Feliciano v. CA and Baron G.R. No.

123293, March 5, 1998

Facts: Eleuterio Cosme loaned an amount of Php 50,000.00 from Insular Bank of
Asia. He mortgaged his parcel of land. He was not able to pay for the loan upon
maturity. It was foreclosed and sold at an auction with the bank as the highest
winning bidder. Cosme’s heirs exercised their rights of ownership over the land and
filed for the annulment of mortgage before the RTC. Meanwhile, the bank has sold
the land to Ernesto Baron. Baron now demanded for rent payments from the heirs,
but to no avail. So, Baron filed for ejectment case before the MeTC. The MeTC
dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia. On appeal before the RTC, the same was
denied. But in CA, it was granted with the Court saying that there is no litis
pendentia.

Issue: WON the judgment on one of the cases constitutes res judicata to the other,
and that litis pendentia existed when the annulment of mortgage and ejection cases
are filed in two different courts.

Held: No. There is no litis pendentia. The requisites for litis pendentia are: the
identity of the parties represent the same interest in both actions, the identity of
rights asserted and reliefs prayed for are being founded on the same facts, and the
judgment in one would constituted res judicata in the other. In this case, only the
first requisite is present, and the second and third are absent. Even if the
annulment of mortgage was filed first, the same could not defeat the action for
ejectment. This ejectment case is remanded to the Court of origin for further
proceedings and proper disposition.