Res Judicata

02/14/2011
0 Comments
RES JUDICATA-

the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and may refer to two things: in

both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no
longer subject to appeal.[1]; and the term is also used to refer to the legal doctrine meant to bar (or
preclude) continued litigation of such cases between the same parties, which is different between the two
legal systems. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with"preclusion".
Elements of Res Judicata
1. The former judgment must be final
2. Judgment must be on the merits of the case
3. The former decision is rendered by the court having jurisdiction over the subject.
4. There is similar identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action for both cases.
Cause of action - defined as "an act or omission of second party in violation of the legal right or
rights of the other, and its essential elements are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation
of the defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right."
TEST FOR APPLICATION OF RES JUDICATA
In the application of the doctrine of res judicata, if it is doubtful whether a second action is for the same
cause of action as the first, the test generally applied is to consider the Identity of facts essential to their
maintenance, or whether the same evidence would sustain both. If the same facts or evidence would
sustain both, the two actions are considered the same within the rule that the judgment in the former is a
bar to the subsequent action. If, however, the two actions rest upon different states of facts, or if different
proofs would be required to sustain the two actions, a judgment in one is no bar to the maintenance of the
other.
LITIS PENDENTIALitis pendentia:
"a pending suit." same parties, same cause. Interposed as a ground for the dismissal of a civil
action pending in court.Litis pendentia as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action refers to that
situation wherein another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such
that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious
Requisites for litis pendentia:(a) identity of parties or at least such as representing the same interests in

both actions(b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same
facts(c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in one would,
regardless of which party is successful, amounts to res adjudicata in the other.Forum shopping exists
where the elements of litis pendentia are present, or where a final judgment in one case will amount
to res judicata in the final other.Doctrine of Estoppel an unlicensed foreign corporation doing business in
thePhilippines may bring suit in Philippine courts against a Philippine citizen or entity who had contracted
with and benefited from said corporation. A party is estopped from challenging the personality of a
corporation after having acknowledged the same by entering into a contract with it. This doctrine of
estoppel to deny corporate existence and capacity applies to foreign as well as domestic
corporations.45 The application of this principle prevents a person contracting with a foreign corporation
from later taking advantage of its noncompliance with the statutes chiefly in cases where such person has
received the benefits of the contract.
Replivin - A legal action to recover the possession of items of Personal Property.
Agilent Technologies v Integrated Silicon Technology 4.14.04
F: Petitioner Agilent is foreign corporation not licensed to transact business in thePhilippines but engaged
services of the defendant Silicon Tech by a 5-year Value Added Assembly Services Agreement
("VAASA"). Silicon filed a complaint on "Specific Performance and Damages" against Agilent in a civil
case No. 3110-01-C alleging breach of oral agreement by petitioner to extend their contract for 5 more
years. Consequently, Agilent filed a complaint against Silicon on "Specific Performance, Recovery of
Possession, and Sum of Money with Replevin, Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, and Damages" before
the RTC as Civil Case No. 3123-2001-C. Agilent prayed that a writ of replevin or a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction, be issued ordering defendants to immediately return and deliver to plaintiff its
equipment, machineries which were left in the plant of Silicon. Silicon filed motion to dismiss on grounds
of lack of legal capacity of Agilent to sue, litis pendentia, forum shopping and failure to state cause of
action. Such motion was denied by the trial court and granted motion for replevin by the plaintiff. Without
filing motion for reconsideration, Silicon filed motion for certiorari to the appellate court. Court of Appeals
granted respondents petition for certiorari, set aside the assailed Order of the trial court and ordered the
dismissal of Civil Case No. 3123-2001-C thus this petition for review assailing the decision of the CA.
I: (1) whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in giving due course to respondents
petition, notwithstanding the failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration and (2) whether or not the Court of
Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing Civil Case No. 3123-2001-C.
R: CA contends RTC has no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 3123-2001-C because of the pendency of
Civil Case No. 3110-2001-C therefore, a motion for reconsideration was not necessary before resort to a
petition for certiorari. There is no urgency of the case that merits dispensing the procedure of filing motion
for reconsideration before a certiorari may be filed. Respondents availed of premature remedy which the
CA should have dismissed outright.Litis pendencia is not appreciated in the case since the instituted
actions in both civil cases are different, the first is an action for "Specific Performance and Damages" the
other is action for "Specific Performance, Recovery of Possession, and Sum of Money with Replevin,
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, and Damages." The issues involved are also different: WON there is a
breach of oral agreement for renewing theVAASA on the first case while on the second case WON the
petitioner has the right to possess the subject properties. In the absence of the requisites of litis
pendencia, the court ruled that the trial court is not barred from taking cognizant to both cases.In assailing
the legal capacity of Agilent to sue, the court cited the following principles:

he principles regarding the right of a foreign corporation to bring suit in Philippine courts may
thus be condensed in four statements: (1) if a foreign corporation does business in the Philippines
without a license, it cannot sue before the Philippine courts;47 (2) if a foreign corporation is not doing
business in the Philippines, it needs no license to sue before Philippine courts on an isolated transaction
or on a cause of action entirely independent of any business transaction48; (3) if a foreign corporation
does business in the Philippines without a license, a Philippine citizen or entity which has contracted with
said corporation may be estopped from challenging the foreign corporations corporate personality in a
suit brought before Philippine courts;49 and (4) if a foreign corporation does business in the
Philippines with the required license, it can sue before Philippine courts on any transaction.Two general
tests to determine whether or not a foreign corporation can be considered as "doing business" in
the Philippines
.1. substance test - whether the foreign corporation is continuing the body of the business or enterprise
for which it was organized or whether it has substantially retired from it and turned it over to
another.2. continuity test - implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and
contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of some of the functions
normally incident to, and in the progressive prosecution of, the purpose and object of its organization.The
court ruled that Agilent categorically is not doing business in the Philippines, hence as a foreign
corporation not doing business in the Philippines
, it needed no license before it can sue before our courts. The court granted the petition of Agilent
reversing the CA decision of dismissing Civil Case No. 3123-2001-C while granting the petition of Agilent
for Writ of Replivin.
Cayana v CA 03.18.04
F: It appears that the petitioners and respondents father, with the marital consent of his wife, sold two
parcels of land to their son, one of the respondents in this case. At the death of the father, the mother filed
an Affidavit of Adverse Claims pertaining to the two parcels of land, alleging that the Deed of Absolute
Sale in favor of their son were forgeries. However, later on, she issued an affidavit withdrawing
such adverse claims. Later on, together with petitioners of this case and respondent Marceliano, they filed
a case against respondent Pastor, for the cancellation of the Deed of Absolute Sale and reconveyance of
the two parcels of land. Meanwhile, respondent Pastor entered into an agreement of counter guaranty
with respondent corporation using second parcel of land; mortgaged first parcel to respondent bank
and sold first parcel of land to a certain Rosafina Reginaldo, who then mortgaged the land to respondent
bank.As the civil case against respondents was ongoing, respondents filed an answer but were found to
be in default, the court allowed petitioners to file evidence ex parte. The court decided the civil case in
favor of petitioners, declaring the deed of absolute sale null and void but denied the prayer
for reconveyance saying that the mother was still the owner of the land. No appeal was entered by
respondents and the decision was deemed final. The mortgage on the first parcel of land was foreclosed
and the bank being the highest bidder, bought the property who then sold it to respondent spouses
Marceliano Cayabyab. The respondent spouses M.Cayabyab then sold the land to respondent spouses
Ramos. The petitioners filed a verified complaint for the nullification and cancellation of the deeds of
absolute sale of the respondents. They asked also for the possession of the 2 parcels of land due to
the alleged donation inter vivos of their mother. The trial court decided in favor of the petitioners, part of
the decision included the application of res judicata. Respondentsappealed this to the CA contending the
misuse of res judicata. CA decided in favor of the respondents. It held that res judicata was inapplicable
and also, declared the deeds of absolute sale and TCTs valid. CA mentioned that it was evident that
there was an affidavit withdrawing adverse claims over land, that the sale of parcels of landwere not

simulated and not done in bad faith, and that there was no evidence for the donation inter vivos being
alleged by the petitioners.
I: Whether or not the decision on the first civil case constitutes a bar to the defenses and claims of
respondents in the second case?
R:Both the trial court and CA misread the provisions on the effect of judgments or final orders as given by
Rules of Civil Procedure:SEC. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders.--The effect of a judgment or final
order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order,
may be as follows:(a) In case of a judgment or final order against a specific thing, or in respect to the
probate of a will, or the administration of the estate of a deceased person, or in respect to the personal,
political, or legal condition or status of a particular person or his relationship to another, the judgment or
final order is conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will or administration, or the condition, status or
relationship of theperson; however, the probate of a will or granting of letters of administration shall only
be prima facie evidence of the death of the testator or intestate;(b) In other cases, the judgment or final
order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised
in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to
the commencement to the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same
title and in the same capacity;(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in
interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears
upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or
necessarily thereto.
Res judicata and the bar of prior judgment are not applicable to this case since the requisites for
these two to apply are not present. There is bar by prior judgment when, between the first case
where the judgment was rendered and the second case which is sought to be barred, there is
identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action.
The judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the subsequent action. It is final as to the
claim or demand in controversy, including the parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every
matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other
admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose and of all matters that could have been
adjudged in that case. But where between the first and second cases, there is identity of parties but no
identity of cause of action, the first judgment is conclusive in the second case, only as to those matters
actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. For res
judicata to apply, there must be (1) a former final judgment rendered on the merits; (2) the court must
have had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and, (3) identity of parties, subject matter
and cause of action between the first and second actions. According to the appellate court, the third
requisite for the application of res judicata is not present in this case.The doctrine that should have been
followed in this case is conclusiveness of judgment--a fact or question which was in issue in a former suit
and there was judicially passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively
settled by the judgment therein as far as the parties to that action and persons in privity with them are
concerned and cannot be again litigated in any future action between such parties or their privies, in the
same court or any other court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or different cause of action,
while the judgment remains unreversed by proper authority.
Urbana Velasco v Peoples Homesite (GR NO. L-39674) 01.31.78
Supreme court exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases in which only errors or questions of law are

involved."cause of action" has been defined as "an act or omission of second party in violation of the
legal right or rights of the other, and its essential elements are legal right of the plaintiff, correlative
obligation of the defendant, and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right."
F: The case at bar involves a parcel of land which the petitioner occupies and built a house thereof.
Petitioner filed before the defendant corporation for the award of sale of the said parcel of land and found
out that it was already awarded to defendant spouses. Petitioner filed protest before the court for
annulment of deed of sale of said lot. Defendant spouses invoke res judicata in their counterclaim stating
that the petitioner has no cause for action since there is a decision already to quiet the title and recovery
of possession of the Lot
involved in favor of the defendant spouses. The court dismissed the case on ground of res judicata stating
that the court decision has already been final and executory. Petitioner appealed before the appellate
court which forwarded the case to SC since the issue involved is a question of law.
I: WON res judicata is applicable at the case at bar.
R: No. For res judicata be appreciated in a case, 4 elements must be present: (1) there is a former final
judgment; (2) decision rendered by court with proper jurisdiction over the case; (3) judgment must be on
merit; (4) there must be identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action between 2 cases. The
identity of cause of action is the main issue on the case at bar. The court held that in order to identify
whether the second action is of the same cause as the first the test generally applied is to consider the
Identity of facts essential to their maintenance, or whether the same evidence would sustain both. If the
same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same within the rule that
the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action. If, however, the two actions rest upon
different states of facts, or if different proofs would be required to sustain the two actions, a judgment in
one is no bar to the maintenance of the other.The first case involves quieting the title and recovery and
possession of the land while the second case involves the action for annulment of award and deed of sale
and cancellation of the land title. The case was remanded back to the lower court for further