Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Veloso, Jr. V CA GR No.116680

    Uploaded by

    Adfat Pandan
    The petitioners filed a case to annul a previous judgment regarding ownership of a lot. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that the issue had already been settled in previous cases between the parties. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petitioners were improperly seeking a second review of a matter that had already been fully adjudicated. Res judicata barred re-litigating the same issue between the same parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Veloso, Jr. V CA GR No.116680

    Uploaded by

    Adfat Pandan
    1K views2 pages
    The petitioners filed a case to annul a previous judgment regarding ownership of a lot. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that the issue had already been settled in previous cases between the parties. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petitioners were improperly seeking a second review of a matter that had already been fully adjudicated. Res judicata barred re-litigating the same issue between the same parties.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Veloso, Jr. v CA GR No.116680

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners filed a case to annul a previous judgment regarding ownership of a lot. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that the issue had already been settled in previous cases between the parties. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petitioners were improperly seeking a second review of a matter that had already been fully adjudicated. Res judicata barred re-litigating the same issue between the same parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Veloso, Jr. V CA GR No.116680

    Uploaded by

    Adfat Pandan
    The petitioners filed a case to annul a previous judgment regarding ownership of a lot. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that the issue had already been settled in previous cases between the parties. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petitioners were improperly seeking a second review of a matter that had already been fully adjudicated. Res judicata barred re-litigating the same issue between the same parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PANDAN, Philip Angelo S.

    TITLE: Veloso, Jr. v CA, GR no. 116680, August 28, 1996


    NICOLAS VELOSO, JR., CONCEPCION VELOSO PATALINGHUG, EDUARDO VELOSO, LIGAYA
    VELOSO ROA, RAFAEL VELOSO, EMERENCIANA VELOSO CABIGON, DOMINGO VELOSO
    and EMMANUEL VELOSO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR.
    14, BAYBAY, LEYTE, CORSINI MIRAFLOR AVELLANA, AUREO PEALOSA MIRAFLOR,
    EDDIE PENALOSA MIRAFLOR and DOUGLAS PEALOSA MIRAFLOR, respondents.
    Ponente: Justice Bellosillo
    Petition: for review on centiorari of the decision of Court of Appeals.
    Topics: Res Judicata
    Doctrines and Provisions:
    Res Judicata: the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", a case in which there has been a final
    judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued
    litigation of a case on same issues between the same parties.
    Facts:

    September 12, 1988, Respondents Corsini Miraflor Avellana, Aureo Pealosa Miraflor, Eddie
    Pealosa Miraflor and Douglas Pealosa Miraflor filed a complaint for quieting of title with
    damages against Nicolas Veloso Sr. and petitioners Nicolas Veloso Jr., Concepcion Veloso
    Patalinghug, Eduardo Veloso, Ligaya Veloso Roa, Rafael Veloso, Emerenciana Veloso Cabigon,
    Domingo Veloso and Emmanuel Veloso before the Regional Trial Court. The subject matter of the
    complaint was Lot No. 8422-F covered by TCT No. 22393 in the name of Crispina Pealosa
    Miraflor, deceased mother of respondents.
    August 31, 1990, RTC decided in favor of the respondents.
    May 28, 1992, CA affirmed RTCs decision.
    October 12, 1992, Supreme Court reaffirmed CA and RTCs decision.
    September 20, 1993, Petitioners seek annulment of the decision from CA.
    July 24, 1994, CA ruled against petitioners as it found that the controversy had already been
    settled by this Court and that the contention that the trial court did not have "any power or
    authority to amend, alter or modify the decision of a co-equal court, the then Court of First
    Instance of Leyte, Br. III and Br. VIII," should have been raised in the previous proceedings.

    Issues and Holdings:


    1. Whether or not CA erred in refusing to declare the decision of the trial court void for having been
    rendered allegedly in violation of the doctrines of res judicata and the law of the case?
    No, CA is correct in refusing the petition. The cases petitioner has mentioned is a
    different case all together, and is not being overlapped by the previous case. The first case (R205) the lot (Lot No. 8422-F) is not a part of the decision; while the second case (B-122) has
    different defendants who has not taken part on the case (B-1043) at hand.

    Now under the guise of a petition for annulment of judgment, petitioners in effect are
    seeking a second cycle of review regarding a subject matter which has already been fully and
    fairly adjudicate. That cannot be allowed
    Ruling:
    The petition is DENIED. The decision of respondent Court of Appeals dated 29 July 1994 is
    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like