7/20/23, 10:53 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654

G.R. No. 167246. July 20, 2011.*

GEORGE LEONARD S. UMALE, petitioner, vs. CANOGA PARK

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent.

Remedial Law; Actions; Litis Pendentia; Litis pendentia refers to 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 for Litis Pendentia to Exist.—As a ground for the
dismissal of a civil action, litis pendentia refers to 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. Litis pendentia
exists when the following requisites are present: identity of the parties in the
two actions; substantial identity in the causes of action and in the reliefs
sought by the parties; and the identity between the two actions should be
such that any judgment that may be rendered in one case, regardless of
which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.

_______________

** Per Special Order No. 1006.

*** Per Special Order No. 1040.

* SECOND DIVISION.

156

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Umale vs. Canoga Park Development Corporation

Same; Same; Cause of Action; Generally, a suit may only be instituted

for a single cause of action; Tests to ascertain whether two suits relate to a
single or common cause of action.—Generally, a suit may only be instituted
for a single cause of action. If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of
the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment on the merits in any
one is ground for the dismissal of the others. Several tests exist to ascertain
whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action, such as
whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and
second causes of action (also known as the “same evidence” test), or
whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001897138a9728e2a0c8d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/9
7/20/23, 10:53 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654

in the other. Also fundamental is the test of determining whether the cause
of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first
complaint.
Same; Same; Forum Shopping; To determine whether a party violated
the rule against forum shopping, the test applied is whether the elements of
litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will
amount to res judicata in another.—Similarly, we do not find the respondent
guilty of forum shopping in filing Civil Case No. 9210, the second civil
case. To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping,
the test applied is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or
whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.
Considering our pronouncement that not all the requisites of litis pendentia
are present in this case, the CA did not err in declaring that the respondent
committed no forum shopping.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Rivera, Santos & Maranan for petitioner.
Pastelero Law Office for respondent.

BRION, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari1 filed by

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 24-60.

157

VOL. 654, JULY 20, 2011 157

Umale vs. Canoga Park Development Corporation

George Leonard S. Umale (petitioner), challenging the August 20,

2004 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP. No.
78836 and its subsequent February 23, 2005 Resolution3 that denied
his motion for reconsideration. The CA reversed the Decision4 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Branch 68, Pasig City, that dismissed
Canoga Park Development Corporation’s complaint for unlawful
detainer on the ground of litis pendentia.
Antecedents
On January 4, 2000, the parties entered into a Contract of Lease5
whereby the petitioner agreed to lease, for a period of two (2) years
starting from January 16, 2000, an eight hundred sixty (860)-square-
meter prime lot located in Ortigas Center, Pasig City owned by the
respondent. The respondent acquired the subject lot from Ortigas &
Co. Ltd. Partnership through a Deed of Absolute Sale, subject to the
following conditions: (1) that no shopping arcades or retail stores,
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001897138a9728e2a0c8d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/9
7/20/23, 10:53 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654

restaurants, etc. shall be allowed to be established on the property,

except with the prior written consent from Ortigas & Co. Ltd.
Partnership and (2) that the respondent and/or its successors-in-
interest shall become member/s of the Ortigas Center Association,
Inc. (Association), and shall abide by its rules and regulations.6
On October 10, 2000, before the lease contract expired, the
respondent filed an unlawful detainer case against the petitioner
before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC)-Branch 68, Pasig City,
docketed as Civil Case No. 8084.7 The respondent used as a ground
for ejectment the petitioner’s violation of stipulations in the lease
contract regarding the use of the

_______________

2 Id., at pp. 9-19.

3 Id., at p. 21.
4 Id., at pp. 332-336.
5 Id., at pp. 133-138.
6 Id., at p. 10.
7 Id., at pp. 127-131.

158

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Umale vs. Canoga Park Development Corporation

property. Under this contract, the petitioner shall use the leased lot as
a parking space for light vehicles and as a site for a small drivers’
canteen,8 and may not utilize the subject premises for other purposes
without the respondent’s prior written consent.9 The petitioner,
however, constructed restaurant buildings and other commercial
establishments on the lot, without first securing the required written
consent from the respondent, and the necessary permits from the
Association and the Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership. The petitioner
also subleased the property to various merchants-tenants in violation
of the lease contract.
The MTC-Branch 68 decided the ejectment case in favor of the
respondent. On appeal, the RTC-Branch 155, Pasig City affirmed in
toto the MTC-Branch 68 decision.10 The case, however, was re-
raffled to the RTC-Branch 267, Pasig City because the Presiding
Judge of the RTC-Branch 155, upon motion, inhibited himself from
resolving the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.11 The RTC-
Branch 267 granted the petitioner’s motion, thereby reversing and
setting aside the MTC-Branch 68 decision. Accordingly, Civil Case
No. 8084 was dismissed for being prematurely filed.12 Thus, the
respondent filed a petition for review with the CA on April 10,
2002.13

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001897138a9728e2a0c8d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/9
7/20/23, 10:53 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654

During the pendency of the petition for review, the respondent

filed on May 3, 2002 another case for unlawful detainer against the
petitioner before the MTC-Branch 71, Pasig City. The case was
docketed as Civil Case No. 9210.14 This time, the respondent used as
a ground for ejectment the expiration of the parties’ lease contract.

_______________

8 Id., at pp. 135-136.

9 Id., at p. 136.
10 Id., at pp. 196-199.
11 Dated September 19, 2001.
12 Rollo, pp. 222-227.
13 Id., at p. 12.
14 Id., at pp. 337-342.

159

VOL. 654, JULY 20, 2011 159

Umale vs. Canoga Park Development Corporation

On December 4, 2002, the MTC-Branch 71 rendered a decision15

in favor of the respondent, the dispositive portion of which read, as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff [referring

to the respondent] and against the defendant and all persons claiming rights under
him, as follows:
1. Defendant and all persons claiming rights under him are ordered to
peacefully vacate the premises located at Lot 9, Block 5, San Miguel
Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 488797 of the Registry of Deeds of Pasig City and to surrender the
possession thereof to the plaintiff;
2. Defendant is ordered to pay unto plaintiff the following:
a. Damages for the use of the property after the expiration of the lease
contract therefor in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P150,000.00) a month, beginning 16 January 2002 until he
and all those claiming rights under him have vacated and peacefully
turned over the subject premises to the plaintiff; and
b. One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as and for attorney’s
fees together with costs of suit.
3. With respect to the commercial units built by [the] defendant on the subject
land, he is hereby ordered to remove the same from the subject land and to
restore the subject land in the same condition as it was received unto the
plaintiff, at his exclusive account, failing which the same shall be removed
by the plaintiff, with expenses therefor chargeable to the defendant.”

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001897138a9728e2a0c8d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/9
7/20/23, 10:53 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654

On appeal, the RTC-Branch 68 reversed and set aside the

decision of the MTC-Branch 71, and dismissed Civil Case No. 9210
on the ground of litis pendentia.16 The petitioner, however, was still
ordered to pay rent in the amount of seventy-one thousand five
hundred pesos (P71,500.00) per month

_______________

15 Id., at pp. 345-353.

16 Supra note 4.

160

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Umale vs. Canoga Park Development Corporation

beginning January 16, 2002, which amount is the monthly rent

stipulated in the lease contract.
Aggrieved by the reversal, the respondent filed a Petition for
Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court with the CA. The
respondent argued that there exists no litis pendentia between Civil
Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 because the two cases involved different
grounds for ejectment, i.e., the first case was filed because of
violations of the lease contract, while the second case was filed due
to the expiration of the lease contract. The respondent emphasized
that the second case was filed based on an event or a cause not yet in
existence at the time of the filing of the first case.17 The lease
contract expired on January 15, 2002,18 while the first case was filed
on October 10, 2000.
On August 20, 2004, the CA nullified and set aside the assailed
decision of the RTC-Branch 68, and ruled that there was no litis
pendentia because the two civil cases have different causes of
action. The decision of the MTC- Branch 71 was ordered reinstated.
Subsequently, the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was
denied; hence, the filing of the present petition for review on
certiorari.
In presenting his case before this Court, the petitioner insists that
litis pendentia exists between the two ejectment cases filed against
him because of their identity with one another and that any judgment
on the first case will amount to res judicata on the other. The
petitioner argues that the respondent reiterated the ground of
violations of the lease contract, with the additional ground of the
expiration of the lease contract in the second ejectment case. Also,
the petitioner alleges that all of the elements of litis pendentia are
present in this case, thus, he prays for the reversal and setting aside
of the assailed CA decision and resolution, and for the dismissal of
the complaint in Civil Case No. 9210 on the ground of litis
pendentia and/or forum shopping.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001897138a9728e2a0c8d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/9
7/20/23, 10:53 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654

_______________

17 Rollo, p. 323.
18 Id., at p. 649.

161

VOL. 654, JULY 20, 2011 161

Umale vs. Canoga Park Development Corporation

The Court’s Ruling

We disagree with the petitioner and find that there is no litis

pendentia.
As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, litis pendentia
refers to 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.19
Litis pendentia exists when the following requisites are present:
identity of the parties in the two actions; substantial identity in the
causes of action and in the reliefs sought by the parties; and the
identity between the two actions should be such that any judgment
that may be rendered in one case, regardless of which party is
successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.20
In the present case, the parties’ bone of contention is whether
Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 involve the same cause of action.
The petitioner argues that the causes of action are similar, while the
respondent argues otherwise. If an identity, or substantial identity, of
the causes of action in both cases exist, then the second complaint
for unlawful detainer may be dismissed on the ground of litis
pendentia.
We rule that Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 involve different
causes of action.

_______________

19 Proton Pilipinas Corporation v. Republic, G.R. No. 165027, October 16, 2006,
504 SCRA 528, 545; and Guaranteed Hotels, Inc. v. Baltao, 489 Phil. 702, 707; 448
SCRA 739, 744 (2005).
20 Dotmatrix Trading v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 155622, October 26, 2009, 604 SCRA
431. See Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. v. Social Security Commission, G.R. No.
159323, July 31, 2008, 560 SCRA 719, 736; Dayot v. Shell Chemical Company
(Phils.), Inc., G.R. No. 156542, June 26, 2007, 525 SCRA 535, 545-546; and Abines
v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 167900, February 13, 2006, 482 SCRA
421, 429.

162

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001897138a9728e2a0c8d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/9
7/20/23, 10:53 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654

162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Umale vs. Canoga Park Development Corporation

Generally, a suit may only be instituted for a single cause of

action.21 If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same
cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment on the merits in any
one is ground for the dismissal of the others.22
Several tests exist to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single
or common cause of action, such as whether the same evidence
would support and sustain both the first and second causes of
action23 (also known as the “same evidence” test),24 or whether the
defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the
other.25 Also fundamental is the test of determining whether the
cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of
the first complaint.26
Of the three tests cited, the third one is especially applicable to
the present case, i.e., whether the cause of action in the second case
existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint—and to which
we answer in the negative. The facts clearly show that 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 case
was based on the expiration of the lease contract. At the time the
respondent filed the first ejectment complaint on October 10, 2000,
the lease contract between the parties was still in effect. The lease
was fixed for a period of two (2) years, from January 16, 2000, and
in the absence of a renewal agreed upon by the parties, the lease
remained effective until January 15, 2002.

_______________

21 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 3, Rule 2.

22 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 4, Rule 2.
23 Peñalosa v. Tuason, 22 Phil. 303, 322 (1912); Pagsisihan v. Court of Appeals,
184 Phil. 469, 479; 95 SCRA 540 (1980); and Feliciano v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil.
499, 506-507; 287 SCRA 61, 68 (1998).
24 See Agustin v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 168139, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA
576.
25 Victronics Computers, Inc. v. RTC, Branch 63, Makati, G.R. No. 104019,
January 25, 1993, 217 SCRA 517, 530.
26 Subic Telecommunications Company, Inc. v. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority,
G.R. No. 185159, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 470.

163

VOL. 654, JULY 20, 2011 163

Umale vs. Canoga Park Development Corporation

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001897138a9728e2a0c8d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/9
7/20/23, 10:53 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654

It was only at the expiration of the lease contract that the cause of
action in the second ejectment complaint accrued and made
available to the respondent as a ground for ejecting the petitioner.
Thus, the cause of action in the second case was not yet in existence
at the time of filing of the first ejectment case.
In response to the petitioner’s contention that the similarity of
Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 rests on the reiteration in the second
case of the cause of action in the first case, we rule that the
restatement does not result in substantial identity between the two
cases. Even if the respondent alleged violations of the lease contract
as a ground for ejectment in the second complaint, the main basis for
ejecting the petitioner in the second case was the expiration of the
lease contract. If not for this subsequent development, the
respondent could no longer file a second complaint for unlawful
detainer because an ejectment complaint may only be filed within
one year after the accrual of the cause of action,27 which, in the
second case, was the expiration of the lease contract.
Also, contrary to petitioner’s assertion, there can be no conflict
between the decisions rendered in Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210
because the MTC-Branch 71 decided the latter case on the sole issue
of whether the lease contract between the parties had expired.
Although alleged by the respondent in its complaint, the MTC-
Branch 71 did not rule on the alleged violations of the lease contract
committed by the petitioner. We note that the damages awarded by
the MTC-Branch 71 in Civil Case No. 9210 were for those incurred
after the expiration of the lease contract,28 not for those incurred
prior thereto.
Similarly, we do not find the respondent guilty of forum shopping
in filing Civil Case No. 9210, the second civil case. To determine
whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the test
applied is whether the elements of litis

_______________

27 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 1, Rule 70.

28 Rollo, p. 352.

164

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Umale vs. Canoga Park Development Corporation

pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will

amount to res judicata in another.29 Considering our pronouncement
that not all the requisites of litis pendentia are present in this case,
the CA did not err in declaring that the respondent committed no
forum shopping. Also, a close reading of the Verification and
Certification of Non-Forum Shopping30 (attached to the second
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001897138a9728e2a0c8d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/9
7/20/23, 10:53 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 654

ejectment complaint) shows that the respondent did disclose that it

had filed a former complaint for unlawful detainer against the
petitioner. Thus, the respondent cannot be said to have committed a
willful and deliberate forum shopping.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed
Decision dated August 20, 2004 and Resolution dated February 23,
2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 78836 are
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,** Peralta*** and

Perez, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Note.—Litis Pendentia or auter action pendant is the pendency

of another action between the same parties for the same cause.
(Forbes Park Association Inc. vs. Pagrel, Inc., 545 SCRA 39
[2008])
——o0o——

_______________

29 Solid Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. 605, 615; 271 SCRA 157, 166
(1997).
30 Rollo, pp. 343-344.
** Designated as Acting Member of the Second Division per Special Order No.
1006 dated June 10, 2011.
*** Designated as Acting Member of the Second Division per Special Order No.
1040 dated July 6, 2011 vice Associate Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, on official
leave.

© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001897138a9728e2a0c8d000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/9