REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
Rule 1-5
Umale v. Canoga Park Doctrine
Development Corporation Litis pendentia is a situation
20 July 2011 | J. Brion where two actions are pending
between the same parties for
Petitioner: George Leonard S. the same cause of action, so
Umale that one of them becomes
Respondent: Canoga Park unnecessary and vexatious.
Development Corporation
Recit Summary:
Facts: The Petitioner allegedly violated the Contract of Lease between
him and the Respondent. A first ejectment case was filed by the
Respondent, and it was decided in its favor. When the Contract of Lease
expired, a second ejectment case was filed, and it was also decided in
favor of the Respondent. The Petitioner sought the dismissal of the
second case on the ground of litis pendentia.
Issues: Whether there is litis pendentia
Ruling: There is no litis pendentia. The first and second ejectment cases
involve different causes of action. The test is whether the cause of action
in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint.
The cause of action in the second ejectment case did not exist at the time
of the filing of the first ejectment case.
Pertinent Provisions: None
FACTS
● Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Contract of Lease.
○ The Petitioner agreed to lease, for a period of two
years starting from January 16, 2000, a lot in Ortigas
Center owned by Respondent.
○ The Respondent acquired the lot from Ortigas & Co.
Ltd. Partnership [the Partnership], subject to the
condition that no shopping arcades, retail stores,
restaurants, etc. shall be allowed to be established
on the property, except with the prior written consent
from the Partnership.
● On October 10, 2000, before the lease contract expired,
the Respondent filed an unlawful detainer case against the
Petitioner before the MTC [first ejectment case].
○ The ground raised by the Respondent was the
Petitioner’s violation of the stipulations in the lease
contract.
○ The Petitioner constructed restaurant buildings and
other commercial establishments on the lot, without
first securing the written consent from the
Respondent, and the necessary permits from the
Partnership.
○ The Petitioner also subleased the property to various
merchants-tenants.
● The MTC decided the first ejectment case in favor of the
Respondent. This decision was eventually reversed by the
RTC, prompting the Respondent to file a petition for review
with the CA.
● On May 3, 2002, while the petition for review was
pending, the Respondent filed another unlawful detainer
case agains the Petitioner before the MTC [second
ejectment case].
○ The Respondent used as a ground for ejectment the
expiration of the parties’ lease contract.
● The MTC decided the second ejectment case in favor of the
Respondent. On appeal, the RTC dismissed second
ejectment case on the ground of litis pendentia.
○ The petitioner was still ordered to pay monthly rent,
as stipulated in the contract.
ISSUES + HELD
Whether there is litis pendentia - NO
● Litis pendentia is a situation where two actions are pending
between the same parties for the same cause of action, so
that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious.
○ Requisites: (1) identity of the parties in the two
actions; (2) substantial identity in the causes of
action in the reliefs sought by the parties; (3) identity
between the two actions such that any judgment that
may be rendered in one case would amount to res
judicata in the other.
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW
Rule 1-5

● The first and second ejectment cases involve different contract. Hence, there can be no conflict between
causes of action. the decisions of the two MTC branches.
○ General Rule: A suit may only be instituted for a
single cause of action Whether the Respondent is guilty of forum shopping - NO
○ If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the ● Test: whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or
same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res
on the merits in any one is ground for the dismissal judicata in another.
of the others. ● Not all of the requisites of litis pendentia are present in this
● Tests to ascertain whether the two suits relate to a single or case.
common cause of action: ● The Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
○ Whether the same evidence would support and attached to the second ejectment complaint shows that the
sustain both the first and second causes of action Respondent did disclose that it had filed a former complaint
(“same evidence” test) for unlawful detainer against the Petitioner.
○ Whether the defenses in one case may be used to
substantiate the complaint in the other RULING: The petition is DENIED.
○ Whether the cause of action in the second case
existed at the time of the filing of the first
complaint
● The cause of action in the second ejectment case did not
exist at the time of the filing of the first ejectment case.
○ The filing of the first ejectment case was grounded
on the petitioner’s violation of stipulations in the
lease contract, while the filing of the second
ejectment case was based on the expiration of the
lease contract.
○ When the first ejectment case was filed, the lease
contract was still in effect. It was only upon its
expiration that the cause of action in the second
ejectment case accrued.
● The restatement in the second case of the cause of action in
the first case did not result in substantial identity between the
two cases.
○ The main basis for ejecting the Petitioner in the
second ejectment case was the expiration of the
lease contract.
○ The MTC in the second ejectment case did not rule
on the alleged violations of the lease contract by the
Petitioner. The damages awarded were also for
those incurred after the expiration of the lease