This is a suit and countersuit between husband and wife explaining the meaning of “litis pendencia”.
Romy and Candy had been married for five years, although during most of those years Candy was abroad working as a nurse in the United Sates. Eventually, Candy learned that prior to their marriage Romy was already married to another woman. She also discovered that their marriage license was not validly issued.
So Candy filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo against Romy for the declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground that it is bigamous and for having been solemnized without a valid marriage license. Candy also sought to recover from Romy the sum of $32,000 she allegedly sent him while working in the States to buy properties as investment for their future life together. She further asked for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation.
Two days later, Romy himself filed a complaint against Candy in the RTC of Davao seeking likewise the annulment of the same marriage on the ground that he was forced to marry her at gunpoint and that they had no valid license. He also prayed for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
Then in his answer to Candy’s complaint in Iloilo, Romy reiterated the allegations in his own complaint in Davao by way of counterclaim for moral and exemplary damages and prayed that their marriage be declared void from the beginning for having been performed illegally and under force, violence, intimidation, threats and strategy.
For her part, in response to Romy’s complaint filed in Davao, Candy filed a motion to dismiss said case invoking litis pendencia citing the civil case she earlier filed in Iloilo. According to Candy, Romy’s complaint should be dismissed because it involves (1) the same parties or at least such as representing the same interest; (2) the rights asserted and relief prayed for are the same and the (3) identity in the two cases is such that the judgment that may be rendered in her pending complaint would, regardless of which party is successful, bar any other judgment in Romy’s complaint.
Romy on the other hand contended that the possible judgment in Iloilo denying the annulment of the marriage because of failure to prove that there was no valid marriage license and that he deceitfully failed to disclose a prior marriage would not constitute a ruling on whether he himself had been forced into the marriage. Was he correct?
No. Romy has resorted to nit-picking and in the process has lost track of the real issue besetting the two actions which is simply the nullification of marriage contracted by the parties. Interestingly in his answer with counterclaim filed in Iloilo, Romy has also raised the issue of force, violence, intimidation, threats and strategy, the very same issue in his complaint in Davao. Hence, he cannot now deny that the issues as well as the arguments raised before the two trial courts are identical. Any decision or ruling promulgated by the RTC of Iloilo will necessarily be a bar to another judgment by the RTC of Davao and vice versa.
Moreover, in his answer in Iloilo, he also presented a counterclaim for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees by reason of the complaint filed by Candy. A counterclaim partakes of the nature of a complaint and or a cause of action against a plaintiff in the case. To interpose a cause of action in a counterclaim and again invoke it in a subsequent complaint against the same person or party would be splitting a cause of action not sanctioned by the Rules (Mariscal vs. Court of Appeals et. al. G.R. No. 123926 July 22, 1999).
Romy’s complaint in Davao was thus dismissed. Eventually, Candy won the case In Iloilo where her marriage to Romy was nullified on the ground that it was bigamous. Candy was likewise awarded moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees totaling to P200,000.00.
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net