G.R. No. L-22412. April 29, 1977.
JOSE ORELLANO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ROMUALDO ALVESTIR, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Jose Orellano purchased a lot from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila. Appellee Romualdo Alvestir was already occupying a portion of this land. After the sale, Orellano demanded that Alvestir formalize his occupancy by paying rentals. Alvestir promised to comply but failed to do so. Consequently, Orellano filed an ejectment suit (unlawful detainer) against Alvestir in the City Court of Manila on June 4, 1963.
Prior to this ejectment suit, Alvestir and his spouse had already filed an action (Civil Case No. 53664) in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Orellano, the Archbishop, and others. That earlier case sought partial rescission of the sale to Orellano and/or conveyance of the land, alleging Alvestir’s preferential right to purchase under Republic Act No. 1162 . In his answer to the ejectment complaint, Alvestir raised this pending case as an affirmative defense, arguing the issue of possession was sub judice.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the ejectment case on the ground of litis pendentia (pending action).

RULING

Yes, the dismissal was proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that the principle of litis pendentia applied. For this principle to bar a subsequent action, there must be identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, and identity in the two cases such that any judgment in one would constitute res judicata in the other.
Here, there was substantial identity of parties. While the CFI case included additional defendants (the Archbishop and a corporation), the primary opposing litigants on the core issue of possession were Orellano and Alvestir. The subject matter was identical: possession of the same parcel of land. Most critically, the cause of action or issue was the same—the better right of possession. Alvestir’s claim of a preferential right to purchase in the earlier CFI case directly challenged Orellano’s derivative title and right to possess. Until that prior action is resolved, the question of who has the superior right of possession cannot be conclusively determined.
The Court clarified that the city court, in the ejectment proceeding, could not adjudicate this underlying issue of title or preferential right, as it was beyond its limited jurisdiction. Since the issue of possession was inherently intertwined with and dependent upon the outcome of the previously instituted CFI case, it was judicious to dismiss the ejectment suit to avoid multiplicity of suits and potentially conflicting judgments. The pendency of the first action necessitated the abatement of the second.