Perez Vs CA

ISIDRO PEREZ VS CA single cause of action or entire claim or demand
G.R. No. 157616 | July 22, 2005 cannot be split up or divided so as to be made the
SECOND DIVISION subject of two or more different actions.
CALLEJO, SR., J.
A single act or omission may be violative of various
FACTS rights at the same time, such as when the act
Spouses Digos secured a loan from the International constitutes a violation of separate and distinct legal
Exchange Bank to finance their project for the obligations. The violation of each of these rights is a
construction of townhouses on their property. To cause of action in itself. However, if only one right may
secure the payment of the loan, the spouses executed be violated by several acts or omissions, there would
a Real Estate Mortgage over the property. only be one cause of action. Otherwise stated, if two
separate and distinct primary rights are violated by one
Spouses Digos failed to pay the amortizations on their and the same wrong; or if the single primary right
loan, thus the property was foreclosed. Consequently, should be violated by two distinct and separate legal
the property was sold at public auction with the bank wrongs; or when the two primary rights are each
as the highest bidder. The spouses wrote the bank broken by a separate and distinct wrongs; in either
requesting for a period of six months within which to case, two causes of action would result. Causes of
redeem the property. The bank granted them one action which are distinct and independent, although
month to redeem the same. However, they failed to arising out of the same contract, transaction or state of
pay the same. fact may be sued separately, recovery on one being no
bar to subsequent actions on the others.
Instead of repurchasing the property, the spouses filed
a complaint against the bank for the nullification of the Considering this, it can be said that the respondents
extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage are guilty of splitting of causes of action for filing the
and sale at public auction. In the complaint, they stated petition for the nullification of the extrajudicial
that they were denied their right to due process foreclosure and sale at public auction in the first action
because the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage wherein they asked for the computation of the balance
was extrajudicial and that the sale was done without on their loan account. The institution of the second
prior notice to them. complaint was filed to avert the dismissal of their first
complaint. The court was constrained to conclude that
The bank filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and it was a last-ditch attempt to resuscitate their lost
for the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens, stating cause.
that an injunction is moot and academic as the title to
the foreclosed property has been consolidated in the A party cannot divide the grounds for recovery. A
bank’s name. The trial court granted the motion and plaintiff is mandated to place in issue in his pleading,
dismissed the complaint. It found that the Spouses all the issues existing when the suit began. A lawsuit
Digos admitted in their complaint that the period for the cannot be tried piecemeal. The plaintiff is bound to set
redemption of the property was about to expire, and forth in his first action every ground for relief which he
that they were given one month to do so. The court claims to exist and upon which he relied, and cannot
held that it had no authority to extend the period of be permitted to rely upon them by piecemeal in
redemption and that since it has already expired, the successive action to recover for the same wrong or
spouses had no more right to redeem the property. injury.
Meanwhile, the bank sold the subject property to Isidro If indeed the bank made erroneous computation of the
Perez and Narciso Ragua. Spouses Digos filed a balance of their account, this should have been alleged
complaint against the bank, Perez and Ragua for the in the first complaint as one of their causes of action.
cancellation and annulment of the extrajudicial They failed to do so. They even unequivocally admitted
foreclosure of the real estate mortgage executed by in the first complaint the amount of the balance, which
them in favor of the bank. Spoused Digos, aside from was the precise amount for which the bank sought the
claiming that they were not notified of the sale at public foreclosure.
auction, claimed that the extrajudicial foreclosure was
illegal because the bank charged much more than the The court thus granted the petition and ordered the
amount due on their loan; 26% per annum on the loan dismissal of the second case filed by spouses Digos.
account.
ISSUE: WON Spouses Digos have violated the rule

against splitting a single cause of action in instituting
the instant case?
RULING: YES
Splitting of causes of action is prohibited in the

rules of court
Splitting a single cause of action consists in dividing a
single or indivisible cause of action into several parts
or claims and instituting two or more actions therein. A

Perez Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perez Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perez Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISIDRO PEREZ VS CA single cause of action or entire claim or demand

ISSUE: WON Spouses Digos have violated the rule

Splitting of causes of action is prohibited in the

You might also like