SPS. FERNANDO TORRES v.
MEDINA (Rule 16) over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case
FACTS:
 Sps Torres mortgaged their property to Amparo Medina. Failing to
pay, Medina extra judicially foreclosed the REM. The property was
sold to Medina where he is the highest bidder in May 1997.
 In 1999 Sps. Torres filed for a declaration of nullity of the
extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage w/ the RTC alleging that the
REM itself was invalid and the foreclosure is premature and
improper. In turn, Medina filed a Motion to Dismiss raising the
grounds of res judicata and forum shopping.
 Apprently, Sps. Torres already filed a complaint for the annulment
of REM in March 1997 involving the same property before the RTC.
 The 1997 Decision: Sps. Torres tried to annul the REM w/ the RTC
in 1993. RTC upheld the REM’s validity so Sps. Appealed to the CA,
but they filed their brief out of time so the appeal was dimissmed.
Sps filed for an MR but was denied so they elevated the case to
the SC. In 1999 SC denied the petition of the Sps.
 RTC ruled in favor of Medina and said that res judicata was present
and that the Sps. Torres were guilty of forum shopping.
 RTC said that while the Sps. Torres alleged separate causes of
action in the instant complaint, they are actually using the very
same grounds they have brought before the 1997 decision to
support their claim to annul the foreclosure proceedings.
 The validity of the REM is again being assailed to ask for the
annulment of the foreclosure proceedings conducted over the
mortgaged property. The REM was deemed valid in the 1997
decision, w/c has already attained finality.
 The test of identity of causes of action lies not in the form of an
action but on whether the same evidence would support and
establish the former and present causes of action.
 Sps. Torres cannot avoid the application of res judicata by simply
varying the form of their action or by adopting a different method
in presenting it. Sps. Torres appealed to the CA but the CA ruled in
the same fashion that there is res judicata. Sps. Torres filed an MR
but was denied hence this decision.
ISSUE: W/N res judicata bars the filing of the 1999 RTC case.
HELD: Res judicata is a ground for a Motion to Dismiss a subsequent case.
RULING:
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. The elements of res
judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;
(2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction
must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the
first and second action identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of
action.
Sps. Torres argued that the 1 st 3 elements might be present but said that
the 4th was lacking since the evidence necessary to establish the cause of
action in 1999 RTC case is different from the 1997 decision (See BP 22
issue).
The SC has previously employed various tests in determining whether or
not there is identity of causes of action as to warrant the application of the
principle of res judicata. One test of identity is the "absence of
inconsistency test" where it is determined whether the judgment sought
will be inconsistent with the prior judgment. If no inconsistency is shown,
the prior judgment shall not constitute a bar to subsequent actions. The
SC opined that any affirmative relief that this Court may grant on the
current case would affect the validity of the real estate mortgage; an issue
which could no longer be revived, as the same has been settled.
The doctrine of res judicata actually embraces two different concepts: (1)
bar by former judgment and (b) conclusiveness of judgment. The second
concept – conclusiveness of judgment only requires identity of issues not
identity of cause of action.
Res judicata, as a ground for dismissal, is based on two grounds (1) public
policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that there
should be an end to litigation --- republicae ut sit litium; and (2) the
hardship on the individual of being vexed twice for the same cause ---
nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa.
Finally Sps. Torres only filed the current complaint after 2 years from the
sale of the property. The Sps. were not completely left without any remedy
as they still had the right of redemption. The SC must assume that no
attempt to redeem the property was undertaken by the Sps Torres and
that they simply allowed their right and remedy to lapse by their inaction.
(For recit purposes) Among the allegations of Sps. Torres, one involves the
double compensation that Medina will receive since Medina will be able to
already collect from them in a criminal suit for BP 22 (Sps. Torres issued
RCBC checks to pay, but they were void for insufficiency of funds). The
court said that BP 22 is not a collection case which bars a mortgagee from
later on electing to foreclose the mortgaged property. The fine provided for
in BP 22 was intended as an additional penalty for the act of issuing a
worthless check.