Scribd
Upload
34 views2 pages

Foreclosure: Res Judicata Lays The Rule That An Existing Final Judgment or

1) This case discusses the legal principle of res judicata as it applies to a dispute over the foreclosure of a property mortgage. 2) An earlier case ruled that the registration and mortgage over the property was valid, but the petitioner claims the ruling can no longer be questioned due to negligence of prior counsel. 3) The Supreme Court denies the petition, finding that res judicata prevents re-litigating the validity of the registration and mortgage since this was already decided in the earlier case. Once a matter has been finally decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, it cannot be disputed again in another case.

Uploaded by

Joyce
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
34 views2 pages

Foreclosure: Res Judicata Lays The Rule That An Existing Final Judgment or

1) This case discusses the legal principle of res judicata as it applies to a dispute over the foreclosure of a property mortgage. 2) An earlier case ruled that the registration and mortgage over the property was valid, but the petitioner claims the ruling can no longer be questioned due to negligence of prior counsel. 3) The Supreme Court denies the petition, finding that res judicata prevents re-litigating the validity of the registration and mortgage since this was already decided in the earlier case. Once a matter has been finally decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, it cannot be disputed again in another case.

Uploaded by

Joyce
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Foreclosure

Sps Torres v Medina Respondent medina wrote a letter to RTC QC WON res judicata bars filing of civil case q-99-38781
sheriff applying for EJ Foreclosure of prop of (NO, already lapsed before they filed complaint in 2nd case;
Res judicata petitione r SPS larady lost right due to negligence o counsel, REM valid can
2 concepts no longer be questioned in another proceeding by varying
Public auction – Medina highest bidder, cert of form/ adopting diferent method.
validity can no longer be attacked sale issue to Medina
First case – Q-94 18962, RTC dis( missed, REM valid; SPS
SPS Medina filed complaint to annul EJ appealed to CA, CA dismissed, MR denied also, SC denied –
foreclosure of Mortgage entry of judgment rendered

MTD by Medina – res judicata, earlier filing by Res judicata lays the rule that an existing final judgment or
SPS of annulment of REM; MTD GRANTED decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion,
by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within
CA – res judicata, rules for MEDINA its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their
MR – Denied by CA privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other
judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and
Hence this case by PET matters in issue in the first suit

SC: Petition is Denied – when dec stating REM Final judgment, jurisdictions, judgment of merits, identity of
final, same can no longer be questioned in P-SM-CoA,
anther proceedings by varying the form,
adopting a different method of presenting a case. SPS say 4th element of res judicata not proper

Evidence not identical

Absence of inconsistency test = no inconsistency with


judgment sought to prior judgment

SpS torress already assailed validity of REM

two different concepts: (1) bar by former judgment and (2)


conclusiveness of judgment.

If a particular point or question is in issue in the second action,


and the judgment will depend on the determination of that
particular point or question, a former judgment between the
same parties or their privies will be final and conclusive in the
second if that same point or question was in issue and
adjudicated in the first suit. Identity of cause of action is not
required, but merely

identity of issues.

- here same checks referred to in both Civil Cases

Interpleader
Ocampo v Tirona
Pasricha v Don Luis Dison
Declaratory Relief
Ferrer Jr v Roco
Phil-Ville Devt v Bonifacio

You might also like