Topic: Splitting of cause of action (Sec. 3 & 4 Rule I) Title: Del Rosario and DATICOR vs. FEBTC and PDPC G.R. No.

150134 October 31, 2007 Carpio Morales, J: Facts: Here there was an overpayment of loan. The CA ordered PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (PDCP) to execute a release 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 filed before 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. Issue: Is the action lack of merit on the ground of res judicata and splitting of cause of action? Ruling: Yes Analysis: 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 their allegations 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 the form 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 the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated. Conclusion: The Petition was denied.

Topic: Splitting of cause of action (Sec. 3 & 4 Rule I) Title: PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS and WESTIN SEAFOOD MARKET, 301 SCRA 367, G.R. No. 123555. January 22, 1999, BELLOSILLO, J: Facts: Due to non-payment, PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PDC), lessor, repossessed it’s property from WESTIN SEAFOOD MARKET (WSM), lessee. WSM, lessee, filed with the MTC a complaint against PDC for forcible entry with damages and a prayer for a temporary restraining order(TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction and another amended complaint for moral and exemplary damages plus actual and compensatory damages based on the same forcible entry with the RTC against the latter with an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the Issuance of a TRO and Motion for the Grant of a Preliminary Prohibitory and Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. The RTC admitted it and issued a TRO. PDC filed with the Court of Appeals for certiorari and prohibition but denied, hence, the present petition. Issue: Can WSM who instituted before the MTC an action for forcible entry with damages against PDC file a separate suit with the RTC against the latter for moral and exemplary damages plus actual and compensatory damages based on the same forcible entry? Ruling: No Analysis: Herein lessee have but 1 cause of action against their landlord, their illegal ejectment or removal from their landholdings, which cause of action however entitles them to 2 claims - for reinstatement and damages. As both claims arise from the same cause of action, they should be alleged in a single complaint. A claim cannot be divided in such a way that a part of the amount of damages may be recovered in one case and the rest, in another. The rule was aimed at preventing repeated litigations between the same parties in regard to the same subject of the controversy and to protect the defendant from unnecessary vexation. Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa. Conclusion: The Petition was granted.

Topic: Splitting of cause of action (Sec. 3 & 4 Rule I) Title: CGR CORPORATION vs. TREYES, G.R. No. 170916, April 27, 2007 Carpio Morales, J. Facts: Treyes allegedly forcibly and unlawfully entered the leased properties and once inside 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 and fingerlings owned by petitioners, not only that, even the chapel built by plaintiff CGR Corporation (CGR) was ransacked and destroyed and the materials taken away by defendant’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 Municipal Trial Court (MTC) City separate complaints for Forcible Entry With Temporary Restraining Order And/Or Preliminary Injunction and Damages and a complaint for damages with RTC against Treyes. RTC dismissed the complaints, hence, the present petition. Issue: Can CGR file an independent action for damages arising after the act of dispossession had occurred? Ruling: Yes Analysis: It bears noting, however, that as reflected in the earlier-quoted allegations in the complaint for damages of herein petitioners, their claim for damages have 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 marine products in their fishponds, ransacking and destroying of a chapel built by petitioner CGR Corporation, and stealing religious icons and even decapitating the heads of some of them, after the act of dispossession had occurred. Petitioners’ filing of an independent action for damages other than those sustained as a result of their dispossession or those caused by the loss of their use and occupation of their properties could not thus be considered as splitting of a cause of action. Conclusion: The Petition was granted.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.