G.R. No. 123293 March 5, 1998
ELISA C. FELICIANO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO BARON, respondents.

FACTS

On February 6, 1978, Eleuterio Cosme obtained a loan from Insular Bank of Asia and America, secured by a mortgage on a parcel of land registered in his name. The loan was not paid, leading to extrajudicial foreclosure, with the bank as the highest bidder. After the redemption period lapsed, ownership was consolidated in the bank. Eleuterio Cosme and his wife Asuncion Obando died. Their daughters, petitioner Elisa C. Feliciano and Arsenia C. Buendia, took possession as compulsory heirs. In 1985, Elisa filed an action in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City against the bank for Annulment of Mortgage, Certificate of Sale, Deed of Absolute Sale and TCT, Reconveyance with Injunction and Damages. During its pendency, on February 15, 1991, private respondent Ernesto Baron bought the property from the bank. Baron demanded that Elisa and Arsenia pay rents and vacate. Elisa refused, asserting ownership and the pending litigation. Baron filed a complaint for ejectment before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. The MeTC dismissed the case on the ground of litis pendentia. The RTC affirmed the dismissal, citing litis pendentia and lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient averments for either forcible entry or unlawful detainer. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, holding that litis pendentia was not present and that the complaint sufficiently established a cause for unlawful detainer, remanding the case to the MeTC.

ISSUE

1. Whether litis pendentia exists to warrant the dismissal of the ejectment case.
2. Whether the allegations in the complaint for ejectment are sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the MeTC.

RULING

1. No, litis pendentia does not exist. For litis pendentia to apply, there must be: (a) identity of parties or interests; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (c) identity such that a judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. While there is identity of parties and subject matter, the rights asserted and reliefs prayed for are not the same. The RTC case involves the validity of the mortgage and foreclosure sale, with relief for recovery of ownership. The MeTC ejectment case involves the right to possession, with relief for restoration of possession. The causes of action are different; the same evidence needed to sustain the annulment action is not sufficient to authorize recovery in the ejectment action. A decision in one will not constitute res judicata as to the other. The pendency of an action for annulment and reconveyance cannot be pleaded in abatement of an ejectment action, as ejectment judgments are effective only with respect to possession and do not bind title.
2. Yes, the allegations are sufficient. The test is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer. The complaint alleged that Baron bought the premises, and Elisa was requested to vacate for lack of lawful possession and non-payment of rentals but refused, claiming ownership. These allegations adequately establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer. An allegation that the defendant is unlawfully withholding possession is deemed sufficient without necessarily employing the precise terminology of the law.
The petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED, and the case is REMANDED to the MeTC for further proceedings.