G.R. No. L-19173 December 27, 1966
ROSE DESAMITO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. TRINIDAD CASAS-CUYEGKENG, assisted by her husband ALFONSO CUYEGKENG, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On February 10, 1959, Trinidad Casas-Cuyegkeng filed an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 64814) in the Municipal Court of Manila against her tenant, Rose Desamito, for non-payment of rent and because she needed the premises for her own use. In her answer, Desamito alleged special defenses, including that the lessor had agreed to a transfer of the lease to a buyer, Mr. Federico P. Gomez, but later demanded a higher rental, causing Gomez to cancel the purchase and resulting in over P125,000 in damages to Desamito, for which she reserved action in the Court of First Instance. She also filed a counterclaim for improvements and attorney’s fees. While the ejectment case was pending, Desamito filed a separate action for damages (C.F.I. Case No. 39449) against Casas-Cuyegkeng in the Court of First Instance, based on the same facts, seeking to fix the lease period, recover P135,600 in damages, and attorney’s fees. The Municipal Court decided the ejectment case in favor of the landlord, and Desamito appealed to the Court of First Instance, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 40481. There, she filed a new answer reproducing her allegations, including the claim for P125,000 in damages. The Court of First Instance affirmed the ejectment judgment. Meanwhile, in the damages case (39449), Desamito amended her complaint, dropping the cause to fix the lease but retaining the claim for damages, now alleging the lessor’s actions caused her mental anguish leading to her premature death. Casas-Cuyegkeng moved to dismiss the damages case on the ground of lis pendens. The Court of First Instance granted the motion, ruling the causes of action in both cases were predicated on the same facts and the ejectment case was more appropriate. Desamito’s motions for reconsideration were denied. While her appeal was pending, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ejectment decision, which became final after the Supreme Court denied certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the amended complaint in Civil Case No. 39449 on the ground of lis pendens, given that the issue of damages had been raised and adjudicated in the appealed ejectment case (Civil Case No. 40481).

RULING

Yes, the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the complaint. The records reveal that in both the appealed ejectment case (40481) and the damages case (39449), the appellant Desamito pleaded the same facts and sought the same remedies regarding the claim for damages arising from the failed sale to Gomez. When the ejectment case was appealed to the Court of First Instance, Desamito’s answer therein squarely put in issue the question of liability for damages, which the court could and did take cognizance of in the exercise of its original jurisdiction under Section 11, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, as the parties filed pleadings and went to trial without objection. This issue was resolved adversely against Desamito in the ejectment case, and that decision, having been affirmed by the Court of Appeals and becoming final, foreclosed further relitigation. Therefore, the Court of First Instance committed no error in refusing to proceed with Case No. 39449, as the issues had already been tried and decided in Case No. 40481. The orders appealed from are affirmed.