The CA reversed the previous decision that there was in fact no litis
Canoga Park Development Corporation
pendentia.
Petitioner contends that litis pendentia exists because of their identity
with one another and that any judgment on the first case will amount to
res judicata on the other.
Hence this petition.
ISSUE
1. W/N the two civil cases involves the same cause of action.
RULING & RATIO
- NO
The filing of the first ejectment case was grounded on the petitioners
violation of the stipulations in the lease contract, while the second was on
the expiration of said contract.
At the time Canoga filed the first complaint on October 10, 2000, the
lease contract between the parties was still in effect. The lease remained
effective until January 15, 2002.
It was only at the expiration of the lease contract that the cause of action
in the second complaint accrued made available to the respondent as a
ground for ejectment.
DIPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated
August 20, 2004 and Resolution dated February 23, 2005 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 78836 are AFFIRMED.
NOTES
1. Litis pendentia refers to a situation where two actions are pending between
the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes
unnecessary and vexatious.
2. Requisites for litis pendentia: identity of the parties in the two actions;
substantial identity in the causes of action and in the reliefs sought by the
parties; and the identity between the two actions should be such that any
judgment that may be rendered in one case, regardless of which party is
successful, would amount to res judicata in the other
Umale v.
GR # 167246| 654 SCRA 155
Petition: Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
Petitioner: George Leonard S. Umale
Respondents: Canoga Park Development Corporation
DOCTRINE: A suit may only be instituted for a single cause of action. If two or
more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of
one or a judgment on the merits on any one is ground for the dismissal of
others. (Rule 2, Sec. 4 RoC)
FACTS
- In January 4, 2000, the parties entered into a Contract of Lease whereby the
Umale agreed to lease an 860 sqm lot in Ortigas for a period of 2 years
starting from January 16, 2000.
- Canoga acquired the subject lot from Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership to Deed
of Absolute Sale subject to the ff. conditions: 1) no shopping arcades,
restaurant etc. shall be allowed to be established on said property except
with prior consent from Ortigas; and 2) the respondent and their successors
shall become members of their association and abide by its rules and
regulations.
- On October 10, 2000, before the least contract expired, Canoga file an
unlawful detainer against Umale before the MTC because of the violation of
the 1st condition stipulated in their contract.
- Umale constructed restaurants and other commercial buildings without first
securing the consent and a permit from Canoga.
- MTC ruled in favor of Canoga but on appeal in the RTC, the decision was
reversed because the petition was prematurely filed.
- Canoga filed a petition for review with the CA. During the pendency of the
petition, Canoga filed another case for unlawful detainer against Umale
on the ground that the lease contract has already expired.
- The MTC ruled in favor of Canoga. On appeal the RTC reversed and set
aside the said decision on the ground of litis pendentia.
- Canoga filed a petition for review under Rule 42 with the CA contending that
there was no litis pendentia between the two civil cases because both
have different grounds for ejectment.
The first was because there was a violation of the lease contract while
the second was filed due to the expiration of the lease contract. The
second case was filed based on an event or a cause not yet in existence
at the time of the filing of the first case. (Lease contract expired on
January 15, 2002, 1st case was filed on October 10, 2000.)
 3. Test used in the case regarding whether or not there was a cause of action
4. Canoga did not commit forum shopping because it disclose that it had filed was whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the same time
a former complaint for unlawful detainer against the petitioner. Therefore, of the filing of the complaint.
there was no willful and deliberate forum shopping.