DOCTRINES – CIVPRO
Jurisprudence has also recognized the rule of
RES JUDICATA
Cruz vs CA
The requisites essential for the application of the
principle are:
(1) there must be a final judgment or order;
(2) said judgment or order must be on the merits;
(3) the Court rendering the same must have
jurisdiction on the subject matter and the parties; and
(4) there must be between the two cases
a. identity of parties,
b. identity of subject matter, and
c. identity of causes of action.
Once a case is dismissed for failure to prosecute, this
has the effect of an adjudication on the merits
and is understood to be with prejudice to the filing of
another action unless otherwise provided in the
order of dismissal
The addition or elimination of some parties does not
alter the situation. 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
albeit the latter was not impleaded in the first case.
Identity of causes of action does not mean absolute
identity. The test to determine whether the causes
of action are identical is to ascertain whether the
same evidence will sustain both actions, or
whether there is an identity in the facts
essential to the maintenance of the two actions.
Republic vs Yu
Res Judicata also has two concepts:
(1) bar by prior judgment as enunciated in Rule 39, Sec
47(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure; and
(2) conclusiveness of judgment in Rule 39, Section
47(c).
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.
Conclusiveness of Judgment: where there is
identity of parties and subject matter in the first and
second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the
first judgment is conclusive only as to those
matters actually and directly controverted and
determined and not as to matters merely involved
therein.
The identity of causes of action is not required but
merely identity of issues.
Degayo vs Magbanua
In Identity of parties:
A real litigant may be held bound as a party [to
a case] even if one was not formally impleaded,
because he had his day in court and because her
substantial rights were not prejudiced.
In this case, Degayo was given the fullest
opportunity to ventilate her accretion claim in
Civil Case No. 16047. Her assertions in the Civil Case
No. 18328 (fact no. 7(a)) are the same allegations that
she asserted in the present case, which have already
been previously considered and evaluated by the RTC
Mallion vs Alcantara
A plaintiff is mandated to place in issue in his pleading,
all the issues existing when the suit began. A
lawsuit cannot be tried piecemeal
Test to determine substantial identity of
interest: whether the success or failure of one party
materially affects the other
Ligtas vs People
“administrative res judicata”: the doctrine of res
judicata does not apply exclusively to courts but
extends to decisions of bodies upon whom
judicial powers have been conferred.
Findings of fact of administrative agencies in the
exercise of their quasi-judicial powers are entitled to
respect if supported by substantial evidence
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND ANNULMENT OF
JUDGMENT
Alma Jose vs Intra Strata Insurance Corp
2nd paragraph of Rule 47 provides that only extrinsic
fraud, not lack of jurisdiction, which is excluded as a
valid ground for annulment “if it was availed of, or
could not have been availed of, in a motion for new
trial or petition for relief”
Since petitioners anchored their Petition for Relief from
Judgment filed before the trial court on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction over their persons, they are
not barred from filing a petition for annulment of
judgment before the CA.
Alaban vs CA
Action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in
law independent of the case where the judgment
sought to be annulled was rendered. Purpose: to have
the final and executory judgment set aside so that
there will be a renewal of litigation.
It is resorted to in cases where the ordinary remedies
of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment,
or other appropriate remedies are no longer available
through no fault of the petitioner, based on only two
grounds: extrinsic fraud, and lack of jurisdiction or
denial of due process.
Person need not be a party to the judgment sought to
be annulled, and it is only essential that he can
prove his allegation that the judgment was
obtained by the use of fraud and collusion and
he would be adversely affected thereby.
Extrinsic fraud- where it prevents a party from
having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the
court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not
to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is
procured. Overriding consideration when extrinsic
fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the
prevailing litigant prevented a party from having
his day in court.

Benatiro vs Heirs of Cuyos

A void judgment never acquires finality. It cannot be

deemed to have become final and executory. In
contemplation of law, that void decision is deemed
non-existent. Thus, there was no effective or operative
judgment to appeal from. It is not entitled to the
respect accorded to a valid judgment, but may be
entirely disregarded or declared inoperative by any
tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it.

In this case, respondents learned of the assailed order

only sometime in February 1998 and filed the petition
for annulment of judgment in 2001. Moreover, the
respondents' right to due process is the paramount
consideration in annulling the assailed order. It bears
stressing that an action to declare the nullity of a
void judgment does not prescribe. Thus, the CA
did not commit error in reversing the Order of the CFI.