TOPIC Pleadings; Splitting and Joinder of Cause of Action; Rule 2, Sec.

3-6
CASE NO. GR No. 127276 (1998)
CASE NAME Dasmariñas Village Association, Inc. v. CA
MEMBER Lead

RELEVANT DOCTRINES
1. [Litis Pendentia; Requisites]
Jurisprudence provides that for litis pendentia to exist, the following requisites must be present: (1) Identity
of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions; (2) Identity of
rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) Identity with
respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in
the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.
2. [Forum-Shopping Exists where Elements of Litis Pendentia are Present]
For forum-shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transactions; same essential facts and
circumstances and must raise identical causes of action, subject matter and issues. Basically, forum
shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will
amount to res judicata in the other.

RECIT-READY DIGEST
Two cases are involved. First, in 1994, San Agustin College (SAC) filed a petition for [Declaratory Relief and Damages
with Preliminary Injunction] with RTC #39 for the determination of the proper amount that it should pay as “membership
dues” to the Dasmariñas Village Association (DVA), and to stop the latter from enforcing a tight entry schedule against
those cars bearing the college sticker. This is because DVA assessed SAC with membership dues higher than the fixed 50%
rate stipulated in their contract. Second, in 1995, SAC filed a complaint for [Injunction and Damages with Preliminary
Injunction] with RTC #66, seeking to enjoin DVA from unreasonably denying the entry of vehicles without DVA stickers
to the college campus, despite DVA’s previous approval of SAC’s request to allow the participants’ unhampered vehicular
movement. DVA filed a motion to dismiss the 2nd Civil Case on the ground of litis pendentia. RTC #66 denied the motion,
and CA affirmed the trial court’s denial.

The Supreme Court held that for litis pendentia to exist, the following requisites must be present: (1) Identity of parties,
or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions; (2) Identity of rights asserted and reliefs
prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) Identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the
two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful,
would amount to res judicata in the other case. IN THIS CASE, (1) Yes, there is an identity of parties regardless of the
inclusion/removal of new parties; (2) No, there is no identity of rights and reliefs because one seeks a declaratory relief on
the proper dues to be paid based on a contract, while the other seeks an injunction of a party’s injurious behavior in
contravention of a separate agreement; and (3) No, judgement on the first case will not result to res judicata on the second
case because the two involves independent issues and binding agreements.

FACTS
Skip to the comparison table under the Ratio if yer la-z.
1. 1st Civil Case: In 1994, San Agustin College, Inc. (SAC) filed a petition for [Declaratory Relief and Damages with
Preliminary Injunction] with the RTC #39, seeking for the determination of the proper amount that it should pay as
“membership dues” to the Dasmariñas Village Association (DVA), and to stop the latter from enforcing a tight
entry schedule against those cars bearing the college sticker.
a. These are the brief facts that lead to this case:
(i) SAC operates a school within the premises of Dasmariñas Village.
(ii) In 1988, SAC and DVA agreed to have the former to be only required to pay a fixed “membership
due” equal to 50% of the regular village dues imposed on the residents.
(iii) In 1992, DVA assessed SAC with membership dues beyond the fixed 50% rate agreed upon. To
make matters worse, DVA also unilaterally prohibited access to some of the gates of the village
to vehicles bearing SAC’s stickers after 6:00 pm.
2. 2nd Civil Case: On September 13, 1995, SAC filed a complaint for [Injunction and Damages with Preliminary
Injunction] with RTC #66, seeking to enjoin DVA from unreasonably denying the entry of vehicles without DVA

1
 stickers to the college campus, despite DVA’s previous approval of SAC’s request to allow the participants’
unhampered vehicular movement.
a. These are the brief facts that lead to this case:
(i) On September 9, 1995, SAC was scheduled to conduct review classes preparatory to the National
Elementary Achievement Test (NEAT) and National Secondary Aptitude Test (NSAT).
(ii) For this purpose, DVA approved SAC’s request to allow the participants’ unhampered vehicular
movement.
(iii) However, on the morning of the said date, all vehicles going to the college campus were denied
entry. DAV informed these individuals that they will be barred from entering the premises of the
village throughout the review period unless they have the regular DVA sticker.
3. DVA filed a motion to dismiss the 2nd Civil Case on the ground of litis pendentia and forum shopping.
a. RTC ordered the denial of the motion. CA affirmed the order of denial.
b. In a petition for certiorari, DVA is now raising the question of the propriety of the RTC’s order.
(Digester’s Note: Not really important, but the SC later said that a denial of a motion to dismiss is merely
an interlocutory order, which in the absence of abuse of discretion, cannot be a basis for certiorari.)

ISSUE/S and HELD

1. W/N the second civil case must be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia – NO
2. W/N the second civil case must be dismissed on the ground of forum shopping – NO

RATIO
1. NO, two out of the three requisites of litis pendentia have not been met.
➢ 1ST RULE: If a party-litigant splits his single cause of action, then the other actions subsequently filed may be
dismissed by invoking litis pendentia, pursuant to Sec. 1(e), Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
This is in relation to Section 4, Rule 2 which provides for the cause and effect of this practice:
SEC. 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. — If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of
the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a
ground for the dismissal of the others.

➢ 2ND RULE: Jurisprudence has provided that for litis pendentia to exist, the following requisites must be present:
(1) Identity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions;
(2) Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts;
(3) Identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may
be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata
in the other case.

o APPLICATION: Even though the first requisite is present, the last two requirements are not met. Thus, the
case cannot be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia
SC’s Remark 1ST Civil Case 2ND Civil Case
Under the first requirement, both Plaintiff: (1) San Agustin College Plaintiff: (1) San Agustin College
cases involved the same parties. The Inc., (2) Colegio San Agustin Inc.
addition or elimination of parties Parents' Association, and (3) Colegio
does NOT alter the situation. San Agustin Administrative Staff Defendant: (a) Dasmariñas Village
Association Association Inc., (b) Bernardo
Lichaytoo, Antonio Tambunting, (c)
Defendant: (a) Dasmariñas Village Emil Andres, and (d) Capt. Jerry
Association, Inc. Codilla.

Under the second requirement, there Violations by DVA of its agreement Prejudice suffered by SAC due to
is a difference in the rights asserted with SAC regarding membership DVA's unwarranted refusal to
and reliefs sought. dues and car stickers. – SAC sought allow entry of its participants
to enjoin DVA from increasing the despite prior agreement. – DVA
former’s membership dues and asked unreasonably denied the entry of
that vehicles with the college’s sticker vehicles without DVA stickers to the
be allowed to enter the village at the college campus, and effectively
same schedule as the residents based preventing them from participating in

2
 on their contract (1989), which the on-going review classes, despite
recognized SAC as a “special DVA’s previous approval (1995) to
member” of the village. allow the participants unhampered
vehicular movement.

Action: Declaratory Relief and Action: Injunction and Damages

Damages with Preliminary Injunction with Preliminary Injunction.

Under the third requirement, a Issue: What is the proper membership Issue: W/N DVA should be held
judgement on the pending case would fee that should be paid by SAC based liable for damages inflicted upon the
NOT amount to res judicata to the on their 1989 contract, and whether SAC as a result of the violation of
other case. DVA violated such. their 1995 agreement.

2. NO, there is no forum shopping.

➢ RULE: For forum-shopping to exist, both actions must involve the same transactions; same essential facts and
circumstances and must raise identical causes of action, subject matter and issues. Basically, forum
shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will
amount to res judicata in the other.
o APPLICATION: “[With] the requisites of litis pendentia not having concurred, [SAC] cannot be held guilty
of forum shopping.” (See: Ratio 1)

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack; of merit and the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 39695
dated May 13, 1996 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.