1/31/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 575

The Essentials of Res Judicata

ANNOTATION

THE ESSENTIALS OF RES JUDICATA

By
SEVERIANO S. TABIOS

________________

§ I. Introduction, p. 575
§ II. Nature of Res Judicata, p. 576

A. Legal Basis for the Defense, p. 576

B. Requirement for Reasonable Invocation, p. 576
C. Acceptable Manner for Invoking the Defense, p. 577
D. Not Applicable as a Defense Against the State, p.
577

§ III. Essential Requirements for Invoking Res

Judicata, p. 578

A. Final Judgment, p. 578

B. Identity of Parties, p. 579
C. Identity of Subject Matters, p. 580
D. Identity of Causes of Action, p. 580

________________

§ I.Introduction

In the case of Guevara, et al. vs. Benito, et al., G.R. No.

110401, August 23, 1995, which is the subject of this
annotation, the essentials of res judicata in the prosecution
of a civil case is once again reviewed by the Supreme Court.
In that case, where a case was dismissed by the court on
the ground of res judicata, because of the existence of a
judgment on an approved compromise agreement which
the second case sought to amend. However, when the issue
of whether or not res judicata exists between the two cases,
the Supreme Court answered in the negative. After
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177577337bfa0d59d0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
1/31/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

enumerating the essentials of res judicata, the Supreme

Court declared that while there is identity of parties, there
is none as to
576

576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Essentials of Res Judicata

subject matter and cause of action between the two cases.

In this regard, the Supreme Court pointed out that the
subject matter of the first case was the resale to petitioners
of the property which the bank had acquired through
foreclosure sale, whereas the subject matter of the second
case is the rescheduling of payment of the property after
the parties originally fixed it in their compromise
agreement. Furthermore, as explained by the Supreme
Court, the cause of action in the second case only arose
after the judgment in the first case. Moreover, as explained
in Lao Lim vs. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 151 (1990)
which the Supreme Court cited in the case, a compromise
agreement cannot cover any cause of action that might
arise after the making of the agreement and that any cause
of action which may arise from the application or violation
of the compromise agreement is not barred by what was
settled in the prior case. (Guevara, et al. vs. Benito, et al.,
G.R. No. 110401, August 23, 1995)

§ II.Nature of Res Judicata

A.Legal Basis for the Defense

Res judicata is a defense that seeks to dismiss a civil action
on the fundamental principle that parties ought not to be
permitted to litigate the same issue more than once. (Sy
Kao, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 132 SCRA 302, 306;
Sarabia, et al. vs. Lardizabal, et al., 2 SCRA 54, 59) Known
in American jurisprudence as “estoppel by verdict”
(Marlein vs. Orleans, 177 U.S. 390, 20 S. Ct. 682, 44 L. ed.
817), res judicata is also invoked under the maxim memo
debet bix vexari pro una et eadem causa or “no one ought to
be twice vexed for one and the same offense.” (Perkins vs.
Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 93 Phil. 1035) Thus, as
provided in the Revised Rules of Court, res judicata is one
of the grounds for motion to dismiss. (Section 1 [f], Rule 16,
Revised Rules of Court).

B.Requirement for Seasonable Invocation

Although res judicata can cause the dismissal of a case, it
does not, however, deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177577337bfa0d59d0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
1/31/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

to act on a second suit between the parties on the same

subject matter.
577

VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 577

The Essentials of Res Judicata

(Kidpalos vs. Baguio Mining Co., 14 SCRA 913, 917) For

this purpose, a seasonable invocation thereof is needed,
because if it were not interposed either in a motion to
dismiss or in an answer, it would be deemed waived. (Phil.
Coal Miners Union vs. Cebu Portland Cement Co., 10 SCRA
784) Thus, if the allegation in an answer merely stated that
“petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for”, which is
vague, res judicata as a defense was not specifically
pleaded as required by the Revised Rules of Court for its
invocation. (Phil. Coal Miners Union vs. Cebu Portland
Cement Co., 10 SCRA 784)

C.Acceptable Manner for Invoking the Defense

While res judicata as a defense is ordinarily pleaded as an
affirmative defense in an answer, there may be other ways
in which it may be invoked. Thus, in the case of Romero, et
al. vs. Delos Reyes, et al., (14 SCRA 115), the defense was
considered brought out by defendant in the course of direct
examination at the hearing of appellants’ petition for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, the judgment
on which the trial court might take judicial notice.
According to the Supreme Court, the court would be
indulging in sheer technicalities to say that a court cannot
take up the question of res judicata or any defense for that
matter, motu proprio, when it is convinced that, because of
a lawyer’s omission or negligence, an irregularity, illegality
or injustice is committed. (Romero, et al. vs. Delos Reyes, et
al., 14 SCRA 115, 121)

D.Not Applicable as a Defense Against the State

It has been recognized by the Supreme Court that res
judicata as a defense cannot be interposed against the
State to bar it from instituting appropriate proceedings
directed at striking down a certificate of citizenship so
issued. (Republic vs. Reyes, et al., 17 SCRA 170, 172) In
this regard, well settled is the principle that the judgment
directing the issuance of a certificate of naturalization is a
mere grant of a political privilege by the government to an
alien applicant (Republic vs. Reyes, et al., 34 SCRA 396,
399), subject to the right of the government to ask for
cancellation, if found to have been illegally or fraudulently
procured. (Republic

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177577337bfa0d59d0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
1/31/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

578

578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Essentials of Res Judicata

vs. Reyes, et al., 17 SCRA 170, 172) Moreover, as a

naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary
proceeding, the decision rendered therein is not res
judicata as to any matter that would support a judgment
cancelling a certificate of naturalization on the ground of
illegal or fraudulent procurement thereof. (Go Tian An vs.
Republic, 17 SCRA 1053, 1055; Republic vs. Go Bon Lee, 1
SCRA 166, 170)

§ III.Essential Requirements for Invoking Res

Judicata

A.Final Judgment
A rule which has been reiterated and re-echoed through the
cases is the requirement that the judgment or order
invoked as res judicata to a subsequent case must be final.
(Abes, et al. vs. Rodil, et al., 17 SCRA 822, 824)
Accordingly, where it was shown that the judgment in a
prior case was still pending appeal, a motion to dismiss on
the ground of res judicata could not be granted. (Claridad
vs. Novella, L-4207, Oct. 24, 1952) Similarly, where the
previous order in question was not an order or judgment
determinative of an issue of fact pending before the court
but was only an interlocutory order, because it required the
parties to perform certain acts for final adjudication of
awards, res judicata cannot be invoked as a bar on the
basis thereof. (Phil. Coal Miners Union vs. Cebu Portland
Cement Co., 10 SCRA 784) Moreover, where the decision
used as basis for res judicata is assailed on the ground of
fraud, res judicata cannot be applied in the same way that
there can be no res judicata if the decision on which it is
based does not exist by reason of its having been set aside.
(Arrieta vs. Malayan Sawmill Co., et al., 24 SCRA 460, 464)
It is well settled that if the trial court never had
jurisdiction over the person of defendant there cannot be
any final judgment on the merits and there can be no res
judicata. (Dacosin vs. Court of Appeals, 80 SCRA 89). Since
a requisite for res judicata is that the court rendering the
decision must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and
over the parties (PCIB vs. Pfleider, 65 SCRA 13; Hagonoy
vs. Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources, 73 SCRA
507), it follows that a void judgment for want of jurisdiction
over the subject matter cannot constitute a bar to

579
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177577337bfa0d59d0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
1/31/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 579

The Essentials of Res Judicata

another case by reason of res judicata. (Bringas vs.

Hernando, et al., 144 SCRA 346; Arevalo vs. Benedicto, 58
SCRA 186)

B.Identity of Parties
According to the Supreme Court, the plea of res judicata
must be founded on a final judgment rendered in a
previous action that was prosecuted between the same
parties, the same subject matter and the same cause of
action. (Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Director
of Lands, et al., 35 Phil. 339) In this regard, where the
party invoking res judicata was not a party in the former
case and his supposed predecessor-in-interest was never
within the jurisdiction of the court in the first case for
failure to serve summons upon him, the doctrine of res
judicata would not be applicable, because the requirement
of identity of parties would be lacking. (Santiago, et al. vs.
Ramirez, et al., 8 SCRA 157, 162) Similarly, where an
appellant was shown not to be a party nor a co-accused in
the criminal case, he could not invoke the judgment
rendered in the criminal case as res judicata in the civil
case. (Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. vs. Gamboa, L-10296, May
31, 1957)
While identity of parties is required before res judicata
can apply to a case, however, the rule does not require that
the identity of parties should be absolute. In this regard,
substantial identity of parties would be enough in order to
invoke res judicata as a defense. For this purpose, the fact
that the wife was the party in the former case while the
husband was the party in the second case, when admittedly
both actions were instituted for the protection of their
common interest therein, is no argument to the proposition
that there is identity of parties in the two cases, because
their identity of interest would be enough to hold that they
were privy to one another, having a common interest in the
property. (Comilang vs. Buendia, et al., 21 SCRA 486, 491)
Similarly, if the party against whom the judgment is
offered as a defense was a party in the first case, there
would still be res judicata, even if in the second case he was
joined by other parties who were not parties to the first
case. (Penalosa vs. Tuason, 22 Phil. 303, 323)
580

580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Essentials of Res Judicata

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177577337bfa0d59d0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
1/31/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

C.Identity of Subject Matter

In order to justify the dismissal of a complaint on the
ground that it is barred by prior judgment, there must be
complete identity of subject matter. Where no complete
identity of subject matter exists, res judicata would not
apply. Thus, where the subject matter of the first case was
the resale to petitioners of property which the bank had
acquired through foreclosure, while the subject matter of
the second case was the rescheduling of payment of said
property after the parties had originally fixed it in their
compromise agreement, res judicata would not apply
since identity of subject matter did not exist. (Guevara, et
al. vs. Benito, et al., G.R. No. 110401, August 23, 1995)
Similarly, where what was sought in the former action was
the recovery of Lot No. 8119 of the Passi Cadastre,
containing an area of only 2.4807 hectares according to the
appellant or 4.5658 hectares according to appellees, and
what was sought in the second action was a big portion of
Lot No. 1104 in addition to Lot No. 8119, the Supreme
Court declared that the finding of the lower court that
there was identity of subject matter was correct with
respect to Lot No. 8119 but not so with respect to the rest
of the property described in the complaint. (Antonio vs.
Jalandoni, et al., 14 SCRA 822, 824-825) Moreover, where
two tracts of land involved in a second case were part of the
large tract of land which was the subject matter of the first
case being sought to bar the second case, the Supreme
Court said that identity of subject matter existed, because
the judgment in the earlier case over the large tract of land
should be respected. (Belisario, et al. vs. Natividad Vda. de
Zulueta, 98 Phil. 990; Agregado vs. Muñoz, 26 Phil. 456)

D.Identity of Causes of Action

Identity of causes of action as a requirement for res
judicata makes irrelevant any change in the form of action
or in the relief sought in order that res judicata can apply,
because the rule is well-settled that, as between the
parties, a former judgment would bar the presentation of
another action, not only of the matters expressly adjudged
in the first case, but of all matters that could have been
adjudged in that case. (Gonzales vs. Gonzales, et al., 26
SCRA 72, 77) Thus, where it was claimed that the final
581

VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 581

The Essentials of Res Judicata

decision in a former case could not constitute res judicata

in the second case, because the former case was for
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177577337bfa0d59d0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
1/31/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

reconveyance of title or for recovery of ownership whereas

the second case was for recovery of possession of the
properties and of the fruits that plaintiff was not able to
receive, the Supreme Court in rejecting the contention
declared that while it is true that the decision rendered in
the first case was one for reconveyance and for damages
allegedly arising from the defendant’s refusal to execute
the necessary deed of conveyance in favor of the plaintiff, it
is equally a fact that the recognition of appellant’s right to
possession would really follow as the logical consequence of
the judicial declaration of his ownership over the properties
involved in the controversy. (Gonzales vs. Gonzales, et al.,
26 SCRA 72, 77) Necessarily, as further stated by the
Supreme Court, a change in the form of action or in the
relief sought does not remove a proper case from the
application of res judicata. (Aguila, et al. vs. J.M. Tuason &
Co., Inc., et al., 22 SCRA 690, 694; Clemente, et al. vs. H.E.
Heacock Co., et al., 20 SCRA 115, 121; Francisco vs. Blas,
93 Phil. 43)
It must be observed from the various decisions of the
Supreme Court that identity of causes of action as a
requirement for res judicata does not mean absolute
identity of the causes of action in the two cases in question.
For example, where an issue such as that of interest in an
expropriation case which could have been raised in that
case was not raised by the appropriate party thereto, the
Supreme Court has ruled that res judicata would bar an
action for the recovery of interest upon a sum determined
by final judgment as compensation for the property
expropriated in a previous case of eminent domain between
the same parties, because a former judgment constitutes a
bar, as between the parties, not only as to matters
expressly adjudged, but all matters that could have been
adjudged at the time. (Urtula, et al. vs. Republic, 22 SCRA
477) However, where the same evidence would not support
both causes of action, which is the test of the identity of
causes of action, because the cause of action in the second
case only arose after the judgment in the first case, there
would not be an identity of causes of action in the two cases
and res judicata would not apply. (Guevara, et al. vs.
Benito, et al., G.R. No. 110401, August 23, 1995)
582

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Essentials of Res Judicata

Moreover, where a cause of action has been varied just to

avoid the effect of a previous case being a bar to the second,
res judicata will nevertheless apply. Thus, the fact that a
civil case filed by the appellees against the appellant was
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177577337bfa0d59d0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
1/31/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

for partition of the hereditary estate with accounting of

fruits of several parcels of land while the second case
brought by appellant against appellees was for quieting of
title over two parcels which are parts of the same
properties subject of the previous case does not remove the
second case from the operation of res judicata. In this
regard, as observed by the Supreme Court, what appellant
did was to institute another action in order to preclude the
execution of the judgment in the first case. For this reason,
the Supreme Court pointed out that a change in the form of
action or in the relief sought does not remove a proper case
from the application of res judicata. In other words, a party
cannot, by varying the form of action, or adopting a
different method of presenting his case, escape the
operation of the principle that one and the same cause of
action shall not be twice litigated between the same
parties. (Medija vs. Patcho, et al., 132 SCRA 540, 549-550;
Ramos vs. PANTRANCO, 79 SCRA 171; Aguilar vs. J.M.
Tuason & Co., Inc., 22 SCRA 690; Clemente, et al. vs. H.E.
Heacock Co., et al., 20 SCRA 115; Francisco vs. Blas, 93
Phil. 43; Pascual vs. Palermo, 47 O.G. 6184; Paz vs.
Indanan, 76 Phil. 608)

——o0o——

583

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177577337bfa0d59d0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8