OBANDO VS. FIGUERAS GR.

134854
FACTS:
Eduardo Figueras was the administrator of the estate of deceased spouses Jose and Alegra Figueras. Hardly had
the proceedings in intestacy begun when Eduardo was served a Petition for Probate of what purported to be
Alegrias Last Will and Testament, filed by Felizardo Obando, a nephew of Doa Alegria. The alleged Will
bequeathed to the members of the Obando clan properties left by the Figueras couple. Obando was also
appointed as co-administrator. However, NBI founded that the will was a forgery and Obando was charged with
estafa and was removed as co-administrator. Eduardo sold the property to Amigo Realty.
Obando filed a petition for review.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the conviction of Obando for estafa and the revocation of his appointment as administrator, both
of which were on appeal, constitutes sufficient ground to dismiss the civil case.
HELD:
The trial court was correct in dismissing the case because of Obandos lack of legal capacity. It must be pointed
out that it was only after he had been convicted of estafa that the probate court divested him of his representation
of the Figueras estates. It was only then that this ground became available to the respondents. Hence, it could not
be said that they waived it by raising it in a Motion to Dismiss filed after their Answer was submitted. Verily, if the
plaintiff loses his capacity to sue during the pendency of the case, as in the present controversy, the defendant
should be allowed to file a motion to dismiss, even after the lapse of the reglementary period for filing a
responsive pleading.

AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY VS. PACIFIC STAR LINE L-26809
FACTS:
Smith Bell & Co. (Philippines), Inc. and Aetna Surety Casualty & Surety Co. Inc., as subrogee, instituted a case
against Pacific Star Line, The Bradman Co. Inc., Manila Port Service and/or Manila Railroad Company, Inc. to
recover the amount of US $2,300.00 representing the value of the stolen and damaged cargo plus litigation
expenses and exemplary damages, with legal interest thereon from the filing of the suit and costs.
The Pacific Star Line and The Bradman Co. Inc. alleged in their answer special defenses the subsequently amended
it to allege that Aetna casualty & Surety Company, is a foreign corporation not duly licensed to do business in the
Philippines and, therefore. without capacity to sue and be sued.
ISSUE:
Whether or not AETNA have no capacity to sue.
HELD:
It cannot be said that the Aetna Casualty & Surety Company is transacting business of insurance in the Philippines
for which it must have a license. The contract of insurance was entered into in New York, U.S.A., and payment was
made to the consignee in its New York branch.
Consequently, since the appellant Aetna Casualty & Surety Company is not engaged in the business of insurance in
the Philippines but is merely collecting a claim assigned to it by the consignee, it is not barred from filing the
instant case although it has not secured a license to transact insurance business in the Philippines.

SHERWILL DEVT CORP VS. SITIO STO. NIO RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC. AND/OR NILDA DEVILLERES, AND THE
LMB G.R. NO. 158455
FACTS:
On 2002, the petitioner filed a Complaint for quieting of title against respondents Sitio Sto. Nio Residents
Association, Inc. (SSNRAI), Nilda Devilleres, and the Lands Management Bureau (LMB) docketed as SP Civil Action
No. 02-237. Petitioner prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued, ordering the LMB to cease and desist
from proceeding with the hearings in LMB Case No. 7-98, a 1995 case pending before it where petitioners titles to
the subject lots were being questioned by the respondents SSNRAI and Nilda Devilleres.
Petitioner further avers that the courts has better jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the SP Civil Action No. 02-237 should be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia.
HELD:
To the Courts mind, the requisites of litis pendentia are present in the instant case. For one, the parties in the
LMB case and in SP Civil Action No. 02-237 are the same. There is, likewise, identity of rights asserted and reliefs
prayed for. The petition filed by the private respondents SSNRAI and its President Devilleres before the LMB
alleged that the lots in question had been the subject of double titling; on the other hand, the petition with
prayer for preliminary injunction filed before the RTC sought the declaration from the court that TCTs in the name
of the petitioner, are indefeasible and conclusive as against the whole world. The resolution of the foregoing issue
would likewise require the presentation of evidence from the parties. Verily, the conclusion in one proceeding
would amount to the adjudication of the merits on the other that is, a favorable ruling from the LMB would have
virtually removed any and all existing clouds from the petitioners titles to the subject property; in the same vein,
a declaration of the indefeasibility of the TCTs would preempt any ruling of the LMB on the matter.

INTRAMUROS ADMINISTRATIO vs. CONTACTO G.R. No. 152576
FACTS:
On 1993, the petitioner and respondent entered into a contract for the lease of Cantinas de Aduana (Cantinas) to
the latter to establish a fastfood and restaurant business for 5 years. On 1996, the scheduled date of the closure
because of Yvettes non-payment of rentals, she hurriedly filed a complaint for preliminary injunction, with a
prayer for specific performance and damages because of the non-action of petitioner in evicting the sidewalk
vendors in the leased premises. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 96-767-44
On 1998, pending the resolution of Civil Case No. 96-767-44 but after the expiration of the lease contract, the
petitioner filed a complaint against respondents for default in the payment not only of their monthly rentals from
May 1995 until 31 January 1998 but also the water bills and electric bills. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case
No. 98-90835.
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia.
ISSUE:
Whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the complaint or answer with
counterclaim, as the case may be.
HELD:
We have held that when a lease provides for the payment of the rent in installments, each failure to pay an
installment is a separate cause of action. However, in an action upon such a lease for the recovery of rent, all
installments due and demandable at the time the action is brought should be pleaded, and failure to do so will
constitute a bar to a subsequent action for the payment of that rent. The lessor is not, therefore, barred from
claiming installments that were not paid thereafter, for the simple reason that that the cause of action did not
exist at the time.
What could be barred by litis pendentia are the rentals which were due and demandable at the time of the filing of
petitioners answer, since they could be pleaded as counterclaims. It has been held that lis pendens may also be
interposed even if the claim is set forth by way of a counterclaim, since the latter partakes of the nature of a
complaint by the defendant against the plaintiff. To interpose a cause of action in a counterclaim and again
advance the same in a complaint against the same party would be violative of the rule against splitting a cause of
action. However, petitioners claims of back rentals after its filing of an answer with counterclaim in the first case
constituted distinct causes of action and cannot be barred by litis pendentia.

DEL ROSARIO VS. JACINTO G.R. NO. L-20340
FACTS:
On October 2, 1958, Pilar, Mariano and Salvador, all surnamed del Rosario, filed in the CFI of Rizal (Pasig) an action
against Sancho Jacinto, Domingo Bascara and J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., for reconveyance and/or recovery of a parcel
of land situated at barrio Tatalon, Quezon City. Said action was docketed as Civil Case No. 5230.
On March 15, 1962, Pilar, Mariano and Salvador del Rosario, as well as Aniana Deudor, Macaria Fulgencio and
Carlos Javier, brought another action for reconveyance and/or recovery of the same parcel of land
aforementioned, against the same Sancho Jacinto, Domingo Bascara and J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. It was docketed as
Civil Case No. 2254-P of the CFI, Pasay City Branch.
On March 27, 1962, Case No. 2254-P (Pasay) transferred to the CFI of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, stating as reason
that the land involved was situated in Quezon City. Accordingly, Case No. 2254-P (Pasay) was transferred to the CFI
of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-6324 (Quezon City).
On April 4 and 6, 1962 defendants (jacinto) in Case No. Q-6324 (Quezon City) moved to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that there was pending another action between the same parties, for the same cause, namely, Case
No. 5230 at the Pasig Branch of the Rizal CFI.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the motion should be granted.
HELD:
The subsequent case should be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia.

TEODORO VS MIRASOL 99 PHIL 150 1956
(DI KO MAHANAP TO GUYS!)