G.R. No. 167246 ; July 20, 2011
GEORGE LEONARD S. UMALE, Petitioner, vs. CANOGA PARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS

On January 4, 2000, petitioner George Leonard S. Umale and respondent Canoga Park Development Corporation entered into a two-year Contract of Lease for a lot in Ortigas Center, Pasig City, starting January 16, 2000. The contract stipulated the lot be used only as a parking space and a small drivers’ canteen, and prohibited subleasing without prior written consent. On October 10, 2000, before the lease expired, the respondent filed an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 8084) against the petitioner before the MTC, alleging violations of the lease contract, specifically the unauthorized construction of restaurant buildings and commercial establishments and subleasing to various merchants. The MTC ruled for the respondent, but on appeal, the RTC-Branch 267 eventually dismissed the case for being prematurely filed. The respondent filed a petition for review with the CA regarding this dismissal.
During the pendency of that petition for review, and after the lease contract expired on January 15, 2002, the respondent filed a second unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 9210) on May 3, 2002, before a different MTC branch, this time based on the ground of expiration of the lease contract. The MTC-Branch 71 decided in favor of the respondent, ordering the petitioner to vacate, pay damages, and remove the structures. On appeal, the RTC-Branch 68 reversed the MTC decision and dismissed Civil Case No. 9210 on the ground of litis pendentia, finding it pending with the first case. The RTC, however, ordered the petitioner to pay the stipulated monthly rent. The respondent filed a Petition for Review with the CA, which nullified the RTC decision, reinstated the MTC-Branch 71 decision, and ruled no litis pendentia existed as the two cases had different causes of action. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that there is no litis pendentia between the first ejectment case (Civil Case No. 8084) and the second ejectment case (Civil Case No. 9210).

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. There is no litis pendentia between the two ejectment cases.
Litis pendentia requires: (1) identity of parties; (2) substantial identity in the causes of action and reliefs sought; and (3) identity such that any judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other. The Court found that while there was identity of parties, the causes of action were different. The first case (filed October 10, 2000) was based on violations of the lease contract’s stipulations during its term. The second case (filed May 3, 2002) was based on a new and distinct cause of action—the expiration of the lease contract on January 15, 2002, which was an event not yet in existence at the time the first complaint was filed. Applying the test of whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of filing the first complaint, the Court answered in the negative. The grounds for ejectment—breach of contract versus expiration of the term—are distinct, and a judgment in one would not bar the other. Therefore, the second ejectment case was not vexatious or unnecessary. The Court of Appeals correctly reinstated the MTC-Branch 71 decision in favor of the respondent.