G.R. No. 248997 - People vs. Eduardo Cericos, Jr. Yobiasca a.k.a. "JR"

On 31 October 1995, Edna Lindo obtained a loan of ₱400,000 from Arturo Sarte Flores (petitioner), payable on 1 December 1995.
The loan bore 3% compounded monthly interest and a 3% surcharge for late payment.
To secure the loan, Edna executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage covering jointly owned property with her husband, Enrico Lindo, Jr.
Edna executed the Promissory Note and the Deed on her behalf and as attorney-in-fact for Enrico.
Edna issued three checks as partial payment, all dishonored due to insufficient funds.

Petitioner filed a Complaint for Foreclosure of Mortgage and Damages against respondents, docketed as Civil Case No. 00-97942 before RTC, Branch 33, Manila.
RTC, Branch 33 ruled on 30 September 2003 that petitioner was not entitled to judicial foreclosure, finding:

The mortgage deed was executed without Enrico’s consent; SPA executed by Enrico was dated after the mortgage.
Petitioner was not barred from filing a personal action against Edna but the court had no jurisdiction over such since the proper venue was where either party resided.

On 8 September 2004, petitioner filed a Complaint for Sum of Money with Damages in RTC, Branch 42 (Civil Case No. 04-110858).
Respondents admitted the loan but claimed it was only ₱340,000, denied Enrico’s participation in the loan, and alleged improper venue, res judicata, and forum shopping based on RTC, Branch 33’s decision.
Respondents moved to dismiss on grounds of res judicata and lack of cause of action.

RTC, Branch 42 denied respondents’ motion to dismiss on 22 July 2005, explaining that res judicata does not apply to distinct causes of action from the same subject matter.
Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied on 8 February 2006.

Respondents filed Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with prayer for preliminary injunction in the CA.
On 30 May 2008, the CA set aside RTC, Branch 42’s orders for grave abuse of discretion, holding:

Petitioner could not file both a foreclosure and collection suit on the same cause of action (nonpayment of the note).
By filing foreclosure, petitioner waived personal action to collect.

RTC, Branch 93 of San Pedro Laguna ruled the mortgage void for lack of husband’s consent but upheld Edna’s personal liability on the loan.
The Special Power of Attorney (SPA) was executed after the mortgage deed date, but the Family Code provisions allow a “continuing offer” to be perfected by subsequent acceptance.
Petitioner allowed adverse decisions declaring the mortgage void to become final without pursuing alternative relief.
The Court noted the principle against unjust enrichment applies as Edna admitted the loan but did not pay in full.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s complaint for collection of sum of money on the ground of multiplicity of suits due to prior filing of mortgage foreclosure.