Case No. 12 GR No. 211563 HERNANDO, J.
Case No. 12 GR No. 211563 2021-09-29S
ANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION v. MABALACAT INSTITUTE
 |
| Cases written by Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando. Part (1) Case No. 1 to 40(pdf) |
👨⚖️✍️ HERNANDO, J.
Forum Shopping.
Ruling:
We hold that SVHFI did not violate the rule on forum shopping when it filed the Ejectment Case while the Collection Case has been pending for four years.
The test to determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.
It must be emphasized anew that in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases, the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the leased property. The reason for this is that in such cases, the only issue raised in ejectment cases is that of rightful possession; hence, the damages which could be recovered are those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which he may have suffered but which have no direct relation to his loss of material possession.
Doctrine:
The determinative factor in
violations of the rule against
forum shopping is whether the
elements of litis pendentia are
present, or whether a final
judgment in one case will
amount to res judicata in
another.
In Intramuros Administration v. Offshore Construction Development Co., (Intramuros) We explained that:
"[f]orum shopping is the practice of resorting to multiple fora for the same relief, to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable judgment."
 |
| Sign-up here |
JOIN US! Write and get paid for your articles every time your followers read them. Sign-up for FREE and follow our Facebook Pages for more information.
If you believe this Page has helped you with your legal studies and keeping up with current events, please consider supporting us by clicking advertisements (ADS) once a day.
This is how our Pages work and how we will continue to provide valuable content related to laws and jurisprudence.
Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court prohibits forum shopping by requiring the plaintiff or principal party to certify under oath that he or she has not commenced any- action involving the' same issues in any court.
In Orix Metro Leasing and Finance Corp. v. Cardline, Inc., We pointed out that the:
"rule against forum shopping seeks to address the great evil of two competent tribunals rendering two separate and contradictory decisions. Forum shopping exists when a party initiates two or more actions, other than appeal or certiorari, grounded on the same cause to obtain a more favorable decision from any tribunal."
 |
| Get Paid to Promote Your Favorite Brands Online; The Biginner's Handbook Sign-up as publisher now |
The elements of forum shopping are:
(i) identity of parties, or at least such parties representing the same interest;
(ii) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the latter founded, on the same facts; and
(iii) any judgment rendered in one action will amount to res judicata in the other action.
Advertisements...
Scroll to continue reading.
Recommended Bar Review Materials in Remedial Law 📚
Political book 1; Political Law
Political book 2; Constitutional Law
Bar Q & A for the Past 10 Years: Political Law (2022) by Carlo L. Cruz [Softcover] Central Bookstore
ANSWER TO BAR EXAMINATIONS QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW 1997-2018
Constitutional Law of the Philippines (Codal) 2022 by CBSI Editorial Staff [Hardcover]
Nachura (2016 Reprint) - Political Law, Outline Reviewer in (2015 Copyright)
Political Law Reviewer (2022) by Atty. Ed Vincent A. Albano III
D.R. Aquino (2022) - Verba Juris: Bar Review Notes - by Dean David Robert
In Spouses Reyes v. Spouses Chung, We explained the test to determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, to wit:
It has been jurisprudentially established that forum shopping exists when a party avails himself of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other courts.
 |
| Dietitian recommends eating these high-fiber snacks every day to lose weight. |
The test to determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Simply put, when litis pendentia or res judicata does not exist, neither can forum shopping exist.
The requisites of litis pendentia are:
(a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.
 |
| Brain Supplements: Do They Work? |
On the other hand, the elements of res judicata, also known as bar by prior judgment, are:
(a) the former judgment must be final; (b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.
The only issue that must be settled in an ejectment proceeding is physical possession of the property involved. Thus, in actions for unlawful detainer, a complaint sufficiently alleges said cause of action if it states the following elements, to wit:
 |
| What happens if you eat too much onion? |
(1) initially, the possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by the plaintiff to the defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession; (3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of its enjoyment; and (4) within one year from the making of the last demand to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.
 |
| Oral health tips you should be aware of before it's too late. |
On one hand, the purpose of the Collection Case was to compel MII to pay its rent in view of its occupancy on the subject lot from the time of SVHI's initial demand to vacate the subject lot. Thus, in Pro-Guard Security Services Corp. v. Tormil Realty and Development Corp., this Court pointed out that:
the party adjudged to be the lawful possessor in an ejectment suit is entitled to compensation, reckoned from the time he demanded the adverse party to vacate the disputed property.
On the other hand, in the Ejectment Case, SVHFI's cause of action stemmed from the prejudice it suffered due to the loss of possession of its property. Nonetheless, its claims in the Collection Case do not have a direct relation to its loss of material possession of the subject lot.
Thus, We emphasized Our pronouncement in Araos v. Court of Appeals, which We likewise reiterated in Lajave Agricultural Management and Development Enterprises, Inc. v. Spouses Javellana (Lajave) to writ:
 |
| Memo Plus Gold 30's |
The rule is settled that in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases, the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the leased property. The reason for this is that in such cases, the only issue raised in ejectment cases is that of rightful possession; hence, the damages which could be recovered are those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which he may have suffered but which have no direct relation to his loss of material possession.
Settled is the rule that the only issue raised in ejectment cases is that of physical possession of the property.
 |
| Reason why many failed bar exams |
Thus, in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases, the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the leased property. Hence, the damages which could be recovered are those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property.
On the other hand, in a civil suit for collection of sum of money, what is sought to be recovered is the payment of rentals only without regard to the unlawfulness of the occupancy.
 |
| Cases penned by Justice Hernando (Part II) Case No. 41 to 80 |
It must be emphasized anew that in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases, the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the leased property. The reason for this is that in such cases, the only issue raised in ejectment cases is that of rightful possession; hence, the damages which could be recovered are those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which he may have suffered but which have no direct relation to his loss of material possession.
An action for collection, of sum of
money may not be joined with an
ejectment suit, otherwise a
misjoinder of causes of actios
would ensue.
 |
| 20 provisions of the 1987 Constitution that one should master for the Bar! |
Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court prohibits the joinder of an ordinary action, such as an action for collection of sum of money and a special civil action, such as an ejectment suit. Said provision reads:
[..] (b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules; (end of emphasis).
WHEREFORE, petitioner Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation Inc.'s Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' August 30, 2013 Decision and February 26, 2014 Resolution in CA-G.R, CV No. 93376 are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The instant case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150 which is DIRECTED to continue its proceedings.
Download full text here
Cases penned by Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando PART 1 case no. 1 to 40 [FULLTEXT].pdf
Comments
Post a Comment