Res Judicata (Selga v. Brar)
Must be judgement on the merits
- a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon
or decided; a thing or matter settled by
judgment
- it lays the rule that an existing final judgment or
decree rendered on the merits, without fraud or
collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction,
upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is
conclusive of the rights of the parties or their
privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or
any other judicial tribunal of concurrent
jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in
the first suit
Founded upon:
1. republicae ut sit litium - public policy and
necessity, which dictates that it would be in the
interest of the State that there should be an end
to litigation
2. nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa
- the hardship on the individual that he should be
vexed twice for the same cause
Two concepts:
1. Bar by prior judgement Rule 39, Sec. 47b
“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 of the
action or special proceeding, litigating for the
same thing and under the same title and in the
same capacity.”
In a gist:
a. Identity of the parties, subject matter,
and cause of action in first and second
actions
b. The judgment in the first action 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.
Elements:
1. Finality of the former judgement
2. Court which rendered it has jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties
3.
4. There must be an identity of the parties,
subject matter, and the cause of action in
the first and second actions
2. Conclusiveness of judgement Rule 39, Sec. 47c
“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
necessary thereto.”
In a gist:
a. Identity of parties and subject matter,
but the causes of action are completely
distinct.
b. The first judgment is conclusive only as
to those matters actually and directly
controverted and determined and not
as to matters merely involved herein.
Prescription (Pangasinan v Dingsolo-Almazora)
Two kinds:
1. Acquisitive Art. 1106(1), Civil Code
- the acquisition of a right by the lapse of time
- adverse possession, usucapcion
2. Extinctive Art. 1106(2), Art. 1139, Civil Code
- rights and actions are lost by the lapse of time
- litigation of action
Stare Decisis (Lazatin v Desierto)
- stare decisis et non quieta movere
- to adhere to precedents and not to unsettle
things which are established
- Art. 8, Civil Code:
Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the
laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the
legal system of the Philippines
- based on the principle that once a question of
law has been examined and decided, it should be
deemed settled and closed to further argument
Law of the Case (Vios v Pantangco)
- applies in a situation where an appellate court
has made a ruling on a question on appeal and
thereafter remands the case to the lower court
for further proceedings; the question settled by
the appellate court becomes the law of the case
at the lower court and in any subsequent appeal
- whatever is irrevocably established as the
controlling legal rule or decision between the
 same parties in the same case continues to be
the law of the case, whether correct on general
principles or not, so long as the facts on which
the legal rule or decision was predicated
continue to be the facts of the case before the
court

Laches (ALU v CA)

- the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, to do that which, by
the exercise of due diligence, could or should
have been done earlier

Elements:
1. Conduct on the part of the defendant giving rise
to the situation which the complaint seeks a
remedy
2. Delay in asserting the complainant’s rights, the
complainant having had knowledge of the
defendant’s conduct as having been afforded an
opportunity to institute a suit
3. Lack of knowledge on the part of the defendant
that the complainant would assert the right in
which the defendant bases the suit
4. Injury to the defendant if relief is accorded to the
complainant, or the suit is not held barred

Jurisdiction (BPI v Hong)

- the power and authority of a court to hear and
decide a case
- a court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the action is conferred only by the Constitution
or by statute.
- the nature of an action and the subject matter
thereof, as well as which court or agency of the
government has jurisdiction over the same, are
determined by the material allegations of the
complaint in relation to the law involved and the Contraries - Two propositions so related that they cannot
character of the reliefs prayed for, whether or both be true, although both may be false.
not the complainant/plaintiff is entitled to any or
all of such reliefs Subcontraries - Two propositions so related that they
- being a matter of substantive law, the cannot both be false, although they may both be true
established rule is that the statute in force at the
time of the commencement of the action
determines the jurisdiction of the court