ELISA C. FELICIANO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND ERNESTO BARON, RESPONDENTS.

Feliciano versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Elisa Feliciano against the Court of Appeals and Ernesto Baron. The dispute began as a simple complaint for ejectment filed by Baron before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, but it grew into a contest over two procedural doctrines that every Bar candidate must master: litis pendentia — the rule against a second suit pending between the same parties for the same cause — and the sufficiency of a complaint to vest jurisdiction in the municipal trial court. The case matters because it draws a bright line between an action that recovers ownership and an action that recovers possession, and it tells us when the two may proceed side by side.

Procedural History

Baron filed a complaint for ejectment before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. That court dismissed the case on the ground of litis pendentia, because a suit for annulment and reconveyance was already pending in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Baron appealed, and the Regional Trial Court affirmed the dismissal, adding that the Metropolitan Trial Court never validly acquired jurisdiction since the complaint did not sufficiently allege either forcible entry or unlawful detainer. Baron then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Regional Trial Court and remanded the case to the court of origin for further proceedings. It held that litis pendentia was absent and that the complaint adequately established a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Elisa Feliciano then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

In February 1978 Eleuterio Cosme obtained a loan of 50,000 pesos from the Insular Bank of Asia and America. To secure it, he mortgaged a parcel of land registered in his name, married to Asuncion Obando. The loan was not paid upon maturity, so the mortgage was foreclosed extrajudicially and the land was sold at public auction with the bank as the highest bidder. After the redemption period lapsed, ownership was consolidated in the bank and a new certificate of title was issued in its name.

Eleuterio and Asuncion later died. Their daughters, Elisa Feliciano and Arsenia Buendia, took possession of the property and exercised rights of ownership as compulsory heirs. In 1985 Elisa instituted before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City an action for annulment of the mortgage, the certificate of sale, the deed of absolute sale and the new title, with reconveyance and damages.

While that case was pending, in February 1991, Ernesto Baron bought the property from the bank. On the strength of that sale he demanded that Elisa and Arsenia pay rents and vacate the premises. Elisa refused, insisting that she was the owner and that the property was the subject of pending litigation. Baron then filed the ejectment complaint that gave rise to this case.

Issues

• Whether or not litis pendentia existed between the pending action for annulment and reconveyance in the Regional Trial Court and the ejectment case in the Metropolitan Trial Court.
• Whether or not the allegations in the complaint for ejectment were sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Metropolitan Trial Court to entertain the suit for unlawful detainer.

Applicable Provisions

The decision invokes the rule on dismissal of a civil action on the ground of litis pendentia, found in paragraph (e) of Section 1 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court:

Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds: x x x (e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.

This is the ground Elisa pleaded in abatement of the ejectment case, and its requisites govern the first issue.

The decision also states the settled rule on the limited effect of a judgment in ejectment, drawn from the Rules of Court:

The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be effective with respect to the possession only and in no case bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building. Such judgment shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or building nor shall it be held conclusive of the facts therein found in a case between the same parties upon the different cause of action involving possession.

This provision explains why the annulment suit cannot abate the ejectment case, and why the ejectment case cannot defeat the annulment suit.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that litis pendentia did not obtain, because the second and third requisites were absent. The Court laid down the requisites: identity of parties or at least such as represent the same interest in both actions; identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and such identity in the two cases that the judgment in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other. While there may be identity of parties and subject matter, the issues and reliefs are not the same. In the annulment and reconveyance suit the issue is the validity of the mortgage and the foreclosure sale; in the ejectment case the issue is whether, assuming the mortgage and sale to be valid, Baron has the right to take possession. The former seeks recovery of ownership; the latter seeks restoration of possession. Hence the Metropolitan Trial Court may validly try the ejectment case even while the annulment suit is being litigated. There being different causes of action, a decision in one will not constitute res judicata as to the other. The test of identity of causes of action is whether the same evidence necessary to sustain the second cause is sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first.

The Court added that the pendency of an action for annulment of sale and reconveyance may not be successfully pleaded in abatement of an action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry, because the ejectment judgment binds possession only and does not affect ownership. Otherwise, ejectment cases could easily be frustrated by the simple expedient of filing an action in the Regional Trial Court contesting the plaintiff's ownership, rendering nugatory the summary remedy of ejectment, which exists to prevent criminal disorder and breaches of the peace.

On the second issue, the Court held that the complaint sufficiently established a cause of action for unlawful detainer. The test of sufficiency is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer. The complaint alleged that Baron bought the premises occupied by the defendants, as shown by the deed of absolute sale, and that Elisa was requested to vacate for lack of lawful possession and non-payment of rentals, but her lawyer informed Baron that she was the owner. These allegations adequately established unlawful detainer. The Court quoted with approval the observation that in an action for unlawful detainer, an allegation that the defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from the plaintiff is deemed sufficient, and a complaint is sufficient if it alleges that the withholding of possession or the refusal to vacate is unlawful, without necessarily employing the terminology of the law.

The Court acknowledged the hardship to Elisa if she were ejected only to be reinstated later, but stressed that she was not being ejected yet. The Court was simply ordering the Metropolitan Trial Court to reinstate the ejectment case and proceed with it. Baron had not prevailed, as he must still prove his right to possession, and Elisa still had equal chances of winning in both cases.

Doctrine

For litis pendentia to be invoked as a ground for dismissal, three requisites must concur: identity of parties or at least such as represent the same interest in both actions; identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and such identity that the judgment in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other. All three must be present; the absence of any one defeats the plea.

An action for annulment of sale and reconveyance may proceed independently of an action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry involving the same parties and the same parcel of land. The ejectment judgment is effective with respect to possession only and does not bind title or affect ownership, and it does not bar an action respecting title.

A complaint for unlawful detainer is sufficient if it alleges that the withholding of possession or the refusal to vacate is unlawful, without necessarily employing the terminology of the law. The test of sufficiency is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer.

Disposition

The petition was denied; the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were affirmed, and the case was remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize the three requisites of litis pendentia and the rule that an ejectment case and an annulment and reconveyance case may proceed independently, because the ejectment judgment binds possession only and never title. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of litis pendentia and the sufficiency of allegations in a complaint for unlawful detainer.