Summary Judgment (Rule 35) 1. Summary judgment for claimant.

A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof (S1R35) 2. Summary judgment for the defending party. A party against whom a claim, counterclaim or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor as to all or any part thereof (S2R35) 3. Motion and proceedings thereon: (a) The motion shall be served at least ten (10) days before the time specified for the hearing. (b) The adverse party may serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions at least three (3) days before the hearing. (c) After the hearing, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law (S3R35) 4. Section 3 of the said rule provides two (2) requisites for summary judgment to be proper: [a] there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the amount of damages; and [b] the party presenting the motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 5. A summary judgment is proper only when there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. That is, when the facts are not in dispute, the court is allowed to decide the case summarily by applying the law to the material facts. Conversely, where the pleadings tender a genuine issue, summary judgment is not proper. A genuine issue is such fact which requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. 6. Summary judgment; improper when there is genuine issue as to material facts. [ANSWER]: The trial court should have refrained from issuing the summary judgment but instead proceeded to conduct a full blown trial of the case. [LEGAL BASIS]: The SC has held that when the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of trial. [APPLICATION & CONCLUSION]: Here, the variance in the allegations of the parties in their pleadings is evident.1
1

Contested Facts: Petitioner anchors his complaint for sum of money and/or judicial foreclosure on the alleged real estate mortgage over the subject property allegedly entered into by Comandante in behalf of her parents to secure payment of a loan amounting to P1,118,228.00. To support this claim, petitioner attached to his complaint (1) the SPA alleged to have been executed by the Diazes; (2) the Real Estate Mortgage Contract pertaining to the amount of P1,118,228.00; and, (3) a Promissory Note. Comandante, in her Answer, assailed the validity and due execution of the abovementioned documents. She asserted that the same were not duly, knowingly and validly executed by her and that it was petitioner who prepared all of them. Also, although she admitted owing petitioner, same was not an absolute admission as she limited herself to an obligation amounting only to P600,000.00 inclusive of charges and interests. She likewise claimed that such obligation is her personal

Therefore, we find the existence of genuine issues which removes the case from the coverage of summary judgment. In view of this, the present case should be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings and proper disposition according to the rudiments of a regular trial on the merits and not through an abbreviated termination of the case by summary judgment (Atty. Ferrer vs. Spouses Alfredo Diaz, et al. [2010]).

1. Judgments; res judicata; conclusiveness of judgment. x x x x two distinct concepts of res judicata: (1) bar by former judgmentand (2) conclusiveness of judgment. Under the first concept, res judicata absolutely bars any subsequent action when the following requisites concur: (a) the former judgment or order was final; (b) it adjudged the pertinent issue or issues on their merits; (c) it was rendered by a court that had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (d) between the first and the second actions, there was identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action. Where no identity of causes of action but only identity of issues exists, res judicatacomes under the second concept i.e., under conclusiveness of judgment. Under this concept, the rule bars the relitigation of particular facts or issues involving the same parties even if raised under different claims or causes of action. Conclusiveness of judgment finds application when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The fact or question settled by final judgment or order binds the parties to that action (and persons in privity with them or their successors-in-interest), and continues to bind them while the judgment or order remains standing and unreversed x x x x Thus, only the identities of parties and issues are required for the operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment. Here, x x x x we ruled in the ANTECEDENT CASES of Dizon, Ayala y Cia, and De los Angeles, among others, that: the Republic, as the rightful owner of the expanded areas portions of the public domain has the right to place its lessees and permittees (among them Zoila de Chavez) in possession of the fishpond lots whose ownership and possession were in issue in the case. In the PRESENT CASE the parties remain virtually the same with petitioner Hacienda Bigaa taking the place of its predecessors-in-interest Ayala y Cia and/or the Zobels of Hacienda Calatagan, and respondent Epifanio V. Chavez taking the place of his predecessor-in-interest Zoila de Chavez whose possession was under bona fide authority from the Republic. Considering that in this case the disputed lots are among those litigated in the antecedent cases and the issues of ownership and possession are again in issue, the principle of res judicata inevitably must be considered and applied.

obligation and not of her parents. The Diazes, for their part, also denied that they executed the SPA authorizing their daughter to mortgage their property to petitioner as well as having any obligation to the latter.

Res judicata; conclusiveness of judgment. The rule is that when material facts or questions, which were in issue in a former action and were admitted or judicially determined, are conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein, such facts or questions become res judicata and may not again be litigated in a subsequent action between the same parties or their privies regardless of the form of the latter. Jurisprudence provides that the concept ofres judicata embraces two aspects. The first, known as bar by prior judgment, or estoppel by verdict, is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action. The second, known as conclusiveness of judgment, otherwise known as the rule of auter action pendent, ordains that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action. The bar by prior judgment requires the following elements to be present for it to operate: (1) (2) (3) A former final judgment that was rendered on the merits; The court in the former judgment had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and, Identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action between the first and second actions.

In contrast, the elements of conclusiveness of judgment are: 1. 2. Identity of parties; and Subject matter in the first and second cases.

Conclusiveness of judgment does not require identity of the causes of action for it to work. 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 will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit; but the adjudication of an issue in the first case is not conclusive of an entirely different and distinct issue arising in the second. Hence, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different claim or cause of action. Conclusiveness of judgment proscribes the relitigation in a second case of a fact or question already settled in a previous case. The second case, however, may still proceed provided that it will no longer touch on the same fact or question adjudged in the first case. Conclusiveness of judgment requires only the identity of issues and parties, but not of causes of action. The instant petition is denied on the ground of res judicata under the concept of conclusiveness of judgment. Ley Construction & Development Corporation, et al. vs. Philippine Commercial & International Bank, et al., G.R. No. 160841, June 23, 2010

EXECUTION
Execution of judgment; execution upon motion and effect of failure to redeem. The expiration of the one-year redemption period foreclosed petitioners right to redeem the subject property and the sale thereby became absolute. The issuance thereafter of a final certificate of sale is a mere formality and confirmation of the title that is already vested in respondent. Thus, the trial court properly granted the motion for issuance of the final certificate of sale. Jose dela Reyes vs. Josephine Anne B. Ramnani, G.R. No. 169135. June 18, 2010