Title
Pillado vs. De Lasala
Case
G.R. No. L-6663
Decision Date
Jul 30, 1954
Dispute over land ownership involving multiple cases: tenancy, annulment of sale, and recovery of possession. Supreme Court upheld trial court's denial of dismissal, citing distinct causes of action.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 145527)

Background of the Dispute

The land in question was purchased by Estela Francisco de Lasala and Vivencio Lasala from the Bacolod branch of the Philippine National Bank on April 9, 1952, resulting in the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9455 in their names. The property had previously been mortgaged in 1940 by Luis Pillado, the father of Remigio Pillado, to secure a loan. Due to non-payment of the loan, the land was sold at a public auction on September 15, 1952, to the same bank. Following this, multiple legal actions were initiated concerning the land.

Multiple Legal Actions

Three significant cases emerged from this situation:

  1. Tenancy Case No. 47-N was initiated by Estela Francisco de Lasala against Pedro Sarnate to eject him as a tenant who failed to recognize her ownership.
  2. A suit was filed by the heirs of Luis Pillado against Estela Francisco de Lasala and the bank to annul the sale of the property, seeking the opportunity to clear the deceased’s debts through payment.
  3. Civil Case No. 2458 was filed by Estela Francisco de Lasala and Vivencio Lasala against Remigio Pillado and Pedro Sarnate for recovery of possession and damages for illegal occupation.

Motion to Dismiss

Upon the initiation of Civil Case No. 2458, the defendants submitted a motion to dismiss, asserting that the existence of the other pending cases constituted grounds for the dismissal of the current case. The trial court, however, denied this motion, leading to the petition for certiorari filed by the defendants with the assertion that the court’s decision constituted an abuse of discretion.

Legal Analysis of Causes of Action

The Court analyzed the nature of the three cases. The Court concluded that despite the cases involving the same parcel of land, the causes of action in each case were distinct. In the tenancy case, the issue was the tenant's refusal to acknowledge the property owner. The second case centered on the validity of the sale. The third case focused on the recovery of possession due to being the registered owner. Given the differences in the legal i

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.