Degayo Syllab

G.R. No. 173148. April 6, 2015.
*

ELSA DEGAYO, petitioner, vs. CECILIA MAGBANUA-DINGLASAN, JOHNNY
DINGLASAN, ASUNCION MAGBANUA-PORRAS, MARIANO, PASCUALITO and
AMADO JR., all surnamed MAGBANUA, respondents.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Res Judicata; Parties should not to be permitted to
litigate the same issue more than once; that, when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined
by a court of competent jurisdiction, or an opportunity for such
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
2
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Degayo vs. Magbanua-Dinglasan
trial has been given, the judgment of the court, so long as it remains unreversed, should be
conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate.—Res judicata literally means
“a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment.” It
also refers to the “rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is
conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in
the former suit.” It rests on the principle that parties should not to be permitted to litigate the same issue
more than once; that, when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction, or an opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of the court, so long
as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or
estate.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The Two (2) Distinct Concepts of Res Judicata are: (1) bar by former
judgment and (2) conclusiveness of judgment.—This provision comprehends two distinct concepts of res
judicata: (1) bar by former judgment and (2) conclusiveness of judgment. The first aspect is the effect of a
judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action.
In traditional terminology, this aspect is known as merger or bar; in modern terminology, it is called claim
preclusion. The second aspect precludes the re-litigation of a particular fact of issue in another action
between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action. This is traditionally known as collateral
estoppel; in modern terminology, it is called issue preclusion.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Conclusiveness of Judgment; Conclusiveness of judgment finds
application when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged
in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction.—Conclusiveness of judgment finds application
when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former
suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The fact or question settled by final judgment or order binds the
parties to that action (and persons in privity with them or their successors-in-interest), and continues to
bind them while the judgment or order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a timely
motion or petition; the conclusively settled fact or question furthermore cannot again be litigated in any
future or other action between the same parties or their
3
VOL. 755, APRIL 6, 2015 3
privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent jurisdiction, either
for the same or for a different cause of action. Thus, only the identities of parties and issues are required
for the operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment.
Civil Law; Property; Ownership; Change in the Course of Rivers; River beds which are abandoned
through the natural change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are
occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost.—Notably, the ownership of the disputed
parcel of land has been unequivocally settled in Civil Case No. 16047. In ruling that the subject
parcels of land belong to the respondents, the RTC Branch 27 in Civil Case No. 16047 opined that the
claim of accretion has no valid basis. What really happened was that the Jalaud River naturally changed
its course and moved southward. As a result, it abandoned its previous bed and encroached upon a portion
of Lot No. 7328. It further held that the claim of accretion could not be sustained because the 26,419 sq.
m. portion is ostensibly within the metes and bounds of Lot No. 7328, owned and registered in the name
of the respondents. On the other hand, the 26,106 sq. m. portion refers to an abandoned river bed, and is
thus governed by Article 461 of the Civil Code, which states that River beds which are abandoned
through the natural change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are
occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost. The fact that the present cause of action is
based on an accretion claim does not prevent the application of res judicata. For, res judicata, under the
concept of conclusiveness of judgment, operates even if no absolute identity of causes of action
exists. Res judicata, in its conclusiveness of judgment concept, merely requires identity of issues. We thus
agree with the uniform view of the CA — on the application of conclusiveness of judgment to the present
case.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Judicial Notice; Generally, courts are not authorized to “take judicial
notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or are pending
in the same court or before the same judge.”—The taking of judicial notice is a matter of expediency and
convenience for it fulfills the purpose that the evidence is intended to achieve, and in this sense, it is
equivalent to proof. Generally, courts are not authorized to “take judicial notice of the contents of the
records of other cases even when
4
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED

said cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge.” While the
principle invoked is considered to be the general rule, this rule is not absolute. There are exceptions to
this rule. In the case of Tiburcio v. People’s Homesite & Housing Corporation, 106 Phil. 477 (1959), this
Court, citing Justice Moran, stated: “In some instance, courts have taken judicial notice of proceedings in
other causes, because of their close connection with the matter in the controversy. Thus, in a separate
civil action against the administrator of an estate arising from an appeal against the report of the
committee on claims appointed in the administration proceedings of the said estate, to determine whether
or not the appeal was taken on time, the court took judicial notice of the record of the administration
proceedings. Courts have also taken judicial notice of previous cases to determine whether or not the
case pending is a moot one or whether or not a previous ruling is applicable in the case under
consideration.”

Degayo Syllab

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Degayo Syllab

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Degayo Syllab

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 173148. April 6, 2015.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.