Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FELIX SENDON v. FRATERNIDAD O. RUIZ

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR Nos. 173148 2015-04-06	ELSA DEGAYO v. MAGBANUA 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]
	GR No. 151016 2008-08-06	SPS. SOFRONIO SANTOS AND NATIVIDAD SANTOS v. HEIRS OF DOMINGA LUSTRE NACHURA, J.
The CA appears to have overlooked the principle that what is required is only substantial, and not absolute, identity of parties. There is substantial identity of parties when 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.[26] Moreover, the fact that the positions of the parties are reversed, i.e., the plaintiffs in the first case are the defendants in the second case, or vice versa, does not negate the identity of parties for purposes of determining whether the case is dismissible on the ground of litis pendentia.[27]
	GR No. 150470 2008-08-06	SPS. FELIPE AND VICTORIA LAYOS v. FIL-ESTATE GOLF CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The principal parties in both cases are the Spouses Layos, on one hand, and La Paz and FEGDI, on the other. The Spouses Layos and La Paz both claim title to the subject property, while FEGDI is the partner of La Paz in a joint venture to develop the said property. There may be other parties named in both cases, but these parties only derive their rights from the principal parties. The Court has previously held that for purposes of res judicata, only substantial identity of parties is required and not absolute identity. There is substantial identity of parties when there is 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. In other words, privity or a shared identity of interest is sufficient to invoke application of the principle of res judicata.[42] It is fundamental that the application of res judicata may not be evaded by simply including additional parties in a subsequent litigation.[43]
	GR No. 143556 2004-03-16	EQUITABLE PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
parties and for the same cause.[19] For a claim of res judicata to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the two cases, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.[20] In the present case, while the first three requisites may be present, the fourth requisite is absent. As stated earlier, there is no identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action between Civil Case No. 6014 and Civil Case No. Q-95-25073. Contrary to petitioners'
	GR No. 138660 2004-02-05	HEIRS OF TRINIDAD DE LEON VDA. DE ROXAS v. CA 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]
	GR No. 122930 2002-02-06	SPS. VICTORIA V. SERRANO AND ARTURO SERRANO v. CA PARDO, J.
For a claim of res judicata to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the two cases, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.[5]