Application to set aside an Injunction
Cassation File No. 182044 / 220980
Incidental Proceeding (Injunction): A decision rendered on an application to set aside an injunction pursuant to Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Code does not constitute a final judgment on the merits of the case. Since such a decision does not provide a final adjudication regarding the ownership of the property, it does not preclude the filing of a subsequent suit for ownership. Incidental proceedings do not have the effect of res judicata on the main suit.
Cassation File No. 220980
A decision given on an application to set aside an injunction under Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Code is not a final judgment on the merits; therefore, it does not constitute res judicata.
Application for Execution
Cassation File No. 182361
An application for execution filed to enforce a right established by a judgment cannot be dismissed on the grounds of res judicata (as a matter previously adjudicated).
An execution proceeding is an integral part of the original judgment and does not constitute a new suit.
Difference in the Subject Matter of the Dispute
Cassation File No. 197368
Difference in Contractual Basis: An objection raised on the grounds of lis pendens (pendency of a suit in another court) under Article 244(2)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code is inadmissible if the two suits are based on distinct contracts (e.g., a partnership agreement versus a lease agreement).
Even if the suits share a common issue, if their underlying contractual bases are different, the principle of res judicata shall not apply.
Cassation File No. 221446
A prior decision regarding a suit for the liquidation of an estate (succession) does not preclude a subsequent petitory action (action for recovery of property). This is because the cause of action and the fundamental issues of the two proceedings are entirely distinct.
Possessory Actions vs. Petitory Actions
Cassation File No. 198022
Possessory vs. Ownership Actions: If a prior judgment concerned a suit for the removal of interference (possessory action), a subsequent suit for ownership (petitory action) cannot be barred as a matter already adjudicated (res judicata) under Article 5 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The principle of finality of judgments does not apply when the causes of action of the two types of suits are different.
Cassation File No. 182044
Principle of Possessory and Ownership Disputes: A suit is not barred if the issues are distinct. A suit for the removal of interference and a suit for ownership do not share the same cause of action or issues. Therefore, a prior decision on a possessory action should not bar an ownership claim under Article 5 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Cassation File No. 90713
(Possessory Action vs. Petitory Action): Where a suit for the removal of interference was previously filed and dismissed on the grounds that no interference existed, a subsequent petitory action for the restitution of the property based on different facts shall not be closed as res judicata, as the issues to be determined in the two proceedings are different.
Cassation File No. 207956
A suit for the removal of interference (Possessory Action) and a suit for the restitution of property (Petitory Action) have distinct causes of action and issues. Dismissing a current petitory action on the grounds that it arises from the same cause of action as a previously decided possessory action constitutes a fundamental error of law that must be corrected. The legal bases for the two suits are different.
Cassation File No. 110622
The dismissal of a prior suit for the removal of interference does not preclude the respondent (the child) from instituting another suit based on a claim of ownership. This is because a decision on a possessory action does not explicitly adjudicate the matter of ownership.