BENEDICTO RAMOS, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ELVIRO L. PERALTA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH XVII, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, SPOUSES JUVENCIO ORTANEZ AND JULIANA S. ORTANEZ, MINDAN…

Put in issue in this petition for review on certiorari is
the propriety of the dismissal by the then Court of First In­stance (CFI) of
Manila, Branch XVII of petitioner’s action for consignation of the sum of
P70,000.00 representing advance rent­als for the 101-hectare Salgado fishpond
located in Bo. Balut, Pilar, Bataan.

Petitioner started occupying the Salgado fishpond in 1964 by
virtue of a lease contract executed in his favor by private respondents spouses
Juvencio and Juliana Ortanez. The
original lease for a term of five (5) years from January 1, 1964 to Janu­ary 1,
1969 was renewed several times, the last renewal being on June 28, 1974 under a
“Kasunduan sa Pag-upa” for a period of three (3) years starting January 1,
1975 to December 31, 1977.

Unknown to petitioner, title^[1]
to said property was in the name of Philippine International Surety Co., Inc.,
a corporation founded, organized and 99.5%-owned by the Salgado spouses. Later renamed Mindanao Insurance Co., Inc.,^[2]
said corporation was placed under receivership and liquidation on June 20, 1968
in Civil Case No. Q-10664 of the then CFI of Rizal, Branch IV, Quezon City,
upon application of Insurance Commissioner Gregoria Cruz-Ansaldo who was
appointed receiver.

Thereafter on February 23, 1976, respondent P. R. Roman, Inc.
purchased from Mindanao Insurance the Salgado fishpond for P950,000.00. The deed of sale was signed by the receiver
and duly approved by the liquidation court.

Apparently due to this development, the spouses Ortanez refused
to accept from petitioner the advance rentals on the fishpond due on March 15,
1976 in the amount of P30,000.00.

On or about May 1, 1976, petitioner received a letter from Don
Pablo R. Roman informing him of the latter’s acquisition of the fishpond and
intention to take possession thereof on May 16, 1976. In his letter-reply, petitioner reminded Mr. Roman of his lease
contract over the fishpond and refused to consent to the intended
take-over. Notwithstanding petitioner’s
objection, P. R. Roman, Inc. took over possession of the fishpond.

On August 2, 1976, petitioner filed before the CFI of Manila the
aforesaid complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 103647^[3],
against private respondents Juvencio and Juliana Ortanez, Mindanao Insurance
and P. R. Roman, Inc. for consignation of the sum of P70,000.00 representing
advance rentals on the fishpond in the amounts of P30,000.00 and P40,000.00
respectively due on March 15, 1976 and June 15, 1976, which he had previously
tendered to, but refused by the spouses Ortanez and Pablo Roman.

P. R. Roman, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that
venue was improperly laid, the complaint states no cause of action and the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject of the action or suit. In its motion to dismiss, P. R. Roman, Inc.
cited the pendency before the then CFI of Bataan of Civil Case No. 4102
instituted by P.R. Roman, Inc. against petitioner Bene­dicto Ramos on August
13, 1976 to quiet its title over the Salga­do fishpond.

On August 27, 1976, respondent CFI of Manila issued an order^[4]
dismissing Civil Case No. 103647, stating in part:

Without discussing in detail the grounds mentioned above, the Court
really sees that this case should be dismissed not only insofar as against P.
R. Roman, Inc. but also as against the other defendants mentioned above for the
reason, principally, that there is already a case pending between the same
parties and for the same cause in Civil Case No. 4102 of Branch II of the Court
of First Instance of Bataan, entitled P. R. Roman, Inc. vs. Benedicto Ramos,
which is precisely for the ownership of the subject matter of the property
allegedly leased to the plaintiff herein (Exhibit “A”-Motion). In the said case, the defendant therein,
Benedicto Ramos, who is the plaintiff in the case at bar, filed a motion for
leave to file a third-party complaint against the spouses surnamed Ortanez and
the Mindanao Insurance, Company, Inc. All the issues respecting the fishpond, including the lease contract,
are necessarily involved in the case pending now in Bataan. Aside from the above, the Court cannot
decide this case because it cannot pre-empt the Court of Bataan on whether or
nor the P. R. Roman, Inc. is already the owner because if it finds that the
said defendant P. R. Roman, Inc. is really the owner of the fishpond, there is
no more lease for which rentals are to be paid.”

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but was unsuccessful, the
court a quo, standing “pat on its previous order and
reiterat(ing) its dismissal of the case, without costs.”^[5]

Hence this petition anchored on the following ascribed errors of
law:^[6]

1. The respondent court erred in not holding
that the only issue in consignation of ‘funds is whether the defendant is
willing to accept the proffered payment or not.

2. The respondent court erred in not holding
that the prerogative of choosing the proper venue belongs to the plaintiff.

3. The respondent court erred in holding that
the subsequent filing of Civil Case No. 4102 before the Court of First Instance
of Bataan is a bar to the prosecution of Civil Case No. 103647 before it.

Petitioner contends that the Bataan quieting-of-title Civil Case
No. 4102 cannot serve as a bar to his Manila consignation Civil Case No. 103647
because they involve different issues. Case No. 4102 deals with the question of ownership while the only issue
involved in his consignation case is whether or not the defendant is willing to
accept the proffered payment. In fact,
petitioner posits, the action to quiet title is a useless futile exercise as he
does not question P. R. Roman Inc.’s ownership of the fishpond under
consideration, but merely wishes to assert his leasehold and possessory rights
over said property under the “Kasunduan sa Pag-upa.” He further
contends that compelling him to litigate before the Bataan court would render
nugatory his right as a plaintiff to choose the venue of his action. Besides, Civil Case No. 103647 was filed on
August 2, 1976, ahead of Civil Case No. 4102 which was filed on a much later
date, August 13, 1976, after the Manila CFI had already acquired jurisdiction
over Civil Case. No. 103647.

Private respondents counter that the view taken by petitioner of
the Manila consignation case is quite limited and bookish, because while it may
be true that theoretically, the main issue involved in a consignation case is
whether or not the defendant is willing to accept the proffered payment, in the
consignation ease brought by petitioner, other issues were pleaded by peti­tioner
himself, such as the validity and binding effect of the lease contract and the
existence of the supposed obligor-obligee relationship. They further contend that a plaintiff’s
right of choice of venue is not absolute, but must invariably bow to the
dismissal of the case because of litis pendentia which, in
refutation of petitioner’s argument, does not require that there is a prior
pending action, merely that there is a pending action.

We find for respondents.

Under the rules and jurisprudence, for litis pendentia
to be invoked as a ground for the dismissal of an action, the concurrence of
the following requisites is necessary: (a) Identity of parties or at least such as represent the same interest
in both actions; (b) Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the
relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) The identity in the two cases
should be such that the judgment that may be rendered in one would, regardless
of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the
other.^[7]

These requisites are present in the case at bar. It is worthwhile mentioning that in his
basic petition for review, one of the assigned errors of petitioner is that the
respondent court erred in not holding that the parties in Civil Case No. 4102
are not the same as the parties in Civil Case No. 103647.^[8]
However, in his brief, no further mention of this assigned error was made; a
clear indication of petitioner’s admission of the identity of parties in Civil
Case No. 4102 and Civil Case No. 103647, par­ticularly as he filed a third
party complaint in Civil Case No. 4102 against the spouses Ortanez and Mindanao
Insurance.

Anent the second element, we agree with private respond­ents’
observation that petitioner’s approach to his consignation case is quite
constricted. His contention that the
only issue in a consignation case is whether or not the defendant is willing to
accept the proffered payment is true only where there is no controversy with
respect to the obligation sought to be dis­charged by such payment. His consignation case, however, is not as
simple. While ostensibly, the immediate
relief sought for in his consignation case is to compel therein defendants to
accept his advance rentals, the ultimate purpose of such action is to compel
the new owner of the fishpond to recognize his leasehold rights and right of
occupation. In the last analysis,
therefore, the issue involved in Civil Case No. 103647 is the right of
possession over the fishpond intertwined with the valid­ity and effectivity of
the lease contract.

This is the same issue involved in Civil Case No. 4102. Although an action for quieting of title
refers to ownership, P. R. Roman, Inc. in its complaint^[9]
in Civil Case No. 4102 alleged:

5. There is a cloud on the aforesaid titles of
plaintiff on the said agricultural land, marked Annexes “A”,
“B” and “C” hereof, as well as on
its right of possession over that real
property by reason of a certain “Kasunduan
sa Pagupa” (Contract of Lease) dated June 28, 1974 executed
by and between the spouses Jovencio Ortanez and Juliana S. Ortanez purportedly
as “may­-ari/Nagpapaupa” (owner/lessor) and the defendant as lessee,
which instrument is apparently valid or effec­tive but in truth and in fact
invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable, and is prejudicial to the said
titles of plaintiff as well as to its right
of possession over the same fishpond/agricultural
land in Barrio Balut, Pilar, Bataan.

Thus, while the respondent court in the assailed order of
dismissal dated August 27, 1976 described Civil Case No. 4102 as
“precisely for the ownership of the subject matter of the property allegedly
leased to the plaintiff herein,”^[10]
its order dated October 22, 1976 denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, more perceptively stated:^[11]

“In Civil Case No. 4102 of the Court of First Instance of
Bataan, entitled P. R. Roman, Inc. vs. Benedicto Ramos one of the
principal issues is the possession of
the fishpond subject matter of the lease
supposed rents of which are supposed to be consignated in the instant case,
plaintiff P. R. Roman, Inc. there, claiming to be entitled to the possession of
said property as owner under a certificate of title and defendant Benedicto
Ramos, plaintiff here, anchoring his claim of possession upon his lease with
the Ortanez spouses against whom, on his motion, he filed a third party
complaint in which he prayed in the alternative, that should he lose possession
of the fishpond in favor of P. R. Roman, Inc., the Ortanezes should be
condemned to reimburse him the rentals he has already paid for the unexpired
portion of the lease. The issue of
whether or not the lease subsists even as regards P. R. Roman, Inc., for it is
the view of Ramos that it bought the property with knowledge of the lease, is
squarely planted in the case before the Court of First Instance of Bataan, and,
consequently, the more appropriate court with which rents are to be
consignated. x x x”

That whatever decision may be handed down in Civil Case No. 4102
would constitute res judicata in Civil Case No. 103647 is beyond
cavil. Should the Bataan court rule
that the lease contract is valid and effective against P. R. Roman, Inc., then
petitioner can compel it to accept his proffered payment of rentals; otherwise,
he may not do so.

Petitioner next contends that the dismissal of Civil Case No.
103647 deprived him of his right to choose the venue of his action. Verily, the rules on the venue of personal
actions are laid down generally for the convenience of the plaintiff and his
witnesses. But, as observed by private
respondents, this right given to the plaintiff is not immutable. It must yield to the greater interest of the
orderly administration of justice, which as in this case, may call for the
dismissal of an action on the basis of litis pendentia to obviate
the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by two different
courts.^[12]

As private respondents would put it, “(T)he Rules of Court
are not perfect. It does not pretend to
be able to make everyone happy simultaneously or consecutively or all the
time. Even the Rules of Court has a
hierarchy of values; thus, the choice of venue may bow to dismissal of the case
because of litis pendentia.^[13]
At any rate, petitioner cannot complain of any inconvenience arising from the
dismissal of Civil Case No. 103647. Being the defendant in Civil Case No. 4102, he cannot but litigate
before the Bataan court, and bringing his consignation case before the same
court would actually save him time, effort and litigation expenses.

Finally, the rule on litis pendentia does not
require that the later case should yield to the earlier case. What is re­quired merely is that there be
another pending action, not a prior pending action. Considering the broader scope of inquiry
involved in Civil Case No. 4102 and the location of the property involved, no
error was committed by the lower court in deferring to the Bataan court’s
jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated August 27, 1976 of
the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVII, is AFFIRMED in toto. This decision is immediately executory, with
costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Under Certificates of Title Nos. 7881,
7882 and 7883, Registry of Deeds of Bataan.

^[2]
Hereinafter Mindanao Insurance

^[3]
Assigned to Branch XVII presided over
by respondent Hon. Judge Elviro L. Peralta.

^[4]
Annex “I”, Petition, pp.
76-77, Rollo.

^[5]
Annex “R”, Petition, pp. 108-109, Rollo.

^[6]
pp. 15-16, Brief for the Petitioner, p.
293, Rollo.

^[7]
Ramos vs. Ebarle, G. R. No.
49833, February 15, 1990, 182 SCRA 245; Marapao vs. Mendoza, et al., 119
SCRA 97; Lopez, et al. vs. Villaruel, et al., 164 SCRA 616.

^[8]
p. 12, Petition, p. 19, Rollo.

^[9]
Annex “G”, Petition, p. 62, Rollo,
emphasis supplied.

^[10]
p. 77, Rollo.

^[11]
pp. 108-109, Rollo, emphasis
supplied.

^[12]
See Vallacar Transit, Inc. vs.
Yap, G. R. No. 61308, December 29, 1983, 126 SCRA 500.

^[13]
p. 28, Brief for Respondents-Spouses
Ortanez, p. 401, Rollo.