STATEMENTS OF THE FACTS:

Moby occupied a parcel of land co-owned by the Shalz and Bernard. Moby and the
owners of the land got in a fight in the Amber Lounge Party Singapore during the
formula 1 night racing.

Angered by this incident, Bernard filed a ejectment case against Moby in Regional
Trial Court of Cebu City. The case went up to the SC, and the High Tribunal ruled that
since Moby was able to present notarize lease contract over the subject parcel of land
located in Cebu Business Park, which executed by Moby and previous owner, where
Shalz and Bernard bought the property from, Moby cannot be ejected from the said
property.

Two years after the SC decision, Shalz, who now lives in Bonifacio Global City,
Taguig, filed a case for ejectment against Moby in the RTC of Taguig City.

QUERY:
Whether or not the case of Shalz can proceed despite the fact that a case was filed by
bernard against Moby in the RTC in CEbu City involving the same parcel of land

OPINION:

We opine that the case filed by Shalz cannot proceed due to the fact that it is barred by
res judicata. As stated in, Agustin v. Spouses Delos Santos, G.R. No. 168139, Res
judicata literally means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a
thing or matter settled by judgment." Res judicata lays the rule that an existing final
judgment or decree rendered on the merits, and 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.The principle of res judicata has two aspects, namely: (a) "bar by prior
judgment" as enunciated in Rule 39, Section 49 (b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure; and (b) "conclusiveness of judgment" which is contained in Rule 39,
Section 47 (c). There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where
the judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is
identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this instance, the judgment
in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action. Otherwise put, the
judgment or decree of the court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes the
litigation between the parties, as well as their privies, and constitutes a bar to a new
action or suit involving the same cause of action before the same or any other tribunal.
As we observe the case filed by Shalz falls in the aspect of “bar by prior
judgement” because it involves the same cause of action as in the first case filed
by his co-owner Bernard which is ejectment case, it involved also the same
subject matter which is the land where Moby occupy, there is also identity of the
parties even their is different persons involve since in the first case it was
Bernard and in the second case is Shalz but as stated in Estate of Sotto v. Palicte,
G.R. No. 158642, Absolute identity of parties is not required, and where a shared
identity of interest is shown by the identity of relief sought by one person in a prior
case and the second person in a subsequent case, such was deemed sufficient, and also
as stated in Anticamara v. Ong, G.R. No. L-29689, a party may not evade the
application of the rule of res judicata by simply including additional parties in the
subsequent litigation or by not including as parties in the later case persons who were
parties in the previous suit