This case involved a dispute over an agricultural land that was decided by the Court of Agrarian Relations in favor of the plaintiffs. The CA affirmed this decision, finding that the defendants did not raise a procedural defect in a timely manner. The defendants appealed, arguing the principle of res judicata should apply. However, the Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling, as there was no identity of parties or subject matter between this case and a prior case, which is required for res judicata. The Supreme Court also held it could not review the CA's findings of fact if based on substantial evidence. The petition was dismissed.
This case involved a dispute over an agricultural land that was decided by the Court of Agrarian Relations in favor of the plaintiffs. The CA affirmed this decision, finding that the defendants did not raise a procedural defect in a timely manner. The defendants appealed, arguing the principle of res judicata should apply. However, the Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling, as there was no identity of parties or subject matter between this case and a prior case, which is required for res judicata. The Supreme Court also held it could not review the CA's findings of fact if based on substantial evidence. The petition was dismissed.
This case involved a dispute over an agricultural land that was decided by the Court of Agrarian Relations in favor of the plaintiffs. The CA affirmed this decision, finding that the defendants did not raise a procedural defect in a timely manner. The defendants appealed, arguing the principle of res judicata should apply. However, the Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling, as there was no identity of parties or subject matter between this case and a prior case, which is required for res judicata. The Supreme Court also held it could not review the CA's findings of fact if based on substantial evidence. The petition was dismissed.
A case involving an agricultural land was filed over the
Court of Agrarian Relations.
The judgement of the Court of Agrarian Relations went in
favor of the plaintiffs.
On appeal, the CA (respondent court) affirmed the agrarian
court's judgment basing its decision ground that there is an alleged procedural defect at the pretrial stage that was not raised by the petitioners, hence, deemed waived.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA committed an error of law in not
applying the principle of res judicata.
RULING:
The appellate court found that there is no Identity of the
parties and the subject matter as between the present case and a former case docketed as CAR Case No. 2582-T '73. Such identity is an indispensable requisite of the doctrine of res judicata.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's findings
with respect to the non-applicability of the said doctrine in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary.
The Supreme Court held that the findings of fact of the
court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court provided they are based on substantial evidence.