Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 100 views

    SVHF Vs Mabalacat Version 5

    Uploaded by

    roberto valenzuela
    The petitioner filed an ejectment case in one court while a collection case regarding unpaid rent on the same property was pending in another court. The respondent claimed this constituted forum shopping. However, the Supreme Court ruled that forum shopping did not occur because the ejectment case and collection case involved different issues and remedies. Specifically, the ejectment case concerned possession of the property, while the collection case sought unpaid rent. Additionally, a judgment in one case would not preclude litigation of the other case. The Court also held that an ejectment case cannot be joined with a collection case, as they are different types of civil actions with different procedures.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    SVHF Vs Mabalacat Version 5

    Uploaded by

    roberto valenzuela
    100 views2 pages
    The petitioner filed an ejectment case in one court while a collection case regarding unpaid rent on the same property was pending in another court. The respondent claimed this constituted forum shopping. However, the Supreme Court ruled that forum shopping did not occur because the ejectment case and collection case involved different issues and remedies. Specifically, the ejectment case concerned possession of the property, while the collection case sought unpaid rent. Additionally, a judgment in one case would not preclude litigation of the other case. The Court also held that an ejectment case cannot be joined with a collection case, as they are different types of civil actions with different procedures.

    Original Title

    SVHF vs mabalacat version 5

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed an ejectment case in one court while a collection case regarding unpaid rent on the same property was pending in another court. The respondent claimed this constituted forum shopping. However, the Supreme Court ruled that forum shopping did not occur because the ejectment case and collection case involved different issues and remedies. Specifically, the ejectment case concerned possession of the property, while the collection case sought unpaid rent. Additionally, a judgment in one case would not preclude litigation of the other case. The Court also held that an ejectment case cannot be joined with a collection case, as they are different types of civil actions with different procedures.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    100 views2 pages

    SVHF Vs Mabalacat Version 5

    Uploaded by

    roberto valenzuela
    The petitioner filed an ejectment case in one court while a collection case regarding unpaid rent on the same property was pending in another court. The respondent claimed this constituted forum shopping. However, the Supreme Court ruled that forum shopping did not occur because the ejectment case and collection case involved different issues and remedies. Specifically, the ejectment case concerned possession of the property, while the collection case sought unpaid rent. Additionally, a judgment in one case would not preclude litigation of the other case. The Court also held that an ejectment case cannot be joined with a collection case, as they are different types of civil actions with different procedures.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    7. SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION, INC., Petitioner, v.

    MABALACAT
    INSTITUTE, INC., Respondent. (Joinder of actions/forum shopping)

    FACTS: Petitioner filed an Ejectment Case while a Collection Case is still


    pending in a different court.

    The petitioner owns a parcel of land that the respondent occupies without paying rent.
    Petitioner informed respondent on March 14, 2002, that it will begin collecting rent on
    April 1, 2002. The respondent refused to cooperate.
    Petitioner sent a demand letter for rent payment on July 11, 2002, but respondent still
    refused to comply.

    The Petitioner then filed a complaint in Makati City Regional Trial Court for the
    collection of a sum of money.
    During the course of the proceedings, the petitioner filed a Complaint for Ejectment
    with the MCTC of Mabalacat and Magalang, Pampanga.

    ISSUES: A. Is Petitioner guilty of forum shopping? NO


    B. May an action for collection of sum of money be joined with an
    ejectment suit? NO

    HELD:

    We conclude that SVHFI did not violate the forum shopping rule by filing the Ejectment
    Case while the Collection Case was still pending after four years.

    The determining factor in violations of the forum shopping rule is


    whether litis pendentia elements are present, or
    whether a final judgment in one case constitutes res judicata in another.

    The elements of forum shopping are: I the identity of the parties, or at least those
    representing the same interest; (ii) the identity of the rights asserted and relief sought,
    both based on the same facts; and (iii) any judgment rendered in one action will
    amount to res judicata in the other action.

    In the instant case, We find that the second and third elements of forum shopping and
    litis pendentia are lacking. Thus, We are of the firm view that there is no identity of
    rights asserted and reliefs prayed for between a suit for collection of sura of money and
    an unlawful detainer case, and that any judgment rendered in one of these actions
    would not amount to res judicata in the other action.

    Firstly, there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for between both
    actions.
    The only issue that must be settled in an ejectment proceeding is physical possession of
    the property involved.

    On one hand, the purpose of the Collection Case was to compel MII to pay its rent in
    view of its occupancy on the subject lot from the time of SVHI's initial demand to
    vacate the subject lot.

    On the other hand, in the Ejectment Case, SVHFI's cause of action stemmed from the
    prejudice it suffered due to the loss of possession of its property. Nonetheless, its
    claims in the Collection Case do not have a direct relation to its loss of
    material possession of the subject lot.
    Secondly, any judgment rendered in ejectment cases of forcible entry or unlawful
    detainer will not amount to res judicata in a civil case of collection of sum of money for
    unpaid rent of the same property and vice versa.

    Settled is the rule that the only issue raised in ejectment cases is that of physical
    possession of the property.Thus, in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases, the only
    damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation
    for the use and occupation of the leased property. Hence, the damages which could be
    recovered are those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or
    those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property. On the other hand,
    in a civil suit for collection of sum of money, what is sought to be recovered is the
    payment of rentals only without regard to the unlawfulness of the occupancy.

    An action for collection of sum of money may not be joined with an ejectment
    suit, otherwise a misjoinder of causes of actions would ensue.

    Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court prohibits the joinder of an ordinary action, such
    as an action for collection of sum of money and a special civil action, such as an
    ejectment suit.

    Thus, in Lajave, We pointed out that "an action, for collection of sum of money may not
    be properly joined with the action for ejectment. The former is an ordinary civil action
    requiring a full-blown trial, while an action for unlawful detainer is a special civil action
    which requires a summary procedure."

    You might also like