Foreclosure
Sps Torres v Medina Respondent medina wrote a letter to RTC QC
sheriff applying for EJ Foreclosure of prop of
Res judicata petitione r SPS
2 concepts
Public auction – Medina highest bidder, cert of
validity can no longer be attacked sale issue to Medina
SPS Medina filed complaint to annul EJ
foreclosure of Mortgage
MTD by Medina – res judicata, earlier filing by
SPS of annulment of REM; MTD GRANTED
CA – res judicata, rules for MEDINA
MR – Denied by CA
Hence this case by PET
SC: Petition is Denied – when dec stating REM
final, same can no longer be questioned in
anther proceedings by varying the form,
adopting a different method of presenting a case.
WON res judicata bars filing of civil case q-99-38781
(NO, already lapsed before they filed complaint in 2nd case;
larady lost right due to negligence o counsel, REM valid can
no longer be questioned in another proceeding by varying
form/ adopting diferent method.
First case – Q-94 18962, RTC dis( missed, REM valid; SPS
appealed to CA, CA dismissed, MR denied also, SC denied –
entry of judgment rendered
Res judicata lays the rule that an existing final judgment or
decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion,
by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within
its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their
privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other
judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and
matters in issue in the first suit
Final judgment, jurisdictions, judgment of merits, identity of
P-SM-CoA,
SPS say 4th element of res judicata not proper
Evidence not identical
Absence of inconsistency test = no inconsistency with
judgment sought to prior judgment
SpS torress already assailed validity of REM
two different concepts: (1) bar by former judgment and (2)
conclusiveness of judgment.
If a particular point or question is in issue in the second action,
and the judgment will depend on the determination of that
 particular point or question, a former judgment between the
same parties or their privies will be final and conclusive in the
second if that same point or question was in issue and
adjudicated in the first suit. Identity of cause of action is not
required, but merely

identity of issues.

- here same checks referred to in both Civil Cases

Interpleader
Ocampo v Tirona
Pasricha v Don Luis Dison
Declaratory Relief
Ferrer Jr v Roco
Phil-Ville Devt v Bonifacio