La obligación controvertida: excepción de cosa juzgada en el juicio ejecutivo, sus efectos y alcances

Abstract

The present investigation focused on establishing the importance of differentiating the effects of material res judicata with formal res judicata in executive proceedings in Ecuador. For this purpose, the requirements for its configuration were analyzed and the scope of formal and material res judicata was differentiated, in contrast to both executive and ordinary or knowledge trials. To justify the legal relevance of the matter, the problem is described based on a real case in which the prerequisites for admitting formal res judicata were not very clear in the first and second instance pronouncements, leading the case to completely opposite decisions. Based on both motivations, the interpretation that is most aligned with the jurisprudential and doctrinal pronouncements of the country's highest Courts is determined, with the aim of clarifying the guidelines to follow for future similar cases. Finally, in order to compare the law of our countries in Latin America and to explore other ways of understanding res judicata, a figure of Chilean law called renewal of executive action is included in the analysis. It is enshrined in our conclusions as a novel element that helps us in our understanding of res judicata in light of different legal realities.