Title
Inciong vs. Tolentino
Case
G.R. No. L-10923
Decision Date
Sep 23, 1959
Libel case refiled in Batangas after improper venue dismissal; separate defamation suit dismissed for multiplicity, lack of cause, and prescription.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-10923)

Background of the Cases

On October 8, 1952, Miguel Tolentino filed a libel case (Civil Case No. 17822) against Ceferino Inciong in the Court of First Instance of Manila. This initial case was dismissed due to improper venue, leading Tolentino to refile his complaint in the Court of First Instance of Batangas (Civil Case No. 256), naming only Ceferino Inciong as the defendant. Ceferino responded with a counterclaim for damages.

Pleadings and Motions

The counterclaim asserted that Tolentino's complaint contained false allegations. Subsequently, the Inciongs filed a separate lawsuit (Civil Case No. 380) against Tolentino, claiming damages for defamatory statements present in the initial complaint, which had already been dismissed. Notable allegations in the complaint included claims about Inciong's role in the Samahang Magbubukid and unfounded assertions regarding their properties.

Grounds for Dismissal

Tolentino responded with a motion to dismiss the new complaint on grounds of another pending action addressing the same parties and issues. He also alleged the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations, referencing Article 1147 of the New Civil Code, which sets a one-year limitation for actions arising from libel. This motion was successful; the lower court dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing the Inciongs to pursue their claims within the context of the pending case.

Court's Reasoning

The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal, citing that the complaints were substantially the same and permitting both actions to proceed would lead to duplicative litigation. The omission of Concepcion G. Inciong as a party defendant in Civil Case No. 256 did not negate the potential for counterclaims in that case. Additionally, the court noted that the allegations concerning ownership of conjugal property were insufficient to constitute a valid cause of action for damages.

Affirmation of Dismissal

Further supporting the dismissal on the basis of prescription, the court referenced the p

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.