MENDIOLA vs CA

FACTS:
1987, Ms. Norma S. Nora convinced Rogelio Mendiola to enter into a joint venture with her for
the exort of rawns. !s roosed "# Ms. Nora, the# were to secure financing from rivate
resondent $hiliine National %an&. 'he credit line was to "e secured "# collaterals consisting
of real estate roerties of the etitioner, articularl# two ()* arcels of land, situated in Mari&ina.
1988, Mendiola signed a Secial $ower of !ttorne# authori+ing Ms. Norma S. Nora to mortgage
his aforementioned roerties to $N% in order to secure the o"ligations of the joint venture with
the said "an& of u to , Million $esos.
'he lanned joint venture "ecame a failure even "efore it could ta&e off the ground. %ut, in the
meantime, Ms. Norma S. Nora, on the strength of the secial ower of attorne# issued in her
favor, o"tained loans from $N% in the amount of $8,1-1,..-./) for the account of etitioner and
secured "# the arcels of land hereina"ove descri"ed.
1988, Mendiola "elatedl# revo&ed the secial ower of attorne# in favor of Ms. Nora and
re0uested $N% to release his roerties from mortgage. $etitioner was notified that $N% had
initiated forecloseroceedings against the roerties of the etitioner.
1989, Mendiola filed injunction case against $N%. $N1 moved to dismiss.
R'2 R34516
o 7ranted $N%8s motion to dismiss "ecause the comlaint does not state a sufficient cause
of action, it follows therefore that the ra#er, for issuance of the writ of reliminar#
injunction has no leg to stand on.
2! dismissed the aeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CA erred in dismissing the petition?
Whether or not res judicata has already set in the case?
HELD:
No.
Yes.
RATIO:
'he instant etition has now "ecome moot and academic, "ecause the first case, which is an
alication for injunction filed "# herein etitioner Regional 'rial 2ourt, $asig 2it# against
rivate resondent $N% to revent the latter from foreclosing his real roerties, and which was
then ending aeal "efore the court a quo at the time the second action was filed, has now "een
finall# dismissed "# the resondent 2ourt of !eals.
2onse0uentl#, the instant etition which ra#s for the declaration of nullit# of the auction
sale "# $N% of rivate resondent9s roerties "ecomes dismissi"le under the rincile of
res judicata.
'here is :"ar "# former judgment: when, "etween the first case where the judgment was
rendered, and the second case where such judgment is invo&ed, there is identit# of arties, su"ject
matter and cause of action. ;hen the three identities are resent, the judgment on the merits
rendered in the first constitutes an a"solute "ar to su"se0uent action. <t is final as to the claim or
demand in controvers#, including the arties and those in rivit# with them, not onl# as to ever#
matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, "ut as to an#
other admissi"le matter which might have "een offered for that urose. %ut where "etween the
first case wherein judgment is rendered and the second case wherein such judgment is invo&ed,
there is no identit# of cause of action, the judgment is conclusive in the second case, onl# as to
those matters actuall# and directl# controverted and determined, and not as to matters merel#
involved therein. 'his is what is termed conclusiveness of judgment.