An issue in a case once decided by the court can no longer be the subject of a subsequent case between the same parties.

“The principle of res judicata holds that an existing final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit.

“For res judicata to apply, the following elements must concur: (a) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (b) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.”

But is this principle a hard-and-fast rule? No exception? In the present case, the Supreme Court held that res judicata does not apply if the first judgment is void.

“To recapitulate, spouses Joson argued that petitioners’ complaint can no longer be re-litigated in view of the finality of: (a) the First RTC Decision which upheld the validity of the Amicable Settlement between Jovino and Vivencio; and (b) the Second RTC Decision which decreed that Vivencio has the better right of possession over the subject property considering the binding effect of the Amicable Settlement.

“Spouses Joson posited, therefore, that the finality of these decisions constitutes a bar to petitioners’ complaint based on the principle of res judicata. The Court is not convinced. The Court elucidated in Imperial v. Hon. Armes that a void judgment never becomes final. Verily, it cannot produce legal effects and cannot be perpetuated by a simple reference to the principle of immutability of final judgment. It also follows that such void judgment cannot constitute a bar to another case by reason of res judicata.

“Here, petitioners were issued four emancipation patents on 15 July 1988 pursuant to PD 27. Subsequently, on 17 September 1992, Jovino surrendered their tenancy rights over the subject property to Vivencio in exchange for monetary consideration through the Amicable Settlement.

“The validity of this Amicable Settlement was later upheld in the First RTC Decision, which became the basis for the trial court’s ruling in the Second RTC Decision finding Vivencio to be the lawful possessor of the subject property. However, it is clear that pursuant to Lim, Torres, and Filinvest, the transfer made by Jovino to Vivencio through the Amicable Settlement is void for being made in violation of PD 27 and RA 6657 which provides a 10-year prohibition on sale, transfer, or conveyance of lands awarded to tenant-farmers.

“The acts of RTC Br. 38 and RTC Br. 39 in issuing these judgments outside the contemplation of law constitute grave abuse of discretion tantamount to a lack or an excess of jurisdiction, thus rendering the same void. Consequently, the First and Second RTC Decisions did not become final and immutable. With the foregoing considered, it becomes clear that the instant case is not barred by res judicata since the first element — the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final — is wanting.”

The redacted quoted portion of the decision is from Ernesto Jovino et al. versus Spouses Jose Joson and Jovita Joson, (G.R. No. 233909 11 November 2024).