Different causes

Where two civil actions are pending between the same parties for the same or substantially the same cause, the second complaint may be dismissed on the ground of litis pendencia. The reason for this rule is obvious: one of the actions has become unnecessary and vexatious. This rule is illustrated in this case between a land developer (CPDC) and Larry.

CPDC is the owner of an 860 square meter prime lot located at a business center which it acquired under a deed of absolute sale with the following conditions: (1) that no shopping arcades, retail stores, restaurants, etc shall be established on the property without the prior written consent of the seller; and that CPDC or its successors-in-interest shall become members of the association put up by the seller-owner of the business center and abide by its rules and regulations.

On January 4, 2000 CPDC leased the property to Larry for a period of two years starting January 16, 2000 under a Contract of Lease stipulating that Larry shall use the leased lot only as a parking space for light vehicles and as a site for small driver’s canteen and may not sublease or utilize it for other purposes without CPDC’s prior written consent.

During the period of lease however, Larry constructed restaurant buildings and other commercial establishments on the lot without first securing the required written consent from CPDC and without the necessary permits from the business center association.

So on October 10, 2000, CPDC filed with the Municipal Trial Court Branch 68, an ejectment case against Larry for violation of the stipulations in the lease contract regarding the use of the property (CC 8084). The case however was not immediately and finally resolved because of appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) until it reached the Court of Appeals on April 10, 2002 when CPDC filed a petition for review after the RTC dismissed CC8084 for being prematurely filed.

On May 3, 2002, during the pendency of the petition for review, CPDC filed another case for ejectment against Larry (CC 9210) before the MTC Branch 71. This time, CPDC used as ground for ejectment the expiration of the lease contract on January 16, 2002.

On December 4, 2002, the MTC Branch 71 rendered a decision in favor of CPDC ordering Larry to vacate the premises, remove the commercial units built on it and pay damages. On appeal, the RTC reversed and set aside the said MTC decision and dismissed CC 9210 on the ground of litis pendencia or because there was already another case for ejectment (CC 8084) still pending. Was the RTC correct?

No. Generally, a suit may only be instituted for a single cause of action. If two or more suits are filed on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one is a ground for dismissal of the others.

Several tests exist to ascertain whether the two suits have a single or common cause of action. One such test is whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint.

In this case the facts clearly show that the filing of the first ejectment case was grounded on Larry’s violation of the lease contract while the second case was based on the expiration of the lease contract. At the time CPDC filed the first ejectment complaint on October 10, 2000, the lease contract was still in effect. The period of lease expired only on January 15, 2002. It was only on this date that the cause of action in the second ejectment complaint accrued and became available to CPDC as a ground for ejecting Larry. The cause of action in the second case was not yet in existence at the time of filing of the first ejectment case. So the RTC is not correct in dismissing the second case (CC 9210) because the two civil cases have different causes of action and therefore there is no litis pendencia (Umale vs. Canoga Park Development Corp., G.R. 167246, July 20, 2011)

* * *

E-mail:[email protected].