This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-07-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Anent the fourth and final requisite, it is undisputed that there exists an identity of the parties and subject matter between the prior action for partition and the instant subsequent action for recovery of property, the same being filed by herein petitioner against the same spouses Gabor over the same portion of land in Tanay, Rizal. The fact that respondents Bank and Register of Deeds were only impleaded in the subsequent case is of no moment since absolute identity of parties is not required; mere substantial identity of parties, or a community of interests between the party in the first case and the party in the subsequent case, shall suffice.[33] | |||||
|
2006-01-25 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the knowledge of the agent, Sunace, to the principal, employer Xiong, not the other way around.[23] The knowledge of the principal-foreign employer cannot, therefore, be imputed to its agent Sunace. | |||||
|
2004-10-06 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Likewise, this Court is in full accord with the findings of the Court of Appeals that private respondents are not guilty of laches. The principle of laches or "stale demands" ordains that the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier, or the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.[51] In the instant case, this Court finds no proof that private respondents had failed or neglected to assert their right, considering that they filed their claim within the period prescribed by law. | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Courts will simply refuse to reopen what has been decided. They will not allow the same parties or their privies to litigate anew a question, once it has been considered and decided with finality. Litigations must end and terminate sometime and somewhere. The effective and efficient administration of justice requires that once a judgment has become final, the prevailing party should not be deprived of the fruits of the verdict by subsequent suits on the same issues filed by the same parties. This is in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata which has the following elements: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the judgment must be on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and the second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.[14] The application of the doctrine of res judicata does not require absolute identity of parties but merely substantial identity of parties.[15] There is substantial identity of parties when there is community of interest or privity of interest between a party in the first and a party in the second case even if the first case did not implead the latter.[16] | |||||