Ulises Carballo v. Carlos Gasteasoro

[Ed.’s note: The casebook notes that the underlying facts are not set forth in the court’s opinion. The following facts are described by the author of the casebook, but not in the case excerpt.] Ulises Carballo (plaintiff) purchased land from Carlos Gasteasoro (defendant). The contract for purchase listed other personal property, such as livestock. Gasteasoro had a change of heart and tried to get his property back. In a 1994 proceeding, the trial court held that the sales transaction was valid, but the appellate court overturned the decision and annulled the sales contract. The appellate court ordered Carballo to return the property to Gasteasoro, and it ordered Gasteasoro to return the purchase price and pay Carballo a fine. The judgment did not specifically state whether the livestock that was on the land at the time of the sale had to be returned to Gasteasoro as well. Carballo commenced a second proceeding, alleging that Gasteasoro did not comply with the appellate court’s order. Gasteasoro responded that Carballo had failed to return the livestock. The trial court rejected Gasteosoro’s objection, but the appellate court reversed again, holding that Gasteasoro did not have to pay Carballo the fine unless everything encompassed by the original sales contract was returned to Gasteasoro, including the livestock. Carballo appealed to the Uruguay Supreme Court, arguing that the judgment of the appellate court ordering him to return the property did not specify that the livestock had to be returned in addition to the real property. Upon reviewing the record, the judicial prosecutor raised the question of whether the principle of res judicata extended not only to the judgment of the court of appeals, but also to its reasoning in support of its judgment in clarifying the scope of the order.