Title
Umale vs. Canoga Park Development Corporation
Case
G.R. No. 167246
Decision Date
Jul 20, 2011
Petitioner Umale challenged the CA ruling reinstating the earlier decision allowing ejectment for violation of lease terms. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA ruling, finding no litis pendentia between cases.
unlawful detainer
contract of lease
civil case

Case Summary (G.R. No. 167246)

Parties and Setting

On January 4, 2000, the parties entered into a Contract of Lease under which petitioner agreed to lease for two (2) years, starting January 16, 2000, an eight hundred sixty (860)-square-meter lot owned by respondent in Ortigas Center, Pasig City. The lease permitted petitioner to use the premises as a parking space for light vehicles and as a site for a small drivers’ canteen, but it barred petitioner from utilizing the premises for other purposes without respondent’s prior written consent. The property, as later transferred to respondent from Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership, carried additional conditions: (1) no shopping arcades or retail stores, restaurants, and similar establishments could be established on the property except with Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership’s prior written consent; and (2) respondent and/or its successors-in-interest had to become members of the Ortigas Center Association, Inc. and abide by its rules and regulations.

First Unlawful Detainer Case (Civil Case No. 8084)

Before the lease contract expired, respondent filed an unlawful detainer case against petitioner with the MTC-Branch 68, Pasig City, docketed as Civil Case No. 8084, on October 10, 2000. Respondent grounded the ejectment on petitioner’s alleged violations of the lease stipulations regarding the use of the property. The complaint alleged that petitioner constructed restaurant buildings and other commercial establishments without obtaining the required prior written consent and without securing the necessary permits from the Association and Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership. It also alleged that petitioner subleased the property to various merchants-tenants in violation of the lease contract.

The MTC-Branch 68 ruled for respondent. On appeal, the RTC-Branch 155 affirmed the MTC decision in toto. However, the case was re-raffled to RTC-Branch 267 after the presiding judge of RTC-Branch 155 inhibited himself from resolving petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. RTC-Branch 267 then granted petitioner’s motion and reversed and set aside the MTC decision, dismissing Civil Case No. 8084 on the ground that it had been prematurely filed.

Petition for Review and Second Unlawful Detainer Case (Civil Case No. 9210)

While respondent’s petition for review of the dismissal of Civil Case No. 8084 was pending before the CA, respondent filed a second unlawful detainer case on May 3, 2002 with the MTC-Branch 71, Pasig City, docketed as Civil Case No. 9210. This time, respondent invoked the expiration of the parties’ lease contract as the ground for ejectment. The CA record reflected that the lease contract expired on January 15, 2002, making the cause of action in the second case dependent on a subsequent event not available at the time the first complaint was filed.

On December 4, 2002, the MTC-Branch 71 rendered judgment for respondent. It ordered petitioner and all persons claiming rights under him to vacate the premises and surrender possession. It further ordered payment of damages for the use of the property after expiration of the lease contract, computed from January 16, 2002 until vacating and turning over possession, and awarded attorney’s fees and costs. It also directed petitioner to remove commercial units built on the land and restore the premises to their original condition at petitioner’s expense, failing which removal could be done by respondent at petitioner’s expense.

RTC Ruling on Litis Pendentia

On appeal, the RTC-Branch 68 reversed and set aside the MTC-Branch 71 decision, dismissing Civil Case No. 9210 on the ground of litis pendentia due to its alleged identity with Civil Case No. 8084. Even so, the RTC still ordered petitioner to pay rent of P71,500.00 per month beginning January 16, 2002, consistent with the monthly rent stipulated in the lease contract.

Respondent then filed a petition for review under Rule 42 with the CA. Respondent argued that litis pendentia did not exist between the two cases because they involved different causes of action: the first ejectment case was based on petitioner’s violation of lease stipulations, while the second ejectment case was based on the expiration of the lease contract. Respondent emphasized that the second case rested on a cause that had not yet existed when the first case was filed.

CA Disposition

The CA, in its August 20, 2004 Decision, nullified the RTC-Branch 68 decision and ruled that there was no litis pendentia because the two civil cases involved different causes of action. The CA ordered reinstatement of the MTC-Branch 71 ruling in Civil Case No. 9210. The CA later denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its February 23, 2005 Resolution.

Issues Raised on Review

Petitioner submitted that litis pendentia existed between Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 because of identity of parties and cause, and he maintained that any judgment in the first case would amount to res judicata in the other. He claimed respondent reiterated the same ground—violations of the lease contract—in the second ejectment complaint, with the added allegation of expiration of the lease. He prayed for reversal and dismissal of Civil Case No. 9210 on the ground of litis pendentia and/or forum shopping.

Legal Basis: Requisites of Litis Pendentia and Controlling Tests

The Court held that litis pendentia, as a ground for dismissal of a civil action, refers to a situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, such that one becomes unnecessary and vexatious. The Court reiterated that litis pendentia exists only when the following requisites concur: (a) identity of parties in both actions; (b) substantial identity in causes of action and reliefs sought; and (c) the identity between the two actions is such that a judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other.

In determining whether two suits share a common or single cause of action, the Court recognized several tests. It referred to the “same evidence” test, which looks at whether the same evidence would support and sustain both causes of action. It also referred to whether the defenses in one case may substantiate the complaint in the other. Finally, it identified a fundamental test applicable to the case: whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of filing of the first complaint.

The Court’s Reasoning: Different Causes of Action

The Court ruled that Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 involved different causes of action. The Court found that petitioner’s contention failed on the critical point concerning the existence of the cause of action at the time the first complaint was filed. The Court noted that the first ejectment complaint filed on October 10, 2000 was grounded on petitioner’s violations of stipulations in the lease contract governing the use of the property. The lease was fixed for two (2) years from January 16, 2000, and absent renewal, it remained effective until January 15, 2002. The Court thus explained that it was only upon expiration on January 15, 2002 that the ground relied upon in the second ejectment complaint accrued and became available.

Consequently, the Court held that the cause of action in the second case—expiration of the lease contract—was not yet in existence when respondent filed the first ejectment complaint. The Court further held that the restatement of alleged lease violations in the second complaint did not create substantial identity of causes of action. Even if respondent included violations of the lease as part of the narrative, the Court treated the expiration of the lease contract as the main basis for ejectment in the second case. It reasoned that absent this subsequent development, respondent would have been unable to file a second unlawful detainer action because ejectment complaints could be filed only within one year after the accrual of the cause of action, and in the second case, the accrual was tied to the lease’s expiration.

The Court also rej

...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.

About Privacy Terms