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?
: 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
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.