BENZO N O .

ALDEM IT A, P et it ion e r De e d of C onf irm ati o n of Pr e v i ous

Vs De e d of Sa l e.
HE IR S O F M ELQ U I AD E S S IL V A,  O n O c to b er 25 , 1 99 9 , t h e T C
re pr e s ent ed b y R AM O N G . is s ue d an or de r f or t he p ur pos e of
VI LLO RDO N, J R. , de t erm in in g wh et h er th e p ur por t ed
s i gn at ur e of M e l q u ia d es and
AU ST RI A- M ART I N EZ , J .: P orf er ia S i l va f or t he a ns wer i ng
def en d an t A l dem i ta is re a l l y th os e
Fa cts: of t h e t wo .
 O n November 25, 1998, a v er if i ed  O n February 10, 2000, a
c om pl a in t f or Q u i et i n g of T it l e wa s Q u es t i on e d D oc um e n t R ep or t was
f il e d b y th e res p on d en ts . s ubm it t ed t o t he c our t.
 O n January 14, 1999, a v er if i e d  T he c o ur t is s u e d a n ord er to
A ns wer wi t h S pec i a l an d Af f ir m at i v e th e R , g i v i ng t he l at te r to s ubm i t h is
Def e ns es , C ou n ter - c l a im an d Cr os s c om m ent wit h i n 15 da ys .
c l aim d at e d January 13, 1999 was f i le d  O n S e pt em ber 1 5, 20 0 0, T C
b y A l d em ita t hr o ug h c ou ns e l wi t h t h e is s ue d an or der wh er ei n th e
c our t a q u o. Q u es t i on D oc u m ent R ep or t was
 O n A pr i l 22 , 19 9 9, a n Ur g e nt c ons i d ere d as t h e f i n d i ng of f ac ts .
Mo t io n To D ec l ar e D ef en d a nts  O n January 23, 2001, p er
Ro g er a nd J os ep h i ne D e i par i n e i n m anif es ta t io n of t he p art i es h e y
Def a u lt an d A Mo t io n T o S et C as e wo u ld s u bm it t he c as e f or d ec is i o n
For Pr e - T ri a l d a te d A pr il 2 0, 1 9 99 wi t ho ut ne e d of tr i a l.
was f i l ed b y t h e pe t it i on er s af t er t he  O n February 8, 2001,
ab o v e - nam ed r es po nd e nts wer e pe t it i on er Al d em it a f i l e d a P os it i o n
s ubs t it ut e d f or P ap er th e n o n March 24, 2001, c o u ns e l
r es p o n de nt Em il i a De i par i n e wh o of pe t it i on er , f i le d a M ot i on to
d ie d l as t S e pt em ber 1 5, 1 99 8 i n W ithdra w as C o uns e l.
wh ic h b y d ec lar i n g R og er a n d  O n April 2, 2001, t h e n e w c o uns e l
J os e p h in e in d ef a ul t an d s et ti n g t h e f or p et i t io n er, At t y. U ga n g, Sr .,
c as e f or Pre - tr ia l . en t ere d h is a pp e ara n c e a n d f i le d a
 Dur i n g th e p r e - tr ia l o n A u gus t Mo t io n t o D is m is s f or l ac k of c a us e
12 , 1 9 99 , A l dem i ta a d m itte d t h a t L ot of ac t io n .
11 3 30 of Pc s - 9 45 l oc at e d  T he M ot i on a verr e d i n m ai n
i n M in g l an i l la , Cebu h a s b ee n th at th e r es p o nd e nts s ho u l d f irs t b e
r eg is te re d in t he n am e dec l ar ed as he irs
of M e l qu i a des Si l v a as s h o wn b y of M e l qu i a des Si l v a i n a s p ec ia l
T C T , a nd was in ac t ua l pos s es s i on proc e e di n g b ef ore th e y c a n b e
b y t h e res p on d en ts ex c e p t f or a c ons i d ere d as re a l par t ies - i n-
por t io n t her e of wit h a n ar e a of 2 ,0 0 0 i nt eres t to i ns ti t ut e t h e ac t i on i n th is
s qu ar e m ete rs wh ic h pe t it i on er is c as e .
c l aim i ng t o b e p os s es s ed b y h im . Is su e: W /N th e f i l i n g of M ot i on t o
 He a ls o adm it t ed , th a t a Dis m is s was pr o p er f o r t h e gr o un d of
doc um en t d e nom i na te d as K al i g- l ac k of c a us e of ac t i on .
on a n s a P a l it wh ic h was ex ec u t ed Rul ing:
b y M el q u ia d es S i l v a in f a v or  The Court finds the motion to be not
of D i on is i a . D e Z ab at e i n vo l v i ng th e impressed with merit. As it may not be
l an d in qu es ti o n is a f or g ed amiss to recall, this case was already
doc um en t. H o we v er , P c on te n de d considered as submitted to the Court for
th at a no t her d oc um en t d e nom in a te d decision way back on February 8, 2001
as K a l ig - o n an s a P an a gp a l it ng a pursuant to the order issued in this case on
Day o was c o nf i r m ed January 23, 2001. As provided in Section 1
b y Pr of er i a S i l va of Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules on Civil
an d Em e l ia n a Z a ba t e P ar a n i n a
 Procedure. A motion to dismiss cannot be J u l y 3 , 1 96 1 a nd ar e th us t he tr ue
filed anytime except if the grounds therefor o wn ers of a p arc el of l an d re g is ter e d
are lack of jurisdiction over the subject i n th e n am e of t he l at ter (f ir s t a n d
matter, pendency of another action between s ec o n d e l em ents ) ; t h at t h e pr i v at e
the same parties for the same cause and bar doc um en ts a l le g ed l y e x ec u t ed b y th e
by prior judgment or statute of l at e M el q u ia d es S i l va i n f a v or of t h e
limitations. The motion filed in this case is pre d ec es s ors - i n- i nt ere s t of th e
not on account of any of the said exceptional pe t it i on er a re f or ge d d o c um en ts
three grounds. (th ir d el em en t); a nd t ha t the
 Un d er S ec t i o n 1( g) , Ru l e 1 6 of t he ex is t enc e of th es e d o c um ents c as ts
Ru l es of C o urt , to wi t: a c l ou d o v er t he t it l e of th e
res p o n de nts as o w ners of t h e
 S ECT IO N 1. G r o un ds . W ithi n the pro p ert y (f o urt h e l em ent) .
tim e f or bu t bef or e f i l i ng t h e ans we r
to th e c om pl a in t or pl e ad i n g
as s er t in g a c l a im , a m ot i o n to
d is m is s m a y b e m ade o n a n y of th e
f ol l o wi ng g ro u nds :

( g) T ha t t h e p l e ad i n g as s er t in g th e
c l aim s t at es n o c a us e of ac t io n

 S ec t i on 1 , R u le 9 of th e Ru l es of
Co urt , as am en de d, pr o v i d es :
S ECT IO N 1. D ef e ns es and
ob j ec t i o ns n ot pl e a d ed . - Def ens es
an d obj ec t i o ns n o t p l e ad e d e i th er i n
a m ot i on t o d is m is s or i n th e a ns wer
ar e d eem ed wa i v e d. Ho we v er , wh e n
it a p pe ars f r om the p l ea d i ngs or t he
e v id e nc e o n r ec or d th at t h e c o ur t
has no j ur is d ic t i on o v er th e s u bj ec t
m atter , t h at t h er e is an o th er ac t i o n
pe n d in g be t we e n t h e s am e p ar t i es
f or t he s am e c aus e , o r t h at t he
ac t i on is b arre d b y a pr ior j u dgm en t
or b y s ta tu t e of l im it at i ons , th e c o ur t
s ha l l d is m is s th e c l a im .
 A c a us e of ac t i o n, wh i c h is an ac t or
om is s i o n b y wh ic h a p ar t y v i o l a tes
th e r i gh t of an o th e r , h as th es e
e lem en ts :
1) T h e l e ga l r ig ht of t he pl a i nt if f
2) T he c orr el a ti v e o b li g at i on of th e
def en d an t t o r es p ec t t ha t le g a l r i g ht ;
an d
3) An ac t or om i s s i on of t h e
def en d an t th a t v i ol a te s s uc h r i g ht .
 As t h e C ou r t has r u le d, th e
P et it i o n f or Q u ie t i ng of T it l e
s uf f ic i e nt l y s t at es a c aus e of ac t io n.
Res p on d en ts a ll e ge d th a t t h e y ar e
th e h e irs of the
l at e M el q u ia d es S i l v a wh o d i ed o n
 MID PASIG LAND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT
OF APPEALS  P filed a supplemental motion seeking its
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Facts:
 Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation
leased a portion of its seized property to
ECRM Enterprises.
 ECRM intended to use the area as staging
ground for its Home and Garden Exhibition.
 Under the contract of lease, ECRM agreed
to pay the amount of P1,650,000.00 as
rental for three months, inclusive of 10% 
VAT, with option to renew, that upon
expiration there is no delay of turnover of the 
property in the same or improved condition
and would remove all temporary
improvements at its own expense within 7
days after expiration of the lease.
 ECRM assigned to respondent Rockland
Construction Co all its rights under a lease of
agreement including the extension of the
lease period.
 After delivering the rental payment for 3
months, R verbally requested for the renewal
of the lease term of 3 years.
 Before the request was acted upon, P
retroactively increased the monthly rental to
P770, 000.00 per month effective April 15,
2000 thus R agreed to the increased rate
and paid petitioner the rent differential
 R sub-leased the certain portions, however,
a notice from petitioner was served stating
too vacate the property.
 R requesting for a formal 3 year lease
contract be executed in its favor,
nevertheless P stated therein that it had not
entered in any agreement with the R or
among others
 P claimed that the assignment of the lease
was not valid since it was done without its
consent and the provisions of lease
agreement were violated.
 Respondent filed a complaint for specific
performance with prayer for the issuance of
a temporary restraining order/writ of
preliminary injunction.
 Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the complaint was anticipatory in
nature, failed to state a cause of action and
respondents claim is unenforceable under
the Statute of Frauds
dismissal on the ground of litis pendentia.
 An order was issued denying P motion to
dismiss on the ground that R substantially
complied with all the requirements for the
filing of an initiatory pleading and that the
complaint clearly stated a cause of action.
 P cannot likewise invoke the Statute of
Frauds in seeking the dismissal of the
complaint because the lease contract was
already partially executed by the acceptance
of rental payments.
A motion for reconsideration was thereafter
filed by petitioner.
P motion to dismiss was denied by the
TC on the ground that there was
no litis pendentia between Civil Cases for
unlawful detainer, because there was no
identity of causes of action.
Issue: W/N the motion to dismiss on the of
litis pendentia was proper.
Ruling:
 In order to sustain a dismissal of an
action on the ground of litis pendentia, the
following requisites must concur: (a) identity
of parties, or at least such as representing
the same interest in both actions; (b) identity
of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the
relief being founded on the same facts, and
(c) identity in the two cases should be such
that the judgment that may be rendered in
the pending case would, regardless of which
party is successful, amount to res judicata in
the other.
 No question that parties are one and
same.
 RTC reveals that the rights asserted
and reliefs prayed for therein are no different
from those pleaded in the MeTC case.
 The only difference between the two
cases herein is that R asserts, as a cause of
action, its alleged contractual right to
possession of the property in the RTC case,
while the same matter is set forth as its
counterclaim in the MeTC case where it is a
defendant. However, the two cases are
identical in all other respects, with merely a
reversal of the parties position in the two
actions.
 The case is hereby dismissed for the
grounds of litis pendentia.
 REBECCA PACAÑA-CONTRERAS and
ROSALIE PACAÑA, Petitioners,
vs.
ROVILA WATER SUPPLY, INC., EARL U
KOKSENG, LILIA TORRES, DALLA P.
ROMANILLOS and MARISSA
GABUYA, Respondents.
Facts:
 Petitioners Rebecca Pacaña-
Contreras and Rosalie Pacaña, children of
Lourdes Teves Pacaña and Luciano Pacaña,
filed the present case against Rovila Inc., Earl,
Lilia, Dalla and Marisa for accounting and
damages.
 P claimed that they have been
engaged in the water supply business and
they have operated the “Rovila Water Supply”.
 They alleged that Lilia was a former
trusted employee in their family business who
hid business records and burned the family
files.
 After which, she claimed ownership
over their business.
 Upon inquiry to the SEC, P claimed
that Rovila Inc was surreptitiously formed with
the respondents as the majority stockholders.
 The R takeover and illegally usurp the
family business by allegedly using the name of
Lourdes through a sworn declaration and
special power of attorney (SPA).
 The R filed a first motion to dismiss on
the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction
over an intra-corporate controversy
 When Lourdes died, P amended their
complaint with leave of court.
 Thereafter, Luciano died, and then R
filed their answer.
 P’s sisters filed a motion for leave to
intervene that was also granted by the court
 R seeks dismissal of the complaint for
the reason that P are not the real party
interest.
 RTC directed the respondents to put
into writing their earlier manifestation
 RTC issued a pre-trial order where
one of the issues submitted was whether the
complaint should be dismissed for failure to
comply with Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court which requires that every action must be
prosecuted in the name of the real party in
interest
 The respondents again filed a motion
to dismiss on the grounds, among others, that
the petitioners are not the real parties in
interest to institute and prosecute the case
and that they have no valid cause of action
against the respondents.
 RTC - denied the respondents’ motion
to dismiss and motion for reconsideration. The
motion was filed out of time as it was filed only
after the conclusion of the pre-trial conference
 R filed a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the CA,
invoking grave abuse of discretion in the
denial of their motion to dismiss
 CA - granted the petition and ruled
that the RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion as the petitioners filed the complaint
and the amended complaint as attorneys-in-
fact of their parents. As such, they are not the
real parties in interest and cannot bring an
action in their own names
 The CA agreed with the respondents
that they alleged the following issues as
affirmative defenses in their answer: 1) the
petitioners are not the real parties in interest;
and 2) that they had no legal right to institute
the action in behalf of their parents.
Issue: W/N the complaint should be
dismissed for failure to comply with Section 2,
Rule 3 of the Rules of Court which requires
that every action must be prosecuted in the
name of the real party in interest
Ruling:
 The Court held that while an order
denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory
and non-appealable, certiorari and prohibition
are proper remedies to address an order of
denial made without or in excess of
jurisdiction. The writ of certiorari is granted to
keep an inferior court within the bounds of its
jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
 Pursuant to jurisprudence, this is also
the ground invoked when the respondents
alleged that the petitioners are not the real
parties in interest because: 1) the petitioners
should not have filed the case in their own
names, being merely attorneys-in-fact of their
mother; and 2) the petitioners should first be
declared as heirs.
 Applying Rule 16 of the Rules of Court
which provides for the grounds for the
dismissal of a civil case, the respondents’
grounds for dismissal fall under Section 1(g)
and (j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court,
particularly, failure to state a cause of action
and failure to comply with a condition
precedent (substitution of parties),
respectively. The first para of Section 1
 Rule 16 of the Rules of Court provides
for the period within which to file a motion to
dismiss under the grounds enumerated.
Specifically, the motion should be filed within
the time for, but before the filing of, the answer
to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim.
 The issues submitted during the pre-
trial are thus the issues that would govern the
trial proper. The dismissal of the case based
on the grounds invoked by the respondents
are specifically covered by Rule 16 and Rule 9
of the Rules of Court which set a period when
they should be raised; otherwise, they are
deemed waived.
 Failure to state a cause of action
refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and
is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the
Rules of Court.
 The heirs of the spouses Luciano and
Lourdes Pacaña, except herein petitioner and
Lagrimas Pacaña-Gonzalez, are ORDERED
IMPLEADED as parties plaintiffs and the RTC
is directed tp proceed with the trial of the case
with DISPATCH.