George Leonard S. Umale, petitioner, v. Canoga Park Development Corporation, respondent.
G.R. No. 167246 | July 20, 2011Brion, J.
Topic: Litis Pendentia
- This is a petition for review on certiorari on the CA decision filed by George Umale. The CA reversed the RTC decision in Umale’s favor (dismissing Canoga’s unlawful detainer case).
- George Umale and Canoga Park entered into a 2-year lease contract whereby Umale will lease a 860sqm lot in Ortigas from Canoga.
- Before the expiration of the contract, Canoga filed an unlawful detainer case against Umale.
- Canoga invoked that Umale violated one stipulation in the lease contract.
- Apparently, Umale undertook to use the lot as parking space for light vehicles and site for small drivers, and not use the same for any other purpose without Canoga’s approval.
- However, Umale constructed thereat improvements like restaurant buildings, and other establishments, and subleased the lot.
- The MTC ruled for Canoga.
- Upon appeal, the RTC Branch 68 affirmed the MTC decision en toto.
- However, the case was then reraffled to Branch 67 after the judge in Branch 68 inhibited himself from deciding upon Umale’s MR.
- Thus, Canoga filed a PFR with the CA.
- Meanwhile, the lease contract finally expired, and another case for unlawful detainer was filed by Canoga against Umale.
- MTC ruled in favor of Canoga
- The RTC ruled in favor of Umale (dismissed the case on ground of litis pendentia)
- Canoga filed a petition for review before the CA.
- Contention: there is no litis pendentia.
- CA set aside the RTC decision and held that there was no litis pendentia. MTC order was reinstated.
- Thus, the instant petition for review.
ISSUE: WON THERE WAS LITIS PENDENTIA -- NO
- The court explained that there is litis pendentia if
- two actions are pending between the same parties
- two actions are for the same cause of action,
- there is identity in the reliefs sought.
- The two cases involve different causes of action.
- The SC mentioned the tests to determine WON two actions are the same:
- whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second causes of action “same evidence” test
- whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other
- whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint
- Following, the third test would point that there is no litis pendentia. The cause of action in the second case does not exist in the first case.
- There will also be no conflict in the decisions in the two cases.
