This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-26 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We also applied the "more appropriate action test" in Ramos v. Peralta.[18] In this case, the lessee filed an action for consignation of lease rentals against the new owner of the property, but the new owner moved to dismiss the consignation case because of the quieting of title case he had also filed against the lessee. Finding that the real issue between the parties involved the right to occupy/possess the subject property, we ordered the dismissal of the consignation case, noting that the quieting of title case is the more appropriate vehicle for the ventilation of the issues between them; the consignation case raised the issue of the right to possession of the lessee under the lease contract, an issue that was effectively covered by the quieting of title case which raised the issue of the validity and effectivity of the same lease contract. | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the mere fact that the action for quieting of title (Civil Case No. 438-M-2002) was filed earlier than the case for annulment and cancellation of titles (Civil Case No. 502-M-2002) does not necessarily mean that the first case will be given preference. Indeed, the rule on litis pendentia does not require that the latter case should yield to the earlier case. What is required merely is that there be another pending action, not a prior pending action.[36] | |||||