PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner,

vs.
GATEWAY PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 181485, February 15, 2012
LEONARDO – DE CASTRO, J.:

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINE: There is an act of splitting a single cause of action, if two or more suits
are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in
any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.

FACTS:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

This case stemmed when the GPHI filed a Complaint with Application for the Issuance of a Writ
of Preliminary Injunction against PNB before the RTC of Trece Martires City. Respondent was a
subsidiary company of Gateway Electronics Company (GEC), the latter obtained long term loans from the
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) in the amount of ₱600,000,000.00. The loans were secured by
mortgages executed by GEC over its various properties. Subsequently, LBP offered to provide additional
funds to GEC by inviting other banking institutions to lend money therefor. The PNB later became part of
this consortium of creditor banks.

The GEC allegedly encountered difficulties in paying its obligations to the banks, including those
owed to PNB. GEC then requested PNB to convert its long-term loans into a Convertible Omnibus Credit
Line. As part of the conversion requirements of PNB, GPHI was made a co-borrower in the agreement and
was obligated to execute in favor of PNB a real estate mortgage over two parcels of land, provided that the
real estate mortgage "shall be registered with the Registry of Deeds in an event of default."

The PNB purportedly demanded from GEC the full payment of the latter’s obligations. Thereafter,
GPHI learned of PNB’s supposedly underhanded registration of the real estate mortgage with intent to
foreclose the same. GPHI filed a complaint alleging that the GPHI Property was never contemplated at
any time as collateral for GEC’s loan obligations to PNB, and that the latter had no legal right to affect the
foreclosure of the mortgaged properties. GPHI, thus, prayed for the issuance of the temporary restraining
order (TRO) to enjoin PNB from foreclosing on the properties of GPHI, as well as from registering the fact
of foreclosure or performing any act that would deprive GPHI of its ownership of the said properties.

The RTC did not issue a TRO in favor of GPHI. The PNB initiated extrajudicial foreclosure
proceedings on the properties, and being the sole bidder, they were able to acquire the properties.

Thereafter, a year later, GPHI filed a Petition for Annulment of Foreclosure of Mortgage with
Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction
before the RTC of Trece Martires City, alleging that, in conducting the foreclosure proceedings, the sheriff
failed to observe the requirement of Section 4 of Act No. 3135 that the "sale shall be made at public
auction." The PNB on the other hand filed a Motion to Dismiss, and contended that there was another
action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action. The RTC ordered the dismissal of
Civil Case stating therein that the first complaint for Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage and the
second complaint for Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale, practically involved the same parties,
substantially identical causes of action and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts.
Ironically, these cases are now both filed in this Court.

The GPHI appealed with the CA, and granted the same holding that the real estate mortgage does
not preclude an action predicated on or involving an issue questioning the validity of the foreclosure. In
this respect, the test of identity fails. The judgment in the Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage would
not be a bar to the prosecution of the present action for the Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale.
 Hence this petition.

ISSUE:

WON causes of action in the Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage and Annulment of the
Foreclosure Sale are identical as to constitute act of splitting a single cause of action.

RULING:

YES.
Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as "the act or omission by which a
party violates a right of another." Section 3 of Rule 2 provides that "a party may not institute more than
one suit for a single cause of action." Anent the act of splitting a single cause of action, Section 4 of Rule 2
explicitly states that "if two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing
of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others."

In the case at bar, a perusal of the allegations in the Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage and
Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale, reveal that the said cases invoke the same fundamental issue, i.e., the
temporary nature of the security that was to be provided by the mortgaged properties of GPHI. The cause
of action of GPHI in both cases is the alleged act of PNB of reneging on a prior agreement or
understanding with GEC and GPHI vis-à-vis the constitution, purpose and consequences of the real estate
mortgage over the properties of GPHI.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September
28, 2007 and the Resolution dated January 24, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 75108 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated December 20, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court
of Trece Martires City, Branch 23, in Civil Case No. TM-1108 is hereby REINSTATED. No costs.