04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly would constitute res judicata and thus would cause the dismissal of the rest."[50] Thus, when petitioner raised the issue on whether he should be allowed to remain on the subject land until the expiration of FLGLA No. 542, based on his alleged residual rights, he re-opened an issue already discussed and settled in an earlier case. His use of cleverly disguised language does not hide this fact. Clearly, the Supreme Court decision, in G.R. No. 145838, is res judicata in the present case. Therefore, his filing of the present case despite the finality of an earlier identical case makes the present one subject to dismissal. It has been held that res judicata has two concepts: bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgement.[51] The elements under the first concept are the following: (1) a former final judgment that was rendered on the merits; (2) the court in the former judgment had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and, (3) identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action between the first and second actions;[52] On the other hand, for the second concept to operate, or for there to be conclusiveness of judgment, there must be identity of parties and subject matter in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action.[53] If a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment will depend on the determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment between the same parties will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit; but the adjudication of an issue in the first case is not conclusive of an entirely different and distinct issue arising in the second.[54] Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different claim or cause of action.[55] Consequently, the present petition is already barred by res judicata under the first concept, since the first and second cases share identical parties, subject matter and cause of action. The shared cause of action is the alleged violation of petitioner's right to remain on the subject land until the expiry date of FLGLA No. 542 on December 31, 2018. As this issue has been settled, there is no more reason to revisit it in the present case. There is no reason for an illegal and cancelled FLGLA to continue in effect or confer any rights on anyone until it expires on December 31, 2018. Even if the Court accepts petitioner's contention that in the present case, he introduces another cause of action, which is the alleged violation of his right to due process by the haphazard implementation of the COSLAP decision by the respondent DENR officials, it is severely limited by the second concept of res judicata, i.e., conclusiveness of judgment. Since it is now conclusive and binding in this case that FLGLA No. 542 is illegal and should be cancelled, per the decision in G.R. No. 145838, petitioner could no longer deny that the respondent DENR officials acted elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/46133 9/15