This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-03-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| With respect to the first requisite, the Court finds no error in the ruling of the CA that there is identity of parties in Civil Case Nos. 438-M-2002 and 502-M-2002. It is true that in Civil Case No. 502-M-2002, Valmadrid and Tan were added as plaintiffs, while BPI and the Register of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan were added as defendants. However, identity of parties does not mean total identity of parties in both cases.[21] It is enough that there is substantial identity of parties.[22] The inclusion of new parties in the second action does not remove the case from the operation of the rule of litis pendentia.[23] What is primordial is that the primary litigants in the first case are also parties to the second action.[24] A different rule would render illusory the principle of litis pendentia.[25] The facility of its circumvention is not difficult to imagine given the resourcefulness of lawyers.[26] The fact that new parties were included in Civil Case No. 502-M-2002 does not detract from the fact that the principal litigants, Villarica and the Gernale spouses, are the same in both cases. Besides, it is clear that Valmadrid and Tan, being the previous owners from whom Villarica bought the subject properties, represent the same interests as the latter. On the other hand, the Register of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan was impleaded merely as a nominal party. | |||||
|
2007-10-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| For litis pendentia to lie as a ground for a motion to dismiss, the following requisites must be present: (1) that the parties to the action are the same; (2) that there is substantial identity in the causes of action and reliefs sought; (3) that the result of the first action is determinative of the second in any event and regardless of which party is successful[64]. | |||||