of all other matters that could have been adjudged in that case.[18] | |||||
|
2006-07-14 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The absolute identity of parties is not required for the principle of res judicata to apply.[23] A shared identity of interests is sufficient to invoke the application of this principle.[24] The proscription may not be evaded by the mere expedient of including an additional party.[25] Res judicata may lie as long as there is a community of interests between a party in the first case and a party in the second case although the latter may not have been impleaded in the first.[26] | |||||
|
2005-07-22 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| (a) finality of the former judgment; (b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.[31] A judgment or order is on the merits of the case when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the ultimate facts as disclosed by the pleadings or issues presented for trial. It is not necessary that a trial, actual hearing or argument on the facts of the case ensued. For as long as the parties had the full legal opportunity to be heard on their respective claims and contentions, the judgment or order is on the merits.[32] An order of the trial court on the ground that the complaint does not state a cause of action is a determination of the case on its merits.[33] Such order whether right or wrong bars another action based upon the same cause of action.[34] The operation of the order as res judicata is not affected by a mere right of appeal where the appeal has not been taken or by an appeal which never has been perfected.[35] | |||||
|
2000-05-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| There is no doubt that Civil Case No. 20945 filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, now Pasig, was a final judgment on the merits by a competent court acting within its jurisdiction. Petitioner could not dispute the similarity of the parties and the interests they represent in the two (2) civil actions. Petitioner was sued and is suing as the owner of the property to be developed into a subdivision while private respondents sued and are now being sued as its developers, all these being due to their Joint Venture Agreement. It matters not that Aladin's wife was sued in the first case but excluded in the second. It must be stressed that absolute identity of parties is not a condition sine qua non for res judicata to apply. A shared identity of interest is sufficient to invoke the coverage of this principle.[16] There is no dispute either as to identity of subject matter since the focal point of the controversy in both cases is the determination of compliance by the parties of the terms and conditions of their contract. | |||||
|
2000-02-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On identity of subject matter, the issue of whether or not the disputed property forming part of Cavite Seabreeze Subdivision is a portion of the foreshore area and hence incapable of private appropriation has been settled, in the aforecited cases. Where material facts or questions, which were in issue in a former action, were judicially determined such facts are res judicata.[14]' | |||||