Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 154 views

    Guevara vs. Benito

    Uploaded by

    JL A H-Dimaculangan
    The judgment in the prior civil case approving the compromise agreement between the parties does not constitute res judicata that bars the subsequent case. While the parties are identical, the subject matters and causes of action differ. The subject of the first case was the resolution of the foreclosed property, while the second case involves rescheduling payment after alleged waiver by the defendant. The cause of action in the second case also arose only after the judgment in the first case. Res judicata does not apply to facts or conditions that arose after the prior judgment.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Guevara vs. Benito

    Uploaded by

    JL A H-Dimaculangan
    154 views1 page
    The judgment in the prior civil case approving the compromise agreement between the parties does not constitute res judicata that bars the subsequent case. While the parties are identical, the subject matters and causes of action differ. The subject of the first case was the resolution of the foreclosed property, while the second case involves rescheduling payment after alleged waiver by the defendant. The cause of action in the second case also arose only after the judgment in the first case. Res judicata does not apply to facts or conditions that arose after the prior judgment.

    Original Description:

    Civil Procedure

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The judgment in the prior civil case approving the compromise agreement between the parties does not constitute res judicata that bars the subsequent case. While the parties are identical, the subject matters and causes of action differ. The subject of the first case was the resolution of the foreclosed property, while the second case involves rescheduling payment after alleged waiver by the defendant. The cause of action in the second case also arose only after the judgment in the first case. Res judicata does not apply to facts or conditions that arose after the prior judgment.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    154 views1 page

    Guevara vs. Benito

    Uploaded by

    JL A H-Dimaculangan
    The judgment in the prior civil case approving the compromise agreement between the parties does not constitute res judicata that bars the subsequent case. While the parties are identical, the subject matters and causes of action differ. The subject of the first case was the resolution of the foreclosed property, while the second case involves rescheduling payment after alleged waiver by the defendant. The cause of action in the second case also arose only after the judgment in the first case. Res judicata does not apply to facts or conditions that arose after the prior judgment.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No. 110401 August 23, 1995 GUEVARRA VS. HON.

    BENITO FACTS: On March 16, 1992 petitioner spouses Guevara and the PR Far East Bank & Trust o! entered into a co"pro"ise a#ree"ent in $hich P had %rou#ht in theRT Mani&a, 'or the recover( o' propert( 'orec&osed %( the %ank! )ttached to the a#ree"ent $as a *eed o' onditiona& +a&e e,ecuted %( the parties and "ade a part o' the a#ree"ent, $here%( in consideration o' the su" o' P-9.,96/!// the %ank a#reed to rese&& to petitioners the propert( $hich the &atter 'or"er&( o$ned, $hich had %een 'orec&osed %( the %ank!0nder the co"pro"ise a#ree"ent, p $ere to #ive a *P o' P-1,///!// and pa( the %a&ance o' P-12,96/!// in t$e&ve 3124 "onth&( insta&&"ents o' P25,.2/!// each, startin# Fe%ruar( -, 1992, p&us interest a t the rate o' 226! +hou&d petitioners 'ai& to pa( an( insta&&"ent on ti"e, it $as stipu&ated that the( $ou&d 'or'eit a&& pa("ents "ade and the %ank $ou&d then %e entit&ed to rescind the *eed o' onditiona& +a&e! the RT approved the co"pro"ise a#ree"ent and rendered 7ud#"ent in accordance $ith its ter"s and conditions!P paid the 'irst three insta&&"ents! On +epte"%er 2/, 1992, ho$ever, the( 'i&ed a co"p&aint, $hich the( &ater a"ended on *ece"%er 1., 1992, in the RT o' Makati, a&&e#in# that %ecause o' race riotin# in 8os )n#e&es, a&i'ornia 'o&&o$in# the ac9uitta& o' po&ice o''icers invo&ved in the "anhand&in# o' Rodne( :in#, a %&ack, petitioners; 'i&" %usiness in a&i'ornia $as disrupted, $ith conse9uent de&a( in pa("ent %( the +tate o' petitioners; c&ai" 'or 'i&" and te&evision pro7ects, and that petitioners re9uested and private respondent a#reed to $aive the ti"e c&ause o' the "onth&( insta&&"ents! <o$ever, so it $as a&&e#ed, the parties 'ai&ed to 'i, the schedu&e o' pa("ent o' the %a&ance o' the purchase price! Petitioners pra(ed that a ne$ period 'or pa("ent o' the %a&ance %e 'i,ed and that private respondent %e ordered to reconve( the propert( to the" upon 'u&& pa("ent o' the %a&ance! Private respondent denied that it had a#reed to $aive the ti"e c&ause! =t asked the court to dis"iss petitioner;s co"p&aint on the #round that it $as %arred %( the 7ud#e"ent in the prior case 3 ivi& ase no! .5>-1-/4 decided %( the RT o' Mani&a! The RT #ranted private respondent;s "otion and dis"issed the 'i&ed %( P! MR $as a&so denied! ivi& ase

    HE !: @O! For a 7ud#"ent to constitute a %ar to a su%se9uent case 314 it "ust %e a 'ina& 7ud#"entA 324 the court $hich rendered it "ust have 7urisdiction over the su%7ect "atter and the partiesA 324 it "ust %e on the "eritsA and 3-4 there "ust %e %et$een the t$o cases identit( o' parties, su%7ect "atter, and causes o' action. A"" #"#$#%ts o& res judicata, #'(#)t t*# "+st, +,# ),#s#%t *#,#! For $hi&e there is an identit( o' parties, there is none as to su%7ect "atter and cause o' action %et$een ivi& ase @o! .5>-1-/ and ivi& ase @o! 92>2.1.!The su%7ect "atter o' the 'irst case 3 ivi& ase @o! .5>-1-/4 $as the resa&e to petitioners o' the propert( $hich the %ank had ac9uired throu#h 'orec&osure sa&e, $hereas the su%7ect "atter o' the second case 3 ivi& ase @o! 92>2.1.4, is the reschedu&in# o' pa("ent o' the propert( a'ter the parties ori#ina&&( 'i,ed it in their co"pro"ise a#ree"ent!@or are the causes o' action in the t$o cases the sa"e, so "uch so that the sa"e evidence $ou&d not support %oth o' the", $hich is the test o' the identit( o' causes o' action! =ndeed the causes o' action cannot %e the sa"e 'or the reason that, i' true, the cause o' action in the co"p&aint in ivi& ase @o! 92>2.1. on&( arose after the 7ud#"ent in ivi& ase @o! .5>-1-/! T*# ),-%(-)"# o& res judicata .o#s %ot +))"/, since it e,tends on&( to the 'acts and conditions as the( e,isted at the ti"e the 7ud#"ent $as rendered! 3 a&Ba v! ourt o' )ppea&s, 229 + R) 212 3199-4 Petitioners; c&ai" is that private respondent a#reed to $aive in their 'avor the ti"e c&ause in the *eed o' onditiona& +a&e startin# $ith the insta&&"ent $hich %eca"e due on Ma( -, 1992! The( are thus a&&e#in# 'acts $hich did not occur unti& a'ter the 7ud#"ent %( co"pro"ise had %een rendered in ivi& ase @o! .5>-1-/ on March 2/, 1992! This case is #overned %( the ru&in# in Lao Lim v. Court of Appeals, 191 + R) 111 3199/4 that a co"pro"ise a#ree"ent and that an( cause o' action that "i#ht arise a'ter the "akin# o' the a#ree"ent and that an( cause o' action $hich "a( arise 'ro" the app&ication or vio&ation o' the co"pro"ise a#ree"ent is not %arred %( $hat $as sett&ed in the prior case! =t "a( ver( $e&& %e that petitioners are c&ai"in# novation o' the co"pro"ise a#ree"ent "ere&( to escape the e''ects o' their nonco"p&iance there$ith or that i' there is indeed an( ne$ contract it is unen'orcea%&e under the +tatute o' Frauds! This is, ho$ever, a "atter o' de'ense and proo' $hich is proper&( &e't 'or deter"ination %( the tria& court a'ter tria&!

    ISSUE: ?O@ the 7ud#"ent %ased on the co"pro"ise a#ree"ent in ivi& ase constitutes res judicata in the su%se9uent case %et$een the sa"e parties!

    You might also like