Supreme Court Judgement of March 10, 2011.
SECOND .- The first and second grounds of appeal alleging the violation of the provisions of sections 222 and 400.2 of the Act Civil Procedure, to understand the appellant that had seen the concurrence of the doctrine of res judicata.
The contested decision addressed the study of the exception in point of law first and, after reflecting the jurisprudence of this Court on the matter, concluded that "applying this doctrine to the case file that are different from the legal relationship on which the dispute arose earlier and held in the same claim, as the Ordinary Judgement 1 / 2002, brought before the Court of 1 st Instance No. 7, Benidorm, was on eviction and payment income, occupy different parts legal situation, and today it was plaintiff who once using the now defendant and appellant of a title or legal reason to ask (the contract contained in a private document of September 24, 1999) whose existence is not even brought out, whatever the reasons for it, in the previous case whose decision today is to enforce the sanctity res judicata pro veritate habetur-of res judicata. "
Such arguments are sufficient to reject the doctrine of res judicata.
More » 
0 comments:
Post a Comment