Practice question
A final judgment resolves one cause between the parties. A later suit asserts a different cause. The opponent identifies an issue that could have been raised in the first case but was not actually adjudicated or necessary there, and relies solely on conclusiveness of judgment. Which is correct?
- The 'could have been raised' claim-bar formulation cannot automatically replace §47(c)'s actual-or-necessary-adjudication requirement in a different-cause case.
- Every conceivable unraised issue is always precluded in every later cause.
- Different causes make all first-case findings irrelevant.
- The first judgment's title proves the issue was decided.
- The later suit automatically wins because its cause differs.
Legal references
- https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/2019-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf — Supreme Court official2019 Rules, Rule39§§47–48 and Rules57–61.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/aug2025/gr_243317_2025.html — Aguila v Perfect Dimension, GR243317, August4 2025, main decision.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.