Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Digested Case in Splitting of Action

Digested Case in Splitting of Action

Ratings: (0)|Views: 16|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Jeremiah John Soriano Nicolas on Feb 08, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Topic: Splitting of cause of action (Sec. 3 & 4 Rule I)Title: Del Rosario and DATICOR vs. FEBTC and PDPC G.R. No. 150134October 31, 2007Carpio Morales, J:Facts
: Here there was an overpayment of loan. The CA ordered PRIVATEDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (PDCP) to execute arelease or cancellation of the mortgages, and to return the corresponding certificates of title to petitioners. And it ordered FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY (FEBTC)to pay petitioners the amount of P965,000 with legal interest from the date of the
promulgation of its judgment which is final andexecutory. Unsatisfied, petitioners filedbefore the RTC a Complaint against FEBTC to recover the balance of P4.335 million.
RTC dismissed both its motion for reconsideration, hence, the present petition.
: Is the action lack of merit on the ground of 
res judicata
and splitting of cause of action?
: Yes
: Right or wrong judgment bars another case based upon the same cause of action. Notably, the same facts were also pleaded by the parties in support of theirallegations for, and defenses against, the recovery of the P4.335 million. Petitioners, of 
course, plead the CA Decision as basis for their subsequent claim for the remainder of their overpayment. It is well established, however, that a party cannot, by varying theform of action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, or by pleading justifiable circumstances as herein petitioners are doing, escape the operation of theprinciple that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated.
The Petition was denied.
Topic: Splitting of cause of action (Sec. 3 & 4 Rule I)Title: PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
COURT OFAPPEALS and WESTIN SEAFOOD MARKET, 301 SCRA 367, G.R. No. 123555.January 22, 1999,BELLOSILLO, J:Facts
repossessed it’
s property from WESTIN SEAFOOD MARKET (WSM),lessee. WSM, lessee, filed with the MTC a complaint against PDC for forcible entry withdamages and a prayer for a temporary restraining order(TRO) and/or writ of preliminaryinjunction and another amended complaint for moral and exemplary damages plus actualand compensatory damages based on the same forcible entry with the RTC against thelatter with an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the Issuance of a TRO and Motion for theGrant of a Preliminary Prohibitory and Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. The RTCadmitted it and issued a TRO. PDC filed with the Court of Appeals for certiorari andprohibition but denied, hence, the present petition.
: Can WSM who instituted before the MTC an action for forcible entry withdamages against PDC file a separate suit with the RTC against the latter for moral andexemplary damages plus actual and compensatory damages based on the same forcibleentry?
: No
: Herein lessee have but 1 cause of action against their landlord, their illegalejectment or removal from their landholdings, which cause of action however entitlesthem to 2 claims - for reinstatement and damages. As both claims arise from the samecause of action, they should be alleged in a single complaint. A claim cannot be dividedin such a way that a part of the amount of damages may be recovered in one case and therest, in another. The rule was aimed at preventing repeated litigations between the sameparties in regard to the same subject of the controversy and to protect the defendant fromunnecessary vexation. Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa.
The Petition was granted.
Topic: Splitting of cause of action (Sec. 3 & 4 Rule I)Title: CGR CORPORATION
TREYES, G.R. No. 170916,April 27, 2007Carpio Morales, J.Facts
: Treyes allegedly forcibly and unlawfully entered the leased properties and onceinside barricaded the entrance to the fishponds, set up a barbed wire fence along the road
going to petitioners’ fishponds, and
harvested several tons of milkfish, fry andfingerlings owned by petitioners, not only that, even the chapel built by plaintiff CGRCorporation (CGR) was ransacked and destroyed and the materials taken away bydefendant
’s men. Religious icons were also stolen and as an extreme act of sacrilege,even
decapitated the heads of some of these icons. CGR promptly filed with the MunicipalTrial Court (MTC) City separate complaints for Forcible Entry With TemporaryRestraining Order And/Or Preliminary Injunction and Damages and a complaint fordamages with RTC against Treyes. RTC dismissed the complaints, hence, the presentpetition.
: Can CGR file an independent action for damages arising after the act of dispossession had occurred?
: Yes
: It bears noting, however, that as reflected in the earlier-quoted allegations inthe complaint for damages of herein petitioners, their claim for damageshave no direct relation to their loss of possession of the premises. It had to do with
Treyes’s alleged
harvesting and carting away several tons of milkfish and other marineproducts in their fishponds, ransacking and destroying of a chapel built by petitionerCGR Corporation, and stealing religious icons and even decapitating the heads of some
of them, after the act of dispossession had occurred. Petitioners’ fili
ng of an independentaction for damages other than those sustained as a result of their dispossession or thosecaused by the loss of their use and occupation of their properties could not thus beconsidered as splitting of a cause of action.
The Petition was granted.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->