PERKINS V. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, ET AL.

, L-1981-82, MAY 28, 1954

FACTS:

This is a case of a friendly partition of party between the spouses Perkins, foreigners. The subject property for partition
includes 24,000 share of stocks found here in the Philippines. A case for partition was initiated here in the Philippines.
The Philippine Court ruled that the 24,000 shared of stocks are not exclusive properties of Mrs. Perkins but a community
property. Later on, Mr. Perkins litigate the ownership under the New York Court which ruled that the Stocks are actually
exclusive properties of Mrs. Perkins.

ISSUE: WON Mr. Perkins abandoned the decision of the Philippine Court in instituting a case under the New York Court.
(Yes)

HELD:

The Court of Appeal decided that these shares with all their dividends were the exclusive property of the defendant
Idonah Slade Perkins. When the applicant went to the New York Court to litigate the ownership and ownership of the
Benguet stock certificates, he abandoned the decision of the Philippine Court, waiving the rights awarded to him; if he
had obtained a favorable decision, it is evident that he would be satisfied and oblige the other party to comply; to allow
the plaintiff today to disobey it, only because it is contrary to their interests, is to subvert all sense of justice, especially
since he was the plaintiff, the plaintiff in the second action. He should not be allowed today to challenge the sentence
passed against him in a matter that he promoted; that he litigates for the third time for the possession and ownership of
the same certificates of shares with his dividends and that he be granted another sentence equal to that which he
obtained in the Court of the Philippines, which he later abandoned; it could promote a fourth cause and even
subsequent ones as long as it does not obtain a sentence to its full satisfaction. Other jurisdictions hold the same
criteria.

According to the first cause of action and the decision obtained by the plaintiff in Manila, he was only co-owner of the
24,000 shares, or owner of half of them, with the right to own all of them as administrator of the joint property. When
he requested in his amended claim that he be declared the owner of the 24,000 shares, he necessarily abandoned the
judgment declaring that said shares were joint property; by requesting that he be declared the legal owner of the
shares, he again opened the suit over the ownership of said shares, considering the decision of the Manila courts to be
useless and of no value. That the abandonment of said decision is evident; He asked that he be declared the owner of
the 24,000 shares, instead of asking that the New York Court be ordered to comply with and execute the sentence he
had obtained in the Philippines.

As to the Doctrine of Res Judicata -

The doctrine of res judicata is primarily one of public policyand only secondarily of private benefit to individual litigants.
It draws its strength not so much from the private advantage of the party seeking to invoke it, but its roots lie in the
principle that public policy and welfare require a definite end to litigation when each of the parties has had a full, free
and untrammeled opportunity of presenting all of the facts pertinent to the controversy. The primary object of res
judicata (public policy) is based upon the maxim reapublicae ut sitis litis - it concerns the commonwelt that there is a
limit to litigation.

The execution of a foreign judgment should not be confused with the exception of res judicata . There is a difference
between requesting in the Philippines the fulfillment of a foreign decision (enforcement of foreeign judgment) and
presenting the defense of res judicata . Ordering the fulfillment of a foreign sentence implies a direct act of sovereignty;
recognizing the exception of res judicata only intervenes the sense of justice;