Umale vs.
Canoga Park Issue:
Facts:
Umale and Canoga Park Development
Corporation (Canoga Park for brevity) entered
into a Contract of Lease for a period of 2 years
regarding 860 square meter prime lot located in
Pasig city.
Before the lease contract expired, Canoga Park
filed an unlawful detainer case against Umale.
Canoga park uses as a ground for ejectment
Umale’s violation of stipulations in the lease
contract regarding the use of the property.
MTC-Branch 68 decided the ejectment case in
favor of Canoga Park.
Consequently, RTC-Branch 155 affirmed the
decision of MTC-Branch 68.
The case was re-raffled to RTC-Branch 267; and
the court granted the motion of Umale, thereby
reversing and setting aside the decision of MTC-
Branch 68.
Canoga Park filed a petition for review with the
Court of Appeals.
During the pendency of the petition for review,
Canoga Park filed another case of unlawful
detainer against Umale before MTC-Branch-71.
Canoga Park used as a ground of ejectment the
expiration of the parties lease contract.
MTC Branch-71 ruled in favor of Canoga Park.
On appeal, RTC-Branch 68 reversed and set
aside the decision of MTC-Branch 71, and
dismissed the civil case on the ground of litis
pendencia.
W/N the dismissal of the civil case by RTC-
Branch 68 was proper?
Held:
No, the dismissal of the civil case on the ground
of litis pendentia is not proper. It is because
there is no litis pendentia in the case at bar.
Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but
before filing the answer to the complaint or
pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss
may be made on any of the following grounds:
(a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the
person of the defending party;
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the claim;
(c) That venue is improperly laid;
(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to
sue;
(e) That there is another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause;
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior
judgment or by the statute of limitations;
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states
no cause of action;
(h) That the claim or demand set forth in the
plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived,
abandoned, or otherwise extinguished;
(i) That the claim on which the action is founded
is enforceable under the provisions of the
statute of frauds; and
(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim
has not been complied with.
As a ground for the dismissal of a civil
action, litis pendentia refers to a situation
where two actions are pending between the Therefore, there exists no litis pendentia.
same parties for the same cause of action, so Consequently, the action cannot be dismissed in
that one of them becomes unnecessary and relation to the grounds under Rule 16.
vexatious.[19]

Litis pendentia exists when the following

requisites are present:

a.) identity of the parties in the two actions;

b.) substantial identity in the causes of action

and in the reliefs sought by the parties;

c.) and the identity between the two actions

should be such that any judgment that may be
rendered in one case, regardless of which party
is successful, would amount to res judicata in
the other.

In the case at bar, the two civil cases involve

different cause of actions.

Several tests exist to ascertain whether two

suits relate to a single or common cause of
action, such as whether the same evidence
would support and sustain both the first and
second causes of action (also known as the
same evidence test), or whether the defenses in
one case may be used to substantiate the
complaint in the other. Also fundamental is the
test of determining whether the cause of action
in the second case existed at the time of the
filing of the first complaint.

Of the three tests cited, the third one is

especially applicable to the present case, i.e.,
whether the cause of action in the second case
existed at the time of the filing of the first
complaint and to which we answer in the
negative.

The facts clearly show that the filing of the first

ejectment case was grounded on the Canoga’s
violation of stipulations in the lease contract,
while the filing of the second case was based on
the expiration of the lease contract.