![]() Review of decree of registration Innocent purchaser for value. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that the test of identity of causes of action lies not in the form of action but in whether the same facts or evidence would support and establish the former and present causes of action. ![]() Moreover, as correctly found by the Court of Appeals, the basis of respondents action was different from that of Mendoza the evidence necessary to sustain the latters claim is separate and distinct from that required to establish respondents cause of action. While Mendoza relied on the Miscellaneous Sales Application as evidence to support his claim, herein respondents would have to present proof of their alleged continuous possession of the Disputed Property as well as fraud in the issuance of the patent and title in favor of the Pea Heirs. Indeed, the records will show that the parties in the two cases have their own rights and interests in relation to the subject matter in litigation. It must be emphasized that respondents are not asserting rights under Mendoza. However, there is substantial identity only when the additional party acts in the same capacity or is in privity with the parties in the former action. This is not so in the present case. True, res judicata does not require absolute but only substantial identity of parties. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |