Case Digest (G.R. No. 31161)
Facts:
Respondent Helen Marinas, assisted by her husband, filed ejectment against petitioner Enriqueta T. Viray, assisted by her husband, in the City Court of Manila (Civil Case No. 121978) alleging unlawful withholding after demand to vacate due to unpaid rentals of P22.50. The City Court granted an extension to vacate; on appeal, the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 61994) denied Marinas’s right to recover possession because Viray had been regularly paying rentals, and no appeal was taken from that decision.On January 25, 1968, Marinas filed another ejectment action in the Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 71861), later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. She then refiled in the City Court (Civil Case No. 170347) based on a new demand to vacate made on December 6, 1967 due to refusal to pay increased rentals; Viray sought injunction/prohibition, which was denied, and the case reached the Supreme Court on the issue whether res judicata barred the second City C
Case Digest (G.R. No. 31161)
Facts:
- Certification and nature of the appeal
- The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court in its resolution of January 5, 1971, on the ground that the appeal presented a purely question of law.
- The legal issue was whether the action for ejectment instituted by Respondents Helen Marinas et al. against Petitioners Enriqueta T. Viray et al. in the City Court of Manila (Civil Case No. 170347) was already barred by prior judgment (*res judicata*).
- Parties and property relationship
- Respondent Helen Marinas, with Luciano Pineda Ong as her husband, alleged that she was the purchaser of Lots Nos. 4-B and 4-C, Block No. 2823, located in the City of Manila, and that the lots were duly titled in her name.
- Petitioner Enriqueta T. Viray, assisted by her husband Pablo R. Viray, was in possession of a portion of the property.
- The possession was based on an agreement with the former owner, under which Petitioner paid a monthly rental.
- First ejectment action in the City Court of Manila (Civil Case No. 121978)
- Respondent filed a complaint for ejectment on May 16, 1964.
- The complaint alleged that Petitioner was in possession by virtue of an agreement with the former owner and that Petitioner was paying a monthly rental of P22.50.
- Respondent alleged that on April 14, 1964, she notified Petitioner of her plan of commercial development and asked Petitioner to vacate, but Petitioner refused.
- Respondent alleged that the unpaid rentals amounted to P45.00 as of May 1964.
- In her answer, Petitioner asserted that she and her predecessor-in-interest had occupied the portion for about thirty (30) years and that the former owner and Respondent agreed to let Petitioner stay as long as she paid the agreed rental.
- On December 26, 1964, the City Court rendered a decision granting Petitioner an extension up to December 31, 1965 to vacate and ordering Petitioner to pay current rentals of P22.50 a month within the first ten (10) days of each month until the end of the extension, and back rentals within thirty (30) days from notice of the decision.
- Petitioner appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 61994).
- On June 17, 1967, the Court of First Instance rendered a decision holding that since Petitioner had been regularly paying the rentals according to the stipulation of facts, there was no reason to recover possession, without prejudice to Respondent taking such other action as may be necessary and proper.
- Respondent did not appeal from the Court of First Instance decision.
- Second ejectment-related action before the Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 71861)
- On January 25, 1968, Respondent filed another complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 71861), praying for eviction of Petitioner and all those claiming under her, and for damages.
- Respondent narrated the proceedings of her first ejectment complaint.
- Respondent alleged that on October 13, 1967, she wrote Petitioner about an increase of rental to P35.00 a month beginning October 1967.
- Respondent alleged that Petitioner failed to pay the new rate, and that on December 6, 1967 Respondent made a demand for payment and for Petitioner to vacate but Petitioner refused.
- Petitioner moved to dismiss on January 31, 1968 on three grounds: (a) the complaint was barred by a prior judgment; (b) it stated no cause of action; and (c) improper venue.
- On March 4, 1968, the Court of First Instance issued an order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
- The order explained that if Respondent sought to recover possession after the earlier decision because Petitioner illegally detained and continued to illegally detain the property after a month-to-month lease was terminated due to refusal to pay increased rentals, then the case would fall under illegal detainer within one year.
- The Court of First Instance reasoned that the demand to vacate was made only on December 6, 1967, so the detainer lasted very much less than one year at filing; hence the City Court had jurisdiction.
- The order added that the damages sought were incidental and accessory to the possession action for detention of less than one year and therefore immaterial to jurisdiction over which court should try the case.
- The Court of First Instance concluded that dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter.
- Third ejectment action in the City Court of Manila (Civil Case No. 170347)
- On April 26, 1968, after the Court of First Instance order, Respondent filed an ejectment complaint in the City Court of Manila (Civil Case No. 170347). ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the action for ejectment in the City Court of Manila (Civil Case No. 170347) was barred by *res judicata* due to the outcomes of prior ejectment actions
- Whether the prior judgment arising from the first ejectment action (City Court Civil Case No. 121978 and Court of First Instance Civil Case No. 61994) could bar the second ejectment complaint and, ultimately, the City Court action based on a subsequent demand to vacate.
- Whether the order of the Court of First Instance dismissing the second complaint (Civil Case No. 71861) operated as *res judicata* or as a merits adjudication that barred the City Court action.
- Whether there was identity of cause of action or issues between the earlier action and the later action such that the test for *res judicata* was satisfied.
- Determination of cause of action in detainer/ejectment contexts
- Whether Petitioner’s alleged continued withholding became unlawful from the mere failure to p...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)