Appeals by Riano

Remedial Law: Civil Procedure by Dean Williard Riano

JUDGMENTS

1. When a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. The court loses jurisdiction over the judgment to amend (except for clerical errors) or alter the same BUT it retains jurisdiction to EXECTE it during its lifetime (Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. vs. Mayfair Theater, 332 SCRa 139 [2000]; NHA vs. Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo, 404 SCRA 389).

2. When the trial court orders payment of attorney fees NOT decreed in the judgment such variance with the terms of the judgment, renders the order void. (Lizardo, Sr. vs. Montana, 332 SCRA 163)

3. A judgment upon a compromise has all the force and effect of any other judgment, hence, conclusive upon the parties and their privies. (Golden Donuts vs. NLRC, 322 SCRA 294).

A judicial compromise, once stamped with judicial approval becomes more than a mere contract binding upon them and having the sanction of the court and entered as its determination of the controversy. It has the force and effect of any judgment (Yulienco vs. CA, 386 SCRA 30). It has the effects of res judicata, is immediately executory, and not appealable. The remedy is to file a motion to set aside the compromise on any ground vitiating the consent like

fraud, duress or mistake. (Salvador vs. Ortoll, October 18, 2000). While a judicial compromise has the effect of res judicata, it cannot be executed, except in compliance with a judicial compromise (Art. 2037, Civil Code of the Philippines).

4. The law of the case doctrine means that whatever has been irrevocably established as the controlling rule of decision between the same parties n the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct or not, so long as the facts of which such decision was predicated continues to be the facts of the case before the court (Ducat vs. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRa 69).

5. The entry of judgment refers to the physical act performed by clerk of court in entering the dispositive portion of the judgment in the book of entries of judgment after the same has become final executory. Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Sec. 2, Rule 36), the date of the entry of judgment is the date when the judgment becomes final and executory regardless of the date when the physical act of entry was done.

BEA 1946 1


REMEDIES AGAINST A JUDGMENT

(BEFORE a Judgment Becomes Final and Executory)

Motion for Reconsideration (Rule 37)

This is filed within the period of appeal based on any of the following grounds:

a) Damages are excessive;b) Evidence is insufficient; or thatc) The decision or order is contrary to law (Sec. 1, Rule 37, Rules of Court).

The motion shall be in writing and notice thereof must be given to the adverse party. It must also contain a notice of hearing. In other words, it must comply with the rules on motion. If does not, it will be considered only a pro-forma motion and will not have the effect of suspending or interrupting the period to appeal. The suspension of the period for appeal presupposes that the motion is not pro-forma.

The motion shall point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law. Mere general assertions that a ground for reconsideration exists will not suffice, otherwise the motion shall be deemed a mere pro forma motion.

If the motion is granted, the court may amend the judgment or final order accordingly. If the motion is denied, do not appeal from the order denying the motion. An order denying a motion for reconsideration is not appealable (Sec. 9, Rule 37). The REMEDY is to appeal from the judgment or final order pursuant to the provision of Sec. 9 of Rule 37.

BEA 1946 2


A second motion for reconsideration is not allowed under Sec. 5 of Rule 37. This prohibition applies to a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order and does not refer to a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order where the court may allow even more than one motion for reconsideration.

A motion for reconsideration under Rule 37 cannot be used as a vehicle to introduce new evidence. If you want to introduce new evidence, the remedy is to file a motion for new trial. (Cansino vs. CA, 409, SCRA 403).

Motion for New Trial(Rule 37)

This is filed within the period to appeal based on:

- Fraud- Accident- Mistake or - Excusable negligence (FAMEN).

Here the movant alleges that he was prevented from fully participating in the proceedings or he was prevented from taking an appeal because of any of the grounds mentioned. If he alleges fraud, he must only allege extrinsic fraud, not intrinsic fraud. This fraud must be one employed to prevent the movant from ventilating his side in the proceedings. The use of forged document by a party is not the fraud contemplated as extrinsic and cannot therefore, be a ground for a motion for new trial.

Another ground is new discovered evidence which could not have been discovered and produced at the trial.

When the ground is FAMEN, the motion must be supported by an affidavit of merit. When the ground relied upon is newly discovered evidence, no affidavit of merit is required. Instead, it shall be supported by affidavits of witnesses or by duly authenticated documents.

BEA 1946 3


If the motion for new trial is granted , the original judgment shall be vacated and the action shall stand for trial de novo. The recorded evidence in the former trials shall be used at the new trial without need for retaking the same as long as that evidence is material and competent to establish the issues.

If the motion is denied , do not appeal the order denying the motion for new trial. This is because the order is not appealable (Sec. 9 Rule 37). The REMEDY is to appeal from the judgment or final order. (Sec 9, Rule 37)

The “fresh period rule” – If the motion for reconsideration or motion for new trial is denied, the movant has a new period of 15 days to file an appeal if he so desires, counted from receipt of the notice or order denying the motion. Hence, if he files a motion for reconsideration on the 10th day from notice of the judgment and the motion is denied, he does not have only the remainder of the 15 day period to appeal, but a fresh period of 15 days to file his appeal.

Appeal from Judgment ofMTC (Rule 40)

An appeal from a judgment or final order of an MTC shall be taken to the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the area.

The appeals is taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the judgment, which is the MTC. Do not file the notice of appeal with the RTC. In cases involving a special proceeding or in case of multiple appeals, a record on appeal shall be required. Copies of the notice of appeal and the record on appeal shall be served on the adverse party. Within the period for appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the MTC the full amount of the appellate docket fee and other lawful fees.

Periods for appeal: 15 days in case of by notice of appeal;30 days in case record on appeal is required.

BEA 1946 4


Period is counted from the notice of judgment.

A party’s notice of appeal is deemed perfected upon the filing of notice of appeal in due time. In appeals by notice of appeal, the appeal is deemed perfected upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time.In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeal in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.

In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.

If the trial loses jurisdiction over the case in accordance with the preceding paragraphs, does this mean that the trial court can no longer issue orders related the case?

The court can as long as the orders are done PRIOR to the transmittal of the original records or record on appeal. Thus, under the doctrine of residual jurisdiction, the trial court may order:

1. an execution of the judgment pending appeal,2. approve compromises,3. permit appeals of indigent litigants, or4. allow a withdrawal of an appeal (Sec. 9, Rule 41 as applied to Rule 40 per Sec. 4,

Rule 40).

If the MTC dismisses a case pursuant to a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the dismissal is made without a trial on the merits. The plaintiff may appeal from the order of dismissal because an order dismissing the action is final in character. If on appeal , the RTC finds that the MTC correctly dismissed the complaint because it is the RTC

BEA 1946 5


which has jurisdiction, the RTC shall affirm the dismissal but is mandated to TRY the case on the merits AS IF it was originally filed with it (Sec. 8, Rule 40).

The same rule as above applies where the case was tried on the merits in the lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter. This means that the court shall also assume jurisdiction over the case as if it was originally filed with it. The RTC may however, allow amendment of the pleading and admit additional evidence despite the previous trial in the court below.

The RTC will require the appellant to file a memorandum. Failure to file a memorandum is a ground for dismissal of the appeal (Sec. 7, Rule 40).

Appeal from the RTC to the CA(Rule 41)

An appeal from the RTC may be by:

a.) ordinary appeal under Rule 41;b.) petition for review under Rule 42; orc.) appeal by certiorari/petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45

The appeal called ordinary appeal is one made from a judgment of the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. This type of appeal is made by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment. If record on appeal is required, the appeal period is 30 days.

BEA 1946 6


Petition for Reviewfrom RTC to the CA(Rule 42)

This mode of appeal applies when the decision of the RTC appealed from is one decided by it in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

This means that the case originated from the MTC and appealed to the RTC (Posadas-Moya vs. Greenfield Development Corp., 403 SCRA 530).

In filing a petition for review, a notice of appeal is not required. The appeal is done by filing a verified petition for review directly with the Court of appeals.

Petition by Certiotari/ Petition for Review on Certiorari fromthe RTC to the Supreme Court (Rule 45)

When the appeal raises pure questions of law, the appeal should be addressed to the Supreme Court. A question of law arises when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts. A case, which does not raise purely questions of law, does not merit attention of the Supreme Court (Cebu Women’s Club vs. De le Victoria, 327 SCRA 533).

Questions of fact are not proper subjects of this kind of appeal (Larena vs. Mapili, GR. No. 146341, August 7, 2003).

Note:

In a Rule 45 appeal from a decision in a petition for writ of amparo or habeas data, questions of fact may be raised.

A questions of law exists when there is no doubt or controversy on what the law is on a certain state of facts. There is question of fact when the doubt or difference arises from the truth or the falsity of the allegations of facts (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, GR. No. 102508, January 30, 2002).

BEA 1946 7


In this mode of appeal, the petitioner does not have to pass the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court reviews only errors of law, not errors of fact. This is the general rule, unless the Court finds conflicts in the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals and the trial court. In this case the Supreme Court may review the findings of facts of the courts below.

Note that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. It is merely a procedural remedy of statutory origin. There is not right to appeal unless there is a law which authorizes it (Neplum vs. Orbeso, 384 SCRA 468).

Appellate courts may not generally entertain questions of law or fact not raised in the lower courts for that would constitute a change of theory not permissible on appeal (Capacite vs. Baroro, GR No. 154184, July 8, 2003).

Appeals from quasi-judicial bodies

Appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial bodies/agencies are now required to be brought to the Court of Appeals under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43. This rule was adopted precisely to provide a uniform rule of appellate procedure from quasi-judicial bodies (Carpol vs Sulu Resource Development Corp., GR No. 148267, August 8, 2002).

Appeals from the NLRC

Judgments of the NLRC are to be brought first to the CA by way of petition for certiorari under Rule 65 not under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court (St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494)

BEA 1946 8


Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan

Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by way of petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raising pure questions of law. Certiorari under Rule 65 is not the remedy (People vs. Espinosa, GR. Nos 153714, August 15, 2003)

(Remedies AFTER the Judgment Becomes Final and Executory)

Petition for Relief (Rule 38)

This remedy is availed only when the petition can no longer appeal because the period for appeal has already elapsed. This is a verified petition filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment AND not more than six (6)months after such judgment or final order was entered. These period must concur.

The petitioner should invoke any of FAMEN. Of course, an affidavit of merit is indispensable here. It serves as the jurisdictional basis for the court to entertain the petition. This is filed in the same court and in the same case not in a higher court because this is not a mode of appeal.

Remember that the petition for relief is filed after the period for appeal has lapsed, hence, the judgment is at that point, already final and executor. The mere filing of a petition for relief does not stay the execution of the judgment. It does not stay the execution of the judgment. This is because the judgment is already final and executory and can be subject to execution by mere motion. To Stay Execution, A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD BE AVAILED OF OR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER under Rule 58 (Sec 5, Rule 38)

BEA 1946 9


A petition for relief will not be entertained where the failure of the petitioner to appeal is due to his fault or negligence.

Annulment of Judgment(Rule 47)

This remedy is available only where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner (Sec. 1, Rule 47). Hence, if such remedies were not availed of due to the petitioner’s fault, the petition will be dismissed. Grounds:

a.) Extrinsic fraud; and b.) Lack of jurisdiction.

If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery.If based on lack of jurisdiction, it must be brought before the action is barred by laches or estoppels. (Sec. 2, Sec, 4. Rule 47, Rules of Court).

Certiorari (Rule 65) Called A “Supervisory Or Superintending Writ”, This Remedy Is Availed Of To Annul Or Modify The Proceedings Of A Tribunal, Board Or Officer Exercising Judicial Or Extra-Judicial Functions Which Has Acted Without Or An Excess Of Jurisdiction, Or With Grave Abuse Of Discretion Amounting To Lack Of Jurisdiction.

For This Petition To Prosper, It Is Necessary To Allege And Show That There Is No More Appeal, Or Any Other Plain, Speedy, And Adequate Remedy In The Ordinary Course Of Law.

As A Rule, Where Appeal Is Available, Certiorari Cannot Be Availed Of Unless, It Can Be Shown That Appeal Is Not Speedy, Or Adequate. Hence, The Basic Question

BEA 1946 10


To Be Considered Is: Does The Petitioner Have The Remedy To Appeal Or Any Other Remedy Available? If The Answer Is YES, Certiorari Is Not Available, As A Rule.

However, Even If Appeal Is Available, If It Is Not Adequate, Speedy Or Equally Beneficial As Certiorari, A Petition For Certiorari Maybe Availed Of (Landbank Vs. CA, 409 SCRA 455).In Other Words, A Petitioner Must First Exhaust All Other Remedies Available Before Resorting To Certiorari. For example, if he can file a motion for reconsideration, then he must do so instead of certiorari. (Pilipino Tel. Corp., vs NTC, GR No. 138295, August 28, 2003). Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive (Conejos vs. CA, 386 SCRA 142).

The task of a court in a certiorari proceeding is to determine whether the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion (Marcopper Mining vs. Solidbank Corporation, 434 SCRA 134). It is a remedy narrow in scope. It is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop. Its function is to raise only questions of jurisdiction and not other. It cannot be used for any other purpose (Lanbank of the Philippines. Vs CA, 409 SCRA 455). Do not file certiorari if your purpose is to raise a factual issue or to ask a re- evaluation of the facts and the evidence (PILTEL vs NTC, 410 SCRA 82) because this is not a mode of appeal where you raise errors of judgment of a court.

The petition shall be filed not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case of a motion for reconsideration was filed, the 60-day period starts from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration and not from the notice of judgment (Docena vs. Lapesura, 355 SCRA 658).

Certiorari cannot be availed of where the facts complained of merely constitute errors of judgment. Even if the order of judgment is erroneous as long as the court acted within the bounds of its authority, certiorari is not the remedy (Microsoft Corp. vs.

BEA 1946 11


Best Deal Computer Center Corp., 389 SCRA 615) Errors of judgments are correctible by appeal.

In filing for a petition for certiorari, the hierarchy of courts must be observed. Hence, even though the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the CA and the RTC to issue a writ of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari, litigants are advised against taking direct recourse to the SC without initially seeking proper relief from the lower courts. (Carpio vs. sulu Resources Dev. Corp., 386, SCRA 128).The filing of a petition for certiorari, does not interrupt the proceedings in the lower courts if no preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order is obtained enjoining the said court from further proceeding with the case. In the absence of an injunction or a TRO, the public respondent (court or tribunal) shall proceed with the principal case within ten (10) days from the filing of the petition. Failure to proceed may be a ground for an administrative charge. (Sec. 7, Rule 65 as amended by AM No 07-7-12-SC).

Do not confuse certiorari under Rule 45 from certiorari under Rule 65. The following are some of the distinctions.

A motion for reconsideration is required before filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. This is a well-settled rule. Without a motion for reconsideration, the

BEA 1946 12

RULE 45

raises pure questions of lawis a mode of appealis directed against a final judgment or ordersis filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of judgmentrequires no prior motion for reconsideration

RULE 65

raises questions of jurisdictiona special civil actionmay be directed against interlocutory ordersis filed within sixty (60) days

does requite it as a rule


petition may be outrightly denied. There are exceptions to this rule. Under the exceptions, a motion for reconsideration will not be required. Examples:

a.) when the order is a patent nullity;b.) where the issue raised has been passed upon the court below;c.) in case of urgency because any delay would prejudice the rights of the

petitioner;d.) where the subject matter is perishable.

BEA 1946 13


EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS

1. Execution shall issue as a matter of right when the judgment becomes final and executory. A motion for execution has to be filed by the prevailing party. (Sec. 1 Rule 39, rules of Court). When a judgment becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of execution (Torres vs. NLRC, 330 SCRA 311 [20000]).

2. May a judgment be executed pending appeal? It may be executed despite the pendency of the appeal as long as there are good reasons to be stated in the special order and after due hearing. This execution pending appeal is called discretionary execution. (Sec. 2, Rule 39; Future Guarantee and Insurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 1110701, March 12, 2002).

How can a discretionary execution be stayed? The party against whom the discretionary execution is directed should file a supersedeas bond conditioned upon the performance of the judgment allowed to be executed in case it is finally sustained. (Sec. 3, Rule 39).

Assume that the judgment executed pending appeal is reverse totally or partially on appeal, what shall the trial court do? The trial court, upon motion, shall

issue an order of restitution or reparation as equity and justice may warrant (Sec. 4, Rule 39).

3. How does a final and executory judgment executed? If within five (5) years from the date of entry, the judgment may be executed by mere motion.

After five (5) years, the judgment may be enforced only by filing an action to revive the judgment (Sec. 6, Rule 39).

4. Normally, an appeal stays a judgment. Under the Rules, the following judgments shall be immediately executory and shall be enforceable after their rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal taken therefrom:

- Judgments in injunction- Receivership- Accounting and support (Sec. 3, Rule 39)

5. An erroneous judgment is a valid judgment if the errors are not brought to the attention of a higher court through appeal. Errors of judgment are correctible by appeal. There is an error of judgment where the error is in the appreciation of the facts and the evidence. Where the error is one of jurisdiction, appeal is not the remedy, but certiorari.

BEA 1946 14


6. An order of execution is not appealable (Sec. 1(e), rule 41). A party who desires to assail an order of execution may instead file the appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 like certiorari (Sec. 1, last par., Rule 41).

7. In executing a judgment for money, the sheriff shall demand from the judgment obligor the full amount in cash or certified check payable to the judgment debtor.

If the judgment debtor has no cash or check, the officer shall levy upon his properties but the judgment debtor has the option to choose which property shall be levied upon.

If the option is not exercised, the officer shall first levy on the personal properties and then other properties if the personal properties are not sufficient (Sec. 9(b), Rule 39).

The officer may also levy upon the bank deposits of the debtor, royalties, commissions, or his credits and others not capable of manual delivery by serving notice upon the person in possession of the same. This is called garnishment (Sec. 9©, Rule 39).

8. If the judgment is one for the delivery of real property like in unlawful detainer or forcible entry, the officer shall demand upon the occupant to

vacat4 the property within three (3) working days (Sec. 10 9c), Rule 39).

The officer cannot require the occupant to vacate on the same day the writ is executed even if a judgment in ejectment is immediately executory. Immediacy of execution doe not mean instant execution.

If the occupant does not vacate despite the three-day notice, it is not correct to file contempt proceedings against the occupant. Contempt is not a means of enforcing a judgment as a rule. The writ is not directed to the occupant but to the sheriff. By not vacating, the occupant did not violate the writ. What he violated was the notice to the Sheriff. The remedy of the sheriff is to oust the occupant with the aid, if necessary, of law enforcement officers. (Barete vs. Amila, 230 SCRA 219; Pascua vs. Heirs of Segundon Simeon, 161 SCRA 1).

If however, after being ejected from the property, the occupant later attempts to enter, actuallyenters or induces another to enter the property from which he was ejected he may be liable for indirect contempt (Sec. 3(b) Rule 71, Rules of Court).

9. Note that, when the judgment directs the judgment obligor to perform an act other than the payment of money or the delivery of personal or real property, this judgment is categorized as a special judgments and if not complied with may be a basis

BEA 1946 15


for contempt (Sec 11, Rule 39). Thus, if an officer disobeys a writ of mandamus, he may be punished for contempt.

10. You are advised to look into those properties exempt from execution under Sec. 13 of Rule 39. Note however, that although the properties enumerated there are exempt from execution, they are not exempt if they are subject to execution because of non-payment of their price if acquired through a sale or if they are subject to forclosure of a mortgage on the property.

11. If the property levied upon the sheriff is owned or claimed by a third person, the claimant may make an affidavit of his title to the property levied upon stating therein the grounds for his claim or assertion of right.

The affidavit shall be served upon the officer making the levy with copy of the same given to the judgment. This process is called terceria.

Upon receipt of the affidavit, the officer shall discontinue with the levy. However, the officer may proceed if the judgment oblige protects the officer by posting a bond in a sum not less than the value of the property. If this bond is approved by the court, the officer can continue with the levy.

The remedy of debtor then is to file an action against the sheriff such as an action for damages with preliminary injunction or a TRO or an action for injunction as a main action to protect his rights to the property. This action will not be deemed to be an interference with the court that issued the writ of execution because the suit is against the sheriff performing an illegal act and not directed against the power of the court. The rule allows the third party claimant to vindicate his claim to the property levied upon even in a separate action (Sec. 16, Rule 39, Rules of Court).

12. When the real is property is sold on execution, the judgment obligor has one (1) year from the date of the registration of the sale to redeem the property from the purchaser (Sec. 28, Rule 39). This purchaser is not entitled to the rents, fruits or income of the property pending the redemption and shall belong to the judgment debtor until the expiration of his period of redemption (Sec. 32, Rule 39).

13. When the return of the writ of execution shows that the judgment remains unsatisfied, the judgment creditor may ask from the court an order requiring the judgment debtor to appear so he may be examined as to his properties (Sec. 36, Rule 39). The court may also require the appearance of person or corporation who holds property for the judgment debtor or is a debtor of the latter (Sec. 37, Rule 39).

BEA 1946 16


There is however, a limitation to this remedy. The judgment obligor cannot be required to appear before a court which is outside the province or city where the debtor resides. Thus, a Quezon City court cannot require the appearance of a debtor residing in Bulacan (Sec. 36, Rule 39). Also the debtors of the judgment debtor or a corporation or person who holds property of the debtor cannot be required to appear outside the city or province of his/its residence (Sec. 37, Rule 39). 14. The purchaser or a redemptioner shall not be entitled to receive the rents, earnings and income of the property sold on execution, or the value of the use and occupation thereof when such property is in the possession of a tenant. All rents, earnings and income derived from the property pending redemption shall belong to the judgment obligor until the expiration of his period of redemption (Sec. 32, Rule 39).

15. When a judgment is rendered against a party who stands as a surety for another, the latter is also bound from the time he has notice of the action or proceeding, and an opportunity at the surety’s request to join in the defense (Sec. 46, Rule 39).

16. The effect of a judgment or final rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:

(a) In case of a judgment or final order against a specific thing or in respect to the person, political, or legal condition or status of a particular person or his relationship to another, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will or administration, or the condition, status or relationship of the person; however, the probate of a will or granting of letters of administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death of the testator or intestate.

(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; and

(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto (Sec. 47, Rule 39).

BEA 1946 17


17. The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render judgment or final order is as follows:

(a) in case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title to the thing; and

(b) in case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.

In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact (Sec. 48, Rule 39).

BEA 1946 18

Appeals by Riano

Documents

Transcript of Appeals by Riano