RES JUDICATA. - The c. g. [res judicata] has a twofold meaning. Understood in the formal sense, it represents the concept of the incontestability of the judgment and of the consequent stability of the juridical situations defined by the judgment, in accordance with social needs; from this aspect, the CIC establishes that c. g. exists whenever the judgment has become unappealable, it being of little relevance, in this regard, that there still exists the possibility of instituting against it a so-called extraordinary remedy (restitutio in integrum, querela nullitatis, recourse to the Holy See, ex can. 1569, opposition by a third party). Understood, however, in the substantive sense, c. g. consists in the binding force of the judgment for future proceedings and therefore in the executory action (actio iudicati) recognized in favor of the party in whose favor the judgment was rendered against the losing party, and in the power (exceptio rei iudicatae) that each of the parties to the case has to prevent a new decision from being formed on what has already been judged, and to obtain judicial recognition of the existence of the judgment in any other cases of which the judgment itself is the logical presupposition.
As for the limits of c. g., they are determined according to a twofold aspect: objective and subjective. According to the objective aspect, it is limited to what formed the object of the judgment, that is, what was demanded by the plaintiff (petitum) and the juridical ground of the claim (causa petendi). According, however, to the subjective aspect, c. g. is binding not only between the parties but also with regard to third parties, provided that no juridical prejudice derives to these from it.
If only a factual prejudice were to derive to the third party, then he would be bound by the judgment and could not defend himself in any other way than by resorting to the means of opposition by a third party, which remedy may moreover be used also by the third party to whom a juridical prejudice derives: this happens for the most part when the material coexistence of the third party's right with the judgment recognizing another right incompatible with it practically comes to reduce the enjoyment of that third party's right.
According to canonical procedural law, c. g. is formed in the following ways: a) if there is a double conforming judgment; b) if appeal is not proposed or prosecuted within the established terms (v. APPELLO); c) in case of peremption (v.) of the appeal and of renunciation thereof (cann. 1736 and 1741); d) finally, if the judgment is unappealable (can. 1884).
In the canonical process there further prevails the principle whereby judgments rendered in causes concerning the status of persons never pass into c. g.; such as, for example, those relating to the marriage bond, to the personal separation of spouses, to ordination and to religious profession; for these causes judicial re-examination is therefore always permitted, provided however that there be new and grave arguments or documents (can. 1903).
In matrimonial causes there is further added the principle established by can. 1897, whereby the defender of the bond is given unconditional faculty to propose appeal even after there has been the double conforming judgment declaring the nullity of marriage.
The new examination in question assumes the nature of an appeal, inasmuch as by it a further bringing of the cause before the superior judge is provoked, and it may be requested at any moment.
Bibliography5 works
Fernando Della Rocca