Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2269)
Facts:
Fabian B. S. Abellera v. Narciso De Guzman et al., G.R. No. L-2269. March 14, 1950, the Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.The plaintiff-appellant, Fabian B. S. Abellera, had a long history of litigation over a tract of land in Aringay, La Union. In an earlier ejectment suit reported as Abellera v. Balanag (37 Phil. 865), this Court (in 1918) affirmed the trial court's dismissal of his complaint because he failed to establish title, the underlying defect arising from his failure to accept a donation in a public instrument as required by Article 633 of the Civil Code. After that dismissal Abellera instituted another ejectment action (Civil Case No. 936) which the court dismissed on the ground that the title to the tract might be litigated in an ongoing cadastral case that included the same land; Abellera did not appeal that dismissal.
In the cadastral proceedings (Cadastral Case No. 5, Aringay), Abellera's answers claiming lots were later stricken out and he was precluded from presenting evidence; he secured a writ of certiorari from this Court (G.R. No. 48480, decided July 30, 1943, reported at 74 Phil. 284) reversing the cadastral court's order and directing that he be allowed to present evidence. This Court explicitly remarked that Abellera was not thereby prevented from instituting a new action should he so choose.
The record of the cadastral case was destroyed during the war, and no reconstitution was undertaken. On February 5, 1946, Abellera brought the present action for ejectment (styled “Recurso Declaratorio” and referencing Section 1, Rule 66) against the same defendants and their successors, including additional claimants to lots Nos. 5009, 5010 and 5540; he sought declaration of ownership of the tract, possession of unlawfully occupied lots, and P40,000 in damages. Rather than answer, defendants moved to dismiss on two grounds: (1) the complaint stated no cause of action; and (2) there was another action pending between the same parties for the same cause (i.e., the cadastral proceedings).
On June 18, 1946, the trial court sustained the second ground and dismissed the complaint without costs, apparently ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the complaint state a cause of action or was it merely a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 66?
- Was dismissal proper on the ground that another action (the cadastral case) was pending between the same parties for ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)