No.
Case Title Part
1 Manalang vs Rickards, Basic Legal
G.R. No. L-11986 July 31,
1958
2 J.M. Tuason Co. Inc. vs.
Hon. Herminio C.
Mariano et.al, G.R. No. L-
33140 October 23, 1978
3 Urbana Velasco Aroc vs
People’s Homesite and
Housing Corporation ,
G.R. No. L-39674.
January 31, 1978.
4 Cayana vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. NO.
125607 - March 18, 2004
5 Gerona et al. v. Secretary
of Education , G.R. No L-
13954
Topic w/ Definition Cause of Action
Interlocutory order - An order is
Terms interlocutory when it does not terminate or
finally dispose of the case, because it leaves
something to be done by the court before
the case is finally decided on the merits.
Stare decisis et non quita movere - Stand JM Tuason Inc petitioned the RTC's order
by the decisions and disturb not what is to present in court the registry of deeds
settled. and plan of land of OCT 735 to determine
if included therein the claimed land by
Aquial sisters that was allegedly included
due to irregularities in land registration
proceeding
Res judicata - A doctrine which precludes
parties from re-litigating issues actually
litigated and determined by prior and final
judgment.
The requisites for a judgment to be in res
judicata are—
(1) The judgment must be final and executory
and not merely interlocutory;
(2) The judgment must have been rendered
by a court having jurisdiction over the subject
matter and parties and nature of the suit;
(3) The judgment must be on the merits, or at
least have the effect of an adjudication on the
merits; and
(4) There must be between the first and
second actions, identity of parties, of subject
matter, or causes of action, or, in certain cases,
reliefs prayed for.
Res judicata not applicable: Conclusiveness of
Judgement
Stare decisis - The doctrine that, when the
court has once laid down a principle of law as
applicable to a certain state of facts, it will
adhere to that principle and apply it to all
future cases where the facts are substantially
the same, regardless of whether the parties
and property are the same.
State decisis simply declares that, for the sake
of certainty, a conclusion reached in one
case should be applied to those which
follow, if the facts are substantially the
same, even though the parties may be
different.
But erroneous decisions should not be
perpetuated but is abandoned.
Manalang petitioned the dismissal of his
motion to prohibit the MTC in resuming
the hearing for merits of ejectment case
filed by Rickards, by RTC on the grounds
that MTC's July 1954 order was merely
interlocutory in nature
Urbana Aroc petitioned the RTC'dismissal
of her civil case, in where she claims to be
the bonafide owner of land sold by PHHC
to Garcia, despite the latter's
disqualification to buy said lot, on the
grounds of res judicata or barred by the
decision on the quiet title civil case by
Garcia decided in his favor, making him
the true owner of the claimed lot.
Cayana et al petitioned CA's reversal of
RTC order in 15937 (wherein rtc
recognizing the final decision in 15928
ruled this case in their favor) and upheld
the validity of the deeds of sale which was
already declared null in 15298.
Gerona et al petitioned RTC's dismissal of
their motion to dismiss the Sec of
Education's decision to expell their
children for not attending the flag
ceremony in the exercise of their right of
religion and prayed for preliminary
injunction and declaration of DO 8
unconstitutional
SC HELD/RATIO Judgement
It can be seen from the foregoing that the issues presented in the ejectment proceedings were not settled, said It appears that the actions for ejectment were filed before the enactment of Republic Act No. Wherefore, and acting merely
actions having been merely suspended, and the jurisdiction of the court over said proceedings not having been 1162 and conceivably under the general principle that laws can only be enforced on the question of procedure
assailed, the said court has the power to reopen the same for trial on the merits in order that the rights of the prospectively, the Municipal Judge for one reason or another saw it fit to suspend the proceedings submitted to Us by the instant
parties therein could be finally determined. for quite a long period, probably with the expectation that the question of the constitutionality of appeal, We have to affirm, as
Republic Act No. 1162 might be in the meantime duly passed upon. We do hereby affirm, the
In the case at bar, considering that the dispositive part of the order merely suspended the order of the lower Court
proceedings without touching on the merits of the case or disposing of the issues involved dismissing appellant’s petition
therein, said order cannot be said to be final in character but clearly an interlocutory one which in this case for certiorari and prohibition.
cannot be the subject of an action for certiorari. Without pronouncement as to
costs. It is so ordered.
The Court noted that the supposed irregularities in the land registration proceedings were the same issues raised Considering the governing principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere (follow past precedents and Finding the petition for
in the civil cases decided by Judge Eulogio Mencias. In those case, Judge Mencias ruled that OCT NO.735 was do not disturb what has been settled) it becomes evident that respondents Aquial and Cordova cannot certiorari and prohibition to
invalid. On appeal to the Supreme Court, that decision was reveresed, and the validity of OCT NO.735 was maintain their action in Civil Case No. 8943 without eroding the long settled holding of the courts that be meritorious, the trial court
once more upheld. OCT No. 735 is valid and no longer open to attack. " is directed to dismiss Civil
Case No. 8943 with prejudice
"It is against public policy that matters already decided on the merits be relitigated again and again, and without costs. No costs
consuming the courts' time and energies et the expense of other litigants: Interest rei publicae ut finis
sit litium."
Considering now the cause of action in the first case and the cause of action in the second case, the conclusion is There is merit to the claim of the appellant that the legality of the award and sale of the lot in WHEREFORE, the order
inevitable that one is different from the other; that they are not one and the same cause of action: controversy was not directly litigated in the first case not only because the defendant therein did not appealed from by the Court of
appear at the trial to adduce evidence, but also because the PHHC, the grantor and vendor of the First Instance of Rizal in Civil
The first seeks only to remove the cloud on the title of the land. property, was not impleaded as a party litigant in the case. Case No. Q- 11807 dated
The second seeks not only the nullification of the award and sale to the awardee, the cancellation of the Certificate February 19, 1970 is hereby
of Title, but also places in issue the power and authority of the grantor (PHHC) to make the award and sell the land It is also a general rule that a judgment in an action to quiet title is not conclusive as to matters not in reversed and the records
to one disqualified to purchase the same, the awardee being a Colonel in the Armed Forces of the Philippines,as issue and determined particularly where such matters could not have been determined in such action. remanded to the said court for
admitted by the PHHC. The qualification of the purchaser is likewise placed in issue. These issues are more basic further proceedings. No costs.
and fundamental than the quieting of the title and the removal of the cloud on such title. Since the power or authority of the PHHC was not in issue in the first case to quiet title, and neither
was the qualification of the awardees, the plaintiff therein, directly determined the judgment in said
Applying the test accordingly, We hold that the evidence needed to prove the allegations of the second case is not conclusive and binding in the pre. sent case for annulment of the award and sale, and the
cause of action must necessarily be more than that in the first case for in the herein second case, cancellation of the title of the awardees or purchaser.
additional evidence must be adduced to prove that the PHHC acted in violation of its charter..
The trial court and the appellate court both erred in the manner by which they treated and applied the final Nonetheless, the trial court and the Court of Appeals should have applied the doctrine of WHEREFORE, the Decision
decision in Civil Case No. 15298 to the instant case. conclusiveness of judgment. and Resolution of the Court of
xxx conclusiveness of judgment-states that a fact or question which was in issue in a Appeals are hereby
We find that the evidence required to prove the allegations in Civil Case No. 15937, which involves the former suit and there was judicially passed upon and determined by a court of REVERSED and the Decision
annulment of the subsequent transactions and TCTs covering the subject parcels of land and the recovery of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the judgment therein as far as the of the trial court is accordingly
possession thereof on the basis of the alleged deed of donation inter vivos, is necessarily more than that parties to that action and persons in privity with them are concerned and cannot be again REINSTATED but with the
required in Civil Case No. 15298, which involves only the annulment of the Deeds of Absolute Sale in favor of litigated in any future action between such parties or their privies, in the same court or any other modification that the First and
Pastor Cayabyab and the corresponding TCTs covering the First and Second Parcels. Furthermore, the decision in court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or different cause of action, while the judgment Second Parcels should be
Civil Case No. 15298 necessarily turned only upon whether the Deeds of Absolute Sale were fictitious or simulated, remains unreversed by proper authority. included in the estate of
while that in Civil Case No. 15937 will also have to include a determination of the good or bad faith of the Raymundo and Eulalia
subsequent purchasers. Res judicata, therefore, does not apply. It has been held that in order that a judgment in one action can be conclusive as to a particular matter Cayabyab and partitioned in
in another action between the same parties or their privies, it is essential that the issue be accordance with the law on
The appellate court's pronouncement that "the decision in Civil Case No. 15298 which declares null and void the identical. If a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will succession.
deeds of absolute sale dated May 13, 1965 and March 20, 1976 and the corresponding TCT is not conclusive upon depend on the determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment between
the action in Civil Case No. 15937" [33] is, therefore, flawed. It is likewise utterly erroneous for the appellate court the same parties or their privies will be final and conclusive in the second if that same
to have disregarded the final judgment in Civil Case No. 15298 declaring null and void the Deeds of Absolute Sale point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit. Identity of cause of
in favor of Pastor Cayabyab and the corresponding TCTs covering the two parcels of land. It is axiomatic that action is not required but merely identity of issues.[32] Under the doctrine of conclusiveness
decisions which have long become final and executory cannot be annulled by courts and the appellate court is of judgment, the final decision in Civil Case No. 15298 declaring null and void the Deeds of Absolute
deprived of jurisdiction to alter the trial court's final judgment.[34] Sale in favor of Pastor Cayabyab and the corresponding TCTs covering the subject parcels of land
precluded the Court of Appeals from further adjudicating on the validity of the said deeds and titles.
The Court holds that the First and Second Parcels properly belong to the estate of Raymundo and Eulalia
Cayabyab, the same to be partitioned in accordance with the law on succession.
In conclusion we find and hold that the Filipino flag is not an image that requires religious veneration; rather it is a In requiring school pupils to participate in the flag salute, the State thru the Secretary of Education In view of the foregoing, the
symbol of the Republic of the Philippines, of sovereignty, an emblem of freedom, liberty and national unity; that was not imposing a religion or religious belief or a religious test on said students. It was appealed decision is affirmed.
the flag salute is not a religious ceremony but an act and profession of love and allegiance and pledge of loyalty to merely enforcing a non-discriminatory school regulation applicable to all alike The writ of preliminary
the fatherland which the flag stands for; whether Christian, Moslem, Protestant or Jehovah's Witness. The State was merely injunction heretofore issued is
carrying out the duty imposed upon it by the Constitution which charges it with supervision over and ordered dissolved. No costs.
that by authority of the legislature, the Secretary of Education was duly authorized to promulgate Department regulation of all educational institutions, to establish and maintain a complete and adequate system of
Order No. 8, series of 1955; that the requirement of observance of the flag ceremony or salute provided for in said public education, and see to it that all schools aim to develop among other things, civic conscience and
Department Order No. 8, does not violate the Constitutional provision about freedom of religion teach the duties of citizenship. (Art. XIV, section 5 of the Constitution).
and exercise of religion; that compliance with the non-discriminatory and reasonable rules and regulations and
school discipline, including observance of the flag ceremony is a prerequisite to attendance in public schools; and "But between the freedom of belief and the exercise of said belief, there is quite a stretch of road
that for failure and refusal to participate in the flag ceremony, petitioners were properly excluded and dismissed to travel. If the exercise of said religious belief clashes with the established institutions of society and
from the public school they were attending. with the law, then the former must yield and give way to the latter. The Government steps in and
either restrains said exercise or even prosecutes the one exercising it."
6 Ebralinag v. Division stare decisis - exception: correction of Ebralinag et al filed these Special civil
Superintendent of erroneous decisions actions for Mandamus, Certiorari and
Schools of Cebu , 219 Prohibition alleging that the public
SCRA 256 respondents acted without or in excess of
their jurisdiction and with grave abuse of
discretion - (1) in ordering their expulsion
without prior notice and hearing, hence,
in violation of their right to due process,
their right to free public education, and
their right to freedom of speech, religion
and worship
Exemptions may be accorded to the Jehovah's Witnesses with regard to the observance of the flag ceremony out of "The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of religious freedom WHEREFORE, the petition
respect for their religious beliefs, however "bizarre" those beliefs may seem to others. Nevertheless, their right not (according to the late Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee in his dissenting opinion in German vs. for certiorari and prohibition
to participate in the flag ceremony does not give them a right to disrupt such patriotic exercises. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514, 517) is the existence of a grave and present danger of a character both grave is GRANTED. The expulsion
and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate orders issued by the public
We are not persuaded that by exempting the Jehovah's Witnesses from saluting the flag, singing the national public interest, that the State has a right (and duty) to prevent." Absent such a threat to public safety, respondents against the
anthem and reciting the patriotic pledge, this religious which admittedly comprises a "small portion of the school the expulsion of the petitioners from the schools is not justified. petitioners are hereby
population" will shake up our part of the globe and suddenly produce a nation "untaught and uninculcated in and ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE.
unimbued with reverence for the flag, patriotism, love of country and admiration for national heroes" (Gerona vs. Paraphrasing the warning cited by this Court in Non vs. Dames II, 185 SCRA 523, 535, while the The temporary restraining
Sec. of Education, 106 Phil. 2, 24). After all, what the petitioners seek only is exemption from the flag ceremony, highest regard must be afforded their right to the free exercise of their religion, ""this should not be order which was issued by this
not exclusion from the public schools where they may study the Constitution, the democratic way of life and form taken to mean that school authorities are powerless to discipline them"" if they should commit Court is hereby made
of government, and learn not only the arts, science, Philippine history and culture but also receive training for a breaches of the peace by actions that offend the sensibilities, both religious and patriotic, of other permanent.
vocation or profession and be taught the virtues of "patriotism, respect for human rights, appreciation for national persons. If they quietly stand at attention during the flag ceremony while their classmates and
heroes, the rights and duties of citizenship, and moral and spiritual values (Sec. 3[2], Art. XIV, 1987 Constitution) teachers salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge, we do not see how
as part of the curricula. Expelling or banning the petitioners from Philippine schools will bring about the very such conduct may possibly disturb the peace, or pose ""a grave and present danger of a serious evil to
situation that this Court had feared in Gerona. Forcing a small religious group, through the iron hand of the law, to public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest that the State has a
participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, will hardly be condusive to love of country or respect right (and duty) to prevent (German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514, 517)."
for duly constituted authorities.