UMALE VS

CANOGA PARK
RULE 16, SECTION 1
FACTS

• Umale and Canoga Park Development Corporation (Canoga Park for brevity) entered into a
Contract of Lease for a period of 2 years regarding 860 square meter prime lot located in
Pasig city.

• Before the lease contract expired, Canoga Park filed an unlawful detainer case against Umale.
Canoga park uses as a ground for ejectment Umale’s violation of stipulations in the lease
contract regarding the use of the property.
FACTS

• MTC-Branch 68 decided the ejectment case in favor of Canoga Park.

• Consequently, RTC-Branch 155 affirmed the decision of MTC-Branch 68.
• The case was re-raffled to RTC-Branch 267; and the court granted the motion of Umale,
thereby reversing and setting aside the decision of MTC-Branch 68.
• Canoga Park filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.
FACTS

• During the pendency of the petition for review, Canoga Park filed another case of unlawful
detainer against Umale before MTC-Branch-71. Canoga Park used as a ground of ejectment
the expiration of the parties lease contract.
• MTC Branch-71 ruled in favor of Canoga Park.
• On appeal, RTC-Branch 68 reversed and set aside the decision of MTC-Branch 71, and
dismissed the civil case on the ground of litis pendencia.
 ISSUE

W/N the dismissal of the civil case by RTC-Branch 68 was

proper?
HELD
• No, the dismissal of the civil case on the ground of litis pendentia is not proper. It is because
there is no litis pendentia in the case at bar.
• Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading
asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:
• (a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
• (b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
• (c) That venue is improperly laid;
• (d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
• (e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;
• (f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations;
• (g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;
• (h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or
otherwise extinguished;
• (i) That the claim on which the action is founded is enforceable under the provisions of the statute of
frauds; and
• (j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.
HELD

• As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, litis pendentia refers to a situation where two
actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of
them becomes unnecessary and vexatious.[19]
• Litis pendentia exists when the following requisites are present:
a.) identity of the parties in the two actions;
b.) substantial identity in the causes of action and in the reliefs sought by the parties;
c.) and the identity between the two actions should be such that any judgment that may be
rendered in one case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the
other.
HELD

• In the case at bar, the two civil cases involve different cause of actions.
• Several tests exist to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action,
such as whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second
causes of action (also known as the same evidence test), or whether the defenses in one case
may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other. Also fundamental is the test of
determining whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of
the filing of the first complaint.
HELD

• Of the three tests cited, the third one is especially applicable to the present case, i.e., whether
the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint
and to which we answer in the negative.
• The facts clearly show that the filing of the first ejectment case was grounded on the Canoga’s
violation of stipulations in the lease contract, while the filing of the second case was based on
the expiration of the lease contract.
• Therefore, there exists no litis pendentia. Consequently, the action cannot be dismissed in
relation to the grounds under Rule 16.
END OF REPORT