Res Judicata

In her Complaint in Civil Case No. 276, respondent already alleged her right to redemption and prayed, among others, the RTC-Branch 55 to order respondent legally entitled to redeem the subject property for the price of P52,000.00. The Decision dated May 8, 1996 of the RTC-Branch 55 neither discussed respondent’s right to redemption nor ordered in its decretal portion for petitioners to accept respondent’s offer to redeem the subject property. In consonance with the provisions of Rule 39, Section 47 of the Rules of Court cited above, we hold that all the matters within the issues raised in Civil Case No. 276 were laid before RTC-Branch 55 and passed upon by it. Resultantly, the silence of the Decision dated May 8, 1996 in Civil Case No. 276 on respondent’s right to redemption invoked by the latter does not mean that RTC-Branch 55 did not take cognizance of the same, but rather, that RTC-Branch 55 did not deem respondent entitled to said right.

We stress that res judicata, in the concept of bar by prior judgment, renders the judgment or final order conclusive between the parties and their privies, not just with respect to a matter directly adjudged, but also any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto

(Tobias Selga, et al. Vs. Sony Entierro Brar, represented by her Attorney-in-fact Marina T. Entierro, G.R. No. 175151. September 21, 2011).