This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-01-20 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| Aside from the "absence of inconsistency test" and "same evidence test," we have also ruled that a previous judgment operates as a bar to a subsequent one when it had "touched on [a] matter already decided,"[34] or if the parties are in effect "litigating for the same thing."[35] Under these tests, however, petitioner's reliance on the applicability of the principle of res judicata is still for naught, given that the two cases for ejectment do not share the same subject matter. We have consistently held that a judgment in a previous case of ejectment could not serve as a bar to a subsequent one if the latter is predicated on a new factual and juridical situation. As a consequence, even in cases where the dismissal of a suit brought for the ejectment of the lessee for nonpayment of rentals for a given period becomes final and executory, the lessor is still not precluded from making a new demand upon the tenant to vacate should the latter again fail to pay the rents due or should another ground for ejectment arise, in which case such subsequent demand and refusal of the tenant to vacate shall constitute a new cause of action.[36] | |||||