Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LEONARDO CHUA v. MUTYA B. VICTORIO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	AM No. MTJ-08-1706 2009-04-16	MUTYA B. VICTORIO v. JUDGE MAXWELL S. ROSETE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The antecedent facts giving rise to the instant administrative case, as judicially determined in Chua v. Victorio,[2] are recounted below:Sometime in September of 1994, [Victorio] (through her attorney-in-fact) made a rental survey of other commercial establishments along Panganiban Street. On the basis of the survey, a 25% rental increase was demanded from [Leonardo Chua and Heirs of Yong Tian].
	GR No. 176405 2008-08-20	LEO WEE v. GEORGE DE CASTRO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Corollarily, petitioner's ejectment, in this case, is only the reasonable consequence of his unrelenting refusal to comply with the respondents' demand for the payment of rental increase agreed upon by both parties. Verily, the lessor's right to rescind the contract of lease for non-payment of the demanded increased rental was recognized by this Court in Chua v. Victorio[19]:The right of rescission is statutorily recognized in reciprocal obligations, such as contracts of lease. In addition to the general remedy of rescission granted under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, there is an independent provision granting the remedy of rescission for breach of any of the lessor or lessee's statutory obligations. Under Article 1659 of the Civil Code, the aggrieved party may, at his option, ask for (1) the rescission of the contract; (2) rescission and indemnification for damages; or (3) only indemnification for damages, allowing the contract to remain in force.
	GR NO. 129165 2006-10-30	SPS. RODRIGO COLOSO AND ELISA COLOSO v. SECRETARY ERNESTO V. GARILAO VELASCO, JR., J.
Thus, under the doctrine of "conclusiveness of judgment," which is also known as "preclusion of issue" or "collateral estoppel," issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action.[23]
	GR NO. 151339 2006-01-31	EDITHA M. FRANCISCO v. ROQUE CO TINGA, J.
The central issue obviously concerns the binding force of the decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 18032, which respondents claim bars the present complaint due to res judicata. On this score, the matter would be best illuminated by pointing out that there are two aspects to the doctrine of res judicata. The first, known as "bar by prior judgment," 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. The second, known as "conclusiveness of judgment," issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action.[11]
	GR NO. 157605 2005-12-13	SPS. ENRIQUETA RASDAS v. JAIME ESTENOR TINGA, J.
The doctrine of res judicata has two aspects.[15] The first, known as "bar by prior judgment," or "estoppel by verdict," 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. The second, known as "conclusiveness of judgment" or otherwise known as the rule of auter action pendant, ordains that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action.[16] It has the effect of preclusion of issues only.[17]