This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-02-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| With respect to the first requirement of litis pendentia, the same is undisputedly present in this case. GPHI is the plaintiff in both Civil Case Nos. TM-1022 and TM-1108, while PNB is the party against whom GPHI is asserting a claim. That the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite was named as an additional respondent in Civil Case No. TM-1108 (Annulment of the Foreclosure Sale) bears little significance. The Court has clarified in Villarica Pawnshop, Inc. v. Gernale[35] that "identity of parties does not mean total identity of parties in both cases. It is enough that there is substantial identity of parties. The inclusion of new parties in the second action does not remove the case from the operation of the rule of litis pendentia."[36] | |||||