Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Ching v. Cheng

    Uploaded by

    Philip Suplico

    Copyright:

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

    Ching v. Cheng

    Uploaded by

    Philip Suplico
    5 views1 page

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    5 views1 page

    Ching v. Cheng

    Uploaded by

    Philip Suplico

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Ching v. Cheng, G.R. No.

    175507, October 8, 2014

    FACTS: Antonio Ching, though unmarried was alleged to have children by two
    women, Lucina Santos (common law wife) and Maria Igne (housemaid). Antonio and
    Lucina had a son named Ramon Ching, while Maria and Antonio had two children
    named Joseph and Jaime, both surnamed "Cheng". After Antonio died, Ramon
    Ching convinced Maria Igne, together with her children, to sign an agreement
    wherein they will no longer pursue their claim in the estate of Antonio in exchange of a
    considerable sum of money. However, after investigation, it was found that Ramon
    was the primary suspect for Antonio’s.

    Accordingly, Joseph and Jaime, together with their mother Maria Igne, filed a
    complaint for annulment of agreement, waiver, extrajudicial settlement of est. and the
    certificates issued by virtue of such agreement against Ramon Cheng. (First case). A
    motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was filed by defendant and was granted by
    RTC. Thereafter, Cheng and Lucina (mother of Ramon) filed the same complaint but
    later MOVED for its dismissal and prayed that it be without PREJUDICE. The same
    was granted. To the grant of the dismissal, as moved by the petitioner, the defendant
    prayed for reconsideration. The defendant argued that the dismissal should be made
    WITH prejudice under the "two-dismissal rule"

    ISSUE: Whether the "two-dismissal rule" is applicable in this case? 

    HELD: NO. As a general rule, dismissals under Sec 1 Rule 17 are without prejudice
    except when it is the second time that the plaintiff CAUSED its dismissal. 

    On appeal to CA, the Court of Appeals rendered the decision in the first
    certiorari case dismissing the petition. The appellate court ruled that Ramon Ching's
    reliance on the "two-dismissal rule" was misplaced since the rule involves two
    motions for dismissals filed by the plaintiff only. In this case, it was found that the
    dismissal of the first case was upon the motion of the defendants, while the dismissal
    of the second case was at the instance of the plaintiffs.

    You might also like