Philippines vs.

Yu
Res Judicata

Issue: Could the RTC dismiss Yu’s case on the grounds of res judicata?

Facts/Procedural Posture:
- The Court of Appeals ruled that Yu purchased land from Valdehueza in bad faith,
thereby expropriating the purchased land from Yu, who did not appeal the
decision
- More than 10 years later, Yu filed a complaint for the reversion of his
expropriated property with the RTC
- The RTC dismissed the complaint on the grounds of res judicata, among others
- Yu appealed the RTC’s decision to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC’s
decision due to a ruling of no res judicata
- Philippines appealed to the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals’
decision

Held: Yes, the RTC could dismiss Yu’s case on the grounds of res judicata

Ratio:
- Rule 39, Section 47 (c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure states the concept of
conclusiveness of judgment, which is one of two concepts of Res Judicata
o As of conclusiveness of judgment, the final judgment of a court is
conclusive to the rights of the parties and bars any subsequent actions
involving the same claim, demand or cause of action
- On Res Judicata and Conclusiveness of Judgment. The Court of Appeals had
already ruled to expropriate the land from Yu (implying that Yu did not have a
right to the land), which Yu did not protest or appeal to a higher court. With that,
the decision of the Court of Appeals was considered final and irrevocable.