Title
De Luzuriaga, Sr. vs. Adil
Case
G.R. No. L-58912
Decision Date
May 7, 1985
George K. Young, owner of Lot No. 2, faced two cases: one to quiet title and another for forcible entry. The Supreme Court ruled that the forcible entry case was barred by the prior title case, as both involved intertwined issues of possession and ownership, preventing multiplicity of suits.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-58912)

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Roberto R. de Luzuriaga, Sr., and 15 other individuals filed Civil Case No. 13336 in the Court of First Instance against George K. Young, contesting ownership and seeking to quiet title over a parcel of land located on Agho Island. Subsequently, on April 24, 1980, de Luzuriaga filed Civil Case No. 21-33C against Young for forcible entry, claiming that Young's representatives unlawfully dispossessed him from the property. Young contested this filing on multiple grounds, primarily asserting that jurisdiction over the forcible entry case was improper due to the ongoing ownership dispute in Civil Case No. 13336.

Jurisdictional Challenges

In his answer to the forcible entry suit, Young raised affirmative defenses, including lack of jurisdiction, the existence of a pending case involving the same parties and cause of action, and the violation of rules against multiplicity of suits. Instead of conducting a preliminary hearing as sought by Young, Judge Adil ordered him to submit a written Motion to Dismiss. Notably, despite not having received Young's memorandum, Judge Adil scheduled the trial for September 28, 1980, and subsequently denied Young's Motion to Dismiss.

Legal Reasoning and Decision

Respondent Judge Adil reasoned that since the act of dispossession alleged by de Luzuriaga was not included in Civil Case No. 13336, it raised doubts about the viability of the forcible entry case as an independent suit. The judge emphasized that the issues of possession and ownership were intertwined, thereby necessitating their consolidation into a single complaint to avoid conflicting judgments.

The Court affirmed Judge Adil’s decision, noting that allowing separate cases could lead to an abatement of one suit due to the other. Citing Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, the Court reiterated the principle that a party may institute only one suit for a single cause of action to prevent repeated litigation and unnecessary vexation fo

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.