GR 186657; (June, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 186657, June 11, 2014
DOMINGA B. QUITO, Petitioner, vs. STOP & SAVE CORPORATION, as represented by GREGORY DAVID DICKENSON, as its Chairman, and JULIETA BUAN-DICKENSON, as its President, ROBERTO BUAN, HENRY CO, ANGELINA LUMOTAN, RODEL PINEDA and ROSE CALMA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dominga B. Quito filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) against respondent Stop & Save Corporation and its sub-lessees. She alleged that Stop & Save failed to pay monthly rentals since June 2003 and refused to vacate the leased building despite demands, violating their April 4, 2002 Lease Agreement. In its answer, Stop & Save claimed it suspended rental payments because Dominga failed to complete necessary repairs on the building as agreed in a subsequent November 15, 2003 agreement, invoking Article 1658 of the Civil Code. The MCTC ruled in favor of Dominga, ordering Stop & Save to pay arrears and respect the lease unless annulled. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) set aside the MCTC decision and dismissed the unlawful detainer complaint on the ground of litis pendentia, due to a pending case for annulment of the lease contract filed earlier by Stop & Save with the same RTC. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s dismissal. Dominga filed the present petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the unlawful detainer case on the ground of litis pendentia.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals. Litis pendentia requires: (1) identity of parties; (2) substantial identity in the causes of action and reliefs sought; and (3) identity such that a judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other. While there is identity of parties, there is no substantial identity in the causes of action and reliefs. The unlawful detainer suit concerns the right to physical possession (possession de facto) and seeks ejectment for non-payment of rent. The annulment case concerns the validity of the lease contract and questions ownership. The evidence required for each action differs. Consequently, a judgment in one would not constitute res judicata in the other. Therefore, litis pendentia does not apply, and the unlawful detainer case should proceed independently from the annulment case.