This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-10-20 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Given that a registration proceeding (such as the certification of ancestral lands) is not a conclusive adjudication of ownership, it will not constitute litis pendentia on a reivindicatory case where the issue is ownership.[75] "For litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an action, the following requisites must concur: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case."[76] The third element is missing, for any judgment in the certification case would not constitute res judicata or be conclusive on the ownership issue involved in the reivindicatory case. Since there is no litis pendentia, there is no reason for the reivindicatory case to be suspended or dismissed in favor of the certification case. | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| With respect to the first requisite, the Court finds no error in the ruling of the CA that there is identity of parties in Civil Case Nos. 438-M-2002 and 502-M-2002. It is true that in Civil Case No. 502-M-2002, Valmadrid and Tan were added as plaintiffs, while BPI and the Register of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan were added as defendants. However, identity of parties does not mean total identity of parties in both cases.[21] It is enough that there is substantial identity of parties.[22] The inclusion of new parties in the second action does not remove the case from the operation of the rule of litis pendentia.[23] What is primordial is that the primary litigants in the first case are also parties to the second action.[24] A different rule would render illusory the principle of litis pendentia.[25] The facility of its circumvention is not difficult to imagine given the resourcefulness of lawyers.[26] The fact that new parties were included in Civil Case No. 502-M-2002 does not detract from the fact that the principal litigants, Villarica and the Gernale spouses, are the same in both cases. Besides, it is clear that Valmadrid and Tan, being the previous owners from whom Villarica bought the subject properties, represent the same interests as the latter. On the other hand, the Register of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan was impleaded merely as a nominal party. | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| As a final note, a case involving the same defendants and cause of action, docketed as Civil Case No. 22090 before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 34, had already been previously dismissed for failure to comply with the deposit requirement deemed by the court to be a condition precedent for the filing of that suit.[9] This previous case, however, hardly counts for forum-shopping precisely because it is no longer pending. There is forum-shopping where a litigant sues the same party against whom another action or actions for the alleged violation of the same right and the enforcement of the same relief is/are still pending.[10] Furthermore, the order of dismissal was clearly based on a mere technicality. Since no judgment on the merits was rendered after consideration of the evidence or stipulation submitted by the parties at the trial of that case, it falls short of one of the essential requisites of res judicata that the judgment be one on the merits.[11] | |||||